All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[meowmommy]

2 minutes ago, sacrebleu said:

I found it especially telling, that its because it appeared that the two moderators took turns announcing the names, and they didn't come out because the woman introduced them.

Interesting!  I didn't catch that.  Will have to rewatch.  

[TexasGal]

6 hours ago, sacrebleu said:

I found it especially telling, that its because it appeared that the two moderators took turns announcing the names, and they didn't come out because the woman introduced them. They only paid attention to what the male moderator said, and didnt move until he introduced them.

For Carson it really seemed like he didn’t hear her, the crowd made a lot of noise when whoever was before him was announced.  Trump, I don’t know wtf he was doing.  As ever.  It almost seemed like he wanted to be the last person to be announced. 

[geej]

On 1/21/2019 at 2:50 PM, biakbiak said:

It’s not that weird, she has hung out with the cast several times and has horrific taste in men. 

11 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

I always get measured at my doctor visits which is how I found out I was getting shorter.   Hmm, maybe I should go the Trump method and add that 1/2 inch back to my height.  

Trump making himself taller gives him a lower BMI and other health scales scores.

Edited February 16, 2019 by geej

[Calvada]

18 hours ago, meowmommy said:

My experience as a nurse has been that for adult patients, we almost always record the height as what the patient says it is, rather than actually measure it.  Which explains, as per usual, the source of this particular lie.  

If only my doctor did that for my weight.  I swear, I weigh 120!  My height has been checked at my annual physical since I was 50.  A history of osteoporosis in my family though, so perhaps that's not the norm?   

MSNBC has started doing ads about the first Dem debate on their network.  No dates have been determined yet, so the ad references two consecutive nights in June.  Program your DVR now!  I wonder which MSNBC/NBC/Telemundo personnel will participate as a moderator or on a panel of questioners.  I love Rachel, but I don't know how good she would be in this format.  I think I'd prefer her to do the post-debate analysis.

Fridays seem to be chock-full of legal happenings in the various Mueller probe cases and/or the Congressional inquiries.  I'd like a regular legal roundtable on Rachel's show with Barb McQuade, Joyce White and Chuck Rosenberg.  I could listen to the three of them with Rachel for hours.  

[BabyVegas]

17 hours ago, Calvada said:

I'd like a regular legal roundtable on Rachel's show with Barb McQuade, Joyce White and Chuck Rosenberg.  I could listen to the three of them with Rachel for hours.  

TRMS Law School is one of my favorite segments. First because I come away feeling like I really learned something and second because having multiple of MSNBC's legal commentators on at the same time lets them bounce off of each other and really analyze more in depth. I know Rachel generally resists doing panel shows, which I appreciate because it usually just ends up being a series of talking points, but I think that when she does panels with legal experts they're very focused and it's about each expert teaching their field of expertise to Rachel and the viewer. I really, really, really wish that they would do that segment more often.

[Quilt Fairy]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 9:00 PM, Calvada said:

If only my doctor did that for my weight.  I swear, I weigh 120!  My height has been checked at my annual physical since I was 50.  A history of osteoporosis in my family though, so perhaps that's not the norm?  

I'm 66 and I can't remember ever having a physical where they didn't measure my height.  I don't have osteoporosis (had the scan just a few months ago) and I've still lost close to 2 inches since I hit menopause at 53.  My life's goal is to weigh what it says on my driver's license.

[freddi]

Rachel Maddow, Copy Editor! in reading the Stone apology, she called attention to the extra "R" in "InstRagram"  and a flaw in the Stone statement (CAPS are Rachel's comment OUT LOUD):  "humbly apologize 'EXTRA SPACE' to the Court".

So, I looked at the document, and indeed, there is an EXTRA SPACE after the word "apologize".  Good eye, Rachel or whoever caught it!  

[meowmommy]

Has Rachel had Auntie Maxine on before?  She's been a favorite of Chris Hayes, but I don't remember seeing her on TRMS.  And of all the times for a technical disaster!  

[ScoobieDoobs]

Hey, Rach. WTF was up with that technical trouble with the interview with Maxine Waters?  That was pretty freakin’ ridiculous.  Highest rated show on MSNBC & this stupid shit actually happens?  Rach was smiling, but I thought it was annoying as hell.

So McCabe is pretty much everywhere & LOD will interview him, but NOT Rach?  Wonder why . . .

[suomi]

I can't decide what to think about that. It started with Maxine saying she couldn't hear the feed and Rach repeated that for the viewers and, seemingly in response, Maxine then said "Yes" or "Right." I've always liked Maxine so I would hate to think that for some reason she was misrepresenting the situation.

[tessaray]

24 minutes ago, suomi said:

I can't decide what to think about that. It started with Maxine saying she couldn't hear the feed and Rach repeated that for the viewers and, seemingly in response, Maxine then said "Yes" or "Right." I've always liked Maxine so I would hate to think that for some reason she was misrepresenting the situation.

I just figured someone on the other end was transcribing. But it was weird.

[ahisma]

Holy smokes! This was such a big news day that Rachel didn't even have time to say what a big news day it was. 

But even though it was three stories down, the one that has my hair on fire is the Flynn/WH staff involvement in the Saudi Arabia nuclear deal. Are you kidding me?! That is ... Iran/Contra level of crooked, except for personal enrichment instead of ideology and NUCLEAR! My jaw is still dropped. This should be “front page of the paper for months” news and it's three stories down in Rachel’s hour. Honestly, I despair.

[ScoobieDoobs]

There was soooo much huge news today, but kudos to Rachel for mentioning how we finally, finally, finally got an answer to what she's been asking about for the last 2 years -- that is, why did it take the Trump admin 18 days to fire Flynn after learning from Sally Yates how he was severely compromised?  This got completely LOST in the blizzard of today's news.  I didn't see this from anyone anywhere -- ONLY from Rach!  Thank you for this, Rach, this is why you help us get thru this horrific time.

Was really glad to see Rachel show the Sally Yates clip.  Usually I hate when hosts show ANY kind of clips (mostly cuz they're awful Trump clips I can't stand watching).  But I got where Rach was going by showing Sally Yates.  History will prove Sally Yates to be a true hero.  And Rach was right on to highlight that!

And what about the congressman Rach had on to talk about the story on Flynn transferring nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia?  Sure, I saw this reported in The Times & elsewhere, but I heard nothing from anywhere else (yet) about the connection to Jared, Jared, Jared.  Rach doesn't have to put a spotlight on Jared -- & yet his name keeps on popping up in middle of the most devious & corrupt shit, doesn't it?

[meowmommy]

Gotta confess I'm a little worried about the sooper-sekrit scoop Rachel and her team are planning, for later in the week.  I hope it's the important bombshell she's teasing and not the Al Capone's Vault that was the tax return release.  

[freddi]

9 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Gotta confess I'm a little worried about the sooper-sekrit scoop Rachel and her team are planning, for later in the week.  I hope it's the important bombshell she's teasing and not the Al Capone's Vault that was the tax return release.  

I'll be curious to see if the "scoop" they are working on means a pre-recorded Friday show -- and if so, whether it might be pre-empted by even bigger late-Friday news.  I was thinking today that there must be a Batsignal for Rachel to return from the canoe if the Mueller report is issued, even though it appears to be going only to the DOJ for now.  But still, it would be a big marker in the news.  She has been gone on one or two Fridays where I really would have appreciated her perspective.  

[sum]

FWIW, this tweet indicates Rachel will be hosting this Friday and next Monday show live.

[izabella]

22 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Was really glad to see Rachel show the Sally Yates clip.  Usually I hate when hosts show ANY kind of clips (mostly cuz they're awful Trump clips I can't stand watching).  But I got where Rach was going by showing Sally Yates.  History will prove Sally Yates to be a true hero.  And Rach was right on to highlight that! 

I was riveted during that clip.  It seems like that happened so long ago.  Rachel has done excellent work these past two years as it has all unfolded.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Wow, Rachel made me nervous as hell tonite.  She hasn't been shy about expressing her suspicions of Barr -- that is, the slippery shit he's done in the past AND what he could do now.  But Rachel is the ONLY one I've heard ask . . . uh, just why is it that Mueller is "wrapping up" mere days after Barr started as AG?  Ugh, good going, Rach, asking the great questions, but I'm gonna have trouble sleeping tonite.

[sacrebleu]

Can I just say-- while I love RM and her approach to analyzing the stories of the day. I'm upset with the lack of coverage I'm seeing of the ongoing NC-9 trial. 

I thought for sure either Rachel or Chris Hayes would feature that more prominently, as its such blatant voter fraud. Maybe they're waiting for a verdict-- but that has never stopped any media outlet from daily trial coverage. 

As for the wrap-up of the Mueller investigation, I'll believe that when I see it. Trump's people have repeatedly placated him with talk of the investigation wrapping up, when they want him to focus on other things. With the upcoming Korea summit-- I suspect this story was planted to try and get him to focus on something else for five minutes.

(editing this to say-- Rachel mentioned NC-9 in her top of the show wrap-up of the day's headlines, and if what I post in this forum can affect reality-- I'm disappointed I haven't won Powerball yet *fingers crossed*)

Edited February 22, 2019 by sacrebleu

[ScoobieDoobs]

As I see McCabe being interviewed by pretty much EVERY host on MSNBC EXCEPT Rach, I am puzzled.  Rach showed part of an earlier interview with McCabe, but I’d like to see Rach interview him.

And Hayes is interviewing Bernie, but not Rach?  Uh, wtf?  Anyone remember if Rach has interviewed Bernie?  I assume she has, but have no memory of it.  Is she not a Bernie fan?  Would she not gush over him the way she did with Corey, Kamala, Amy & Gillibrand?

[jackiecat]

From Rachel's twitter

Rachel Maddow MSNBC‏Verified account @maddow

Heads up: TRMS Special Report tonight at 9pm ET, MSNBC. (And no, this isn’t a weird cable news euphemism for me not actually doing the show or running a re-run, this is a true-blue live special report based on documents we’re making public for the first time). See you then!

[chessiegal]

I told my husband that Rachel took a long road to answer the question if you could indict a sitting President. His response "A VERY long road".

[meowmommy]

I struggled to follow the logical sequence in the "special report."  So we go in the A block from Michael Dukakis flubbing at the debate (sadly, I remember it well), to Dan Quayle being chosen as Poppy's VP, to disgraced ex-VP Spiro Agnew hitting up the Saudis to fund his anti-Semitic crusade (honestly, that letter read like the prototype for the Nigerian e-mail scam). 

Then after the break, Rachel disses Ruuuudy for perhaps gloating too soon about his boss being immune from indictment (by logical inference, Rudy is implying there actually are crimes).  Another break and we're back to Crooked Ted, who had simply moved his Maryland corruption practice over to DC.  Big discussion of whether a VP or Prez can be indicted and the thought process of the Office of Legal Counsel in making the decision in 1973.  And that the decision was apparently predicated on getting Agnew out and not on protecting Nixon, as is often assumed.  And much discussion of the validity of the OLC opinion, both then and now.

WTH does the A block, other than providing more evidence that Agnew continued to be the sleaze we all knew he was, have to do with the point of the report?  Michael Dukakis?  Dan Quayle?

[Quilt Fairy]

48 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I struggled to follow the logical sequence in the "special report." 

I did, too.  It was a little incoherent for a pre-planned special report.  Was there any follow-up after she mentioned Agnew got money from the Saudi prince? 'Cause I might have dosed off.

[IrishPirate]

The best part of the "special report" was the correspondence between GHWBush and Agnew that came to light. The years and years of chummy contact makes me ill.

The "how did this become a thing?" about the president not being indictable was interesting too. 

[M. Darcy]

I wish Agnew was still alive so I could say to his face Fuck You.  I hope he's in hell and his hell is just having to sit through Fiddler on the Roof over and over (not that it's a bad show but all the Jewishness).   And the fact that Bush I was seeking advice from him, just makes me ever gladder that I never liked him. 

And, honestly, I still see nothing wrong with Dukakis's answer.  If you are against the death penalty, you are against the death penalty.  You can't be against it unless it affects you.  I still think it was a stupid question.  And, maybe he answered it unemotionally but how is that even bad. 

Heh, and honestly, I believe one can say that Dan Quayle was the best Republican Vice President in modern history.  Yes, he couldn't spell potato and Murphy Brown was a tv character but compared to all the rest, its not a bad legacy. 

[teddysmom]

11 hours ago, meowmommy said:

WTH does the A block, other than providing more evidence that Agnew continued to be the sleaze we all knew he was, have to do with the point of the report?  Michael Dukakis?  Dan Quayle?

Had the same question.  I thought she was going to expose dirty tricks that Agnew suggested to Bush.  I do wonder where they got that question for the debate, it's really off the wall. And to be honest, I don't see why Dukakis saying even if his wife was killed, he wouldn't support death penalty was so bad. If anything, it shows how good he would have been as POTUS, maybe he personally would want the man to die, but he would not support it from a legal standpoint. 

Rachel sometimes takes a 500 mile road trip to get to a point that could be summed up in two segments, that there is very little legal standing as to whether a sitting President can be indicted, that it's just been a thing that they never thought they should do.  In the last century, the President has taken on much more power than the framers originally intended. 

I know she wanted to pull the Agnew/Bush relationship in to get back to showing that indicting Agnew was on the table, but getting him out of office was more important. Maybe that's the threat Mueller is going to hold over Trump? 

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

And, honestly, I still see nothing wrong with Dukakis's answer.  If you are against the death penalty, you are against the death penalty.  You can't be against it unless it affects you.  I still think it was a stupid question.  And, maybe he answered it unemotionally but how is that even bad. 

I remember at the time being so mortified, both by Bernard Shaw's question and Michael Dukakis's answer, that I turned off the debate.  It was not, however, the defining earthquake moment Rachel implied it was.  There were other problems, like the Dukakis-in-a-tank stunt and the shameful Willie Horton ads, that contributed to the defeat.  (I voted for Dukakis, FWIW.)

The more I think about it, the more I imagine Rachel was trying to set up six degrees of Michael Dukakis, as if the debate question sparked a cascade of events that led us to the current political situation, and it just didn't work.  

[car54]

I assumed the whole took-a-long-time-to get-there point of the Agnew/Dukakis special report was also the secret intrigue with the Saudis for money and how that seems to be happening again.   Either that or Rachel just had some leftovers from Bag Man. 🙂    I read that Jared is going back to the middle east to work on his "peace plan" again, so I figured that and the info Rachel talked about before about the Saudis financial relationships with the Enquirer were involved.

I remember that Dukakis debate and was just as horrified by the question last night as I was when it happened originally.     I'm not sure there IS an answer to that question that anyone who does not support the death penalty could give.

[M. Darcy]

I thought she was actually going to say that Bush planted that question and that is why it was asked.  I wouldn't be surprised after that Gary Hart story she told. 

[izabella]

My takeaway was that there is a long history of the GOP using dirty tricks and involving a lot of shady, possibly illegal activities to elect and protect GOP POTUSes and VP's, and help them get off lightly for their crimes.  Perfect lead-up to a Mueller report whose fate will be decided by William "Pardon everyone convicted in Iran-Contra before they implicate you, Poppy Bush!" Barr.

[AnnA]

There are so many current blockbuster stories to follow that I had very little interest in revisiting anything to do with Papa Bush, Dukakis, Agnew, etc.    I lived through it and don't care enough to explore any new information or insight.   I lost interest in TRMS last night and turned it off.   Bottom line is I was very disappointed and the hype was IMHO a bust just like the Trump tax return show but not as bad as Al Capone's vault. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by AnnA

[ScoobieDoobs]

1 hour ago, AnnA said:

There are so many current blockbuster stories to follow that I had very little interest in revisiting anything to do with Papa Bush, Dukakis, Agnew, etc.    I lived through it and don't care enough to explore any new information or insight.   I lost interest in TRMS last night and turned it off.   Bottom line is I was very disappointed and the hype was IMHO a bust just like the Trump tax return show but not as bad as Al Capone's vault. 

ITA so much!  

Soooo while everyone was breathlessly saying the Mueller report was absolutely/definitely coming out next week, wasn’t Rachel pretty much the ONLY one to give this reporting a suspicious stink eye?  In fact, she said so outright  — the night before the special report night, right?

Rach, why not use these “special reports” for when you take off or weekends?  The hint for me was nobody picked up on anything Rach was talking about, so I assumed it wasn’t much.

Btw, Rach, are ya getting tired of being right about ALL your suspicions of this stinkin’ administration?  First, Flynn & his firing, then the Inaugural shit & now Alex Acosta — who Rachel has been talking about forever as a deeply troubling character . . .

[Calvada]

I thought the only reason that Rachel did that show is because they had a bunch of research about Agnew that wasn't used in the Bagman podcast and they didn't want it to go to waste.  The journalistic equivalent of going through your recipes to find ways to use up the leftover Thanksgiving turkey.  

How irked is Rachel (and Susan!) that the Manafort sentencing memo has not been filed by show time?

With all the lying, corruption, and corruption that's been seen in the past two years, the goofiest thing is Zinke creating the flag, a type of Royal Standard, to fly over the Interior Department when he's in the building.  I have to believe that Trump is kicking himself for not thinking of it for the White House and Mar-a-Lago.

[freddi]

Was there a handoff at the end of Rachel’s Friday show to Joy Reid  (filling in for Lawrence).?  Everything seemed to go blank, and when I watched the repeat, they cut Rachel off at mid-sentence and went to Joy, who clearly had re-recorded the beginning of the next show.

[Jaded]

9 minutes ago, freddi said:

Was there a handoff at the end of Rachel’s Friday show to Joy Reid  (filling in for Lawrence).?  Everything seemed to go blank, and when I watched the repeat, they cut Rachel off at mid-sentence and went to Joy, who clearly had re-recorded the beginning of the next show.

There were sound issues on Joy's end that went on beyond the handoff. They had to cut to Richard Lui in a different studio so he could host the start of the show after there had already been minutes of on air silence during the first few minutes and then later on when there was a commercial break they came back to Joy wherever she was. I don't think she was in the NY studios. It was a mess.

[ScoobieDoobs]

5 hours ago, Calvada said:

With all the lying, corruption, and corruption that's been seen in the past two years, the goofiest thing is Zinke creating the flag, a type of Royal Standard, to fly over the Interior Department when he's in the building.  I have to believe that Trump is kicking himself for not thinking of it for the White House and Mar-a-Lago.

Yeah, it was goofy -- and yet, goofy is just about the last quality/characteristic I'd ever associate with that vile, crooked slimeball.  That pic Rach showed of Zinke standing next to some fool giving a thumbs-up, alongside a poor dead stuffed bear, made me queasy.

Oh Jeez, Rach, don't ya just wanna go home & take a long hot shower, to wash the stink off, after having to talk about all these sleazy/awful characters in this administration?  Honestly, I'm losing count of all these horrible people & the corrupt, despicable things they do.  Time to make another chart, Rach!

Rachel's interview with the reporter who broke the Epstein story was good, but those pics of him made me wanna barf.  Keep your spotlight on Acosta, Rach!

Edited February 23, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[Calvada]

I wasn't calling Zinke goofy as in a lovable Disney character, but goofy as in crazy and ridiculous.  I am astounded by the delusions of grandeur accompanied by the corruption and criminal behavior.  He's not only a crook, but he seems to think he's some sort of fucking prince.  

Re the Acosta situation: I wonder if/when we will ever hear from the Victim/Witness Coordinator(s) in that US Attorney's Office.  What was he/she told?  Did he/she push for victim notification?  Or was he/she kept totally out of the loop?  Ultimately it's the prosecutor(s)' responsibility, but probably there will be attempts at passing the buck by throwing a GS-9 staffer under the bus.  

I loved Rachel noticing the typos in the Stone documents, especially the extra space.  In my job, I proofread a lot of documents that ultimately become public and thus, like Rachel, these things immediately catch my eye.  Making a typo in a Previously TV post is not a big deal, but in a court filing?  In a presidential proclamation?  That is pathetic.

[Sesquipedalia]

On 2/21/2019 at 5:31 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Bernie, but not Rach?  Uh, wtf?  Anyone remember if Rach has interviewed Bernie?  I assume she has, but have no memory of it.

She has interviewed Bernie many times. He was a regular on the show before and during his 2016 run for president. I'm not sure why he hasn't been on lately.

[AnnA]

Rachael favored Bernie so much during the last election that she pissed me off.   I remember one night she was positively giddy that she had his wife Jane as a guest.   Chris Hayes did it too.

[meowmommy]

I don't know if the frenetic energy required to push forward the breathless hype of last week wore out our heroine, but tonight's show, for me, was a snoozer.  I just couldn't get interested in anything she was saying.  

My TV listings indicate C-SPAN3 is showing the Michael Cohen hearing from 8 to 12 on Wednesday.  I can't believe they'll only keep him there half a day.  It'll take that long for the Republicans on the committee to recover from their swoons and attacks of the vapors.  Anyway, that should give all the prime time hosts plenty of material to rev them up.

[Quilt Fairy]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

My TV listings indicate C-SPAN3 is showing the Michael Cohen hearing from 8 to 12 on Wednesday.

I wouldn't be surprised if MSNBC aired in live in it's entirety.

[ScoobieDoobs]

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I don't know if the frenetic energy required to push forward the breathless hype of last week wore out our heroine, but tonight's show, for me, was a snoozer.  I just couldn't get interested in anything she was saying.  

My TV listings indicate C-SPAN3 is showing the Michael Cohen hearing from 8 to 12 on Wednesday.  I can't believe they'll only keep him there half a day.  It'll take that long for the Republicans on the committee to recover from their swoons and attacks of the vapors.  Anyway, that should give all the prime time hosts plenty of material to rev them up.

Jeez, I thought it was just me who thought Rach was a bore tonite.  Brennan is the best your crew can book, Rach?  C'mon, hun.  Rach could have at least had some fun with the nonsense Jr. said today.  Maybe she is too distracted, being geared up for Wednesday.  I am too, Rach.

Now, if MSNBC was really smart, they'd have Rach, Nicole & LOD do live coverage & voice-over on the Cohen hearing.  I'd take the day off from work & pay good money for that!

Edited February 26, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[meowmommy]

8 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I wouldn't be surprised if MSNBC aired in live in it's entirety.

I'm sure they will; it's just that they don't update their TV programming listings to reflect it.  I will still watch it on C-SPAN.  I tried to watch the Barr and Whitaker hearings on CNN and MSNBC and was frustrated with the constant unnecessary interruptions and the commercials, and so moved over to C-SPAN.   When the hearings were on actual break, then I would switch back for commentary.

6 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Now, if MSNBC was really smart, they'd have Rach, Nicole & LOD do live coverage & voice-over on the Cohen hearing.  I'd take the day off from work & pay good money for that!

Most likely they'll have BriWi and some day people.  They still think of BriWi as their news guy and everyone else as just a talking head, even Andrea Mitchell who's been an actual news gal for centuries.  

Rachel, Nicolle and LOD will be furiously scribbling notes to use on their own shows that day/night.  

[Xena]

Although I would love 'live' coverage from Rach.... I'm also loving the idea of her being able to digest the good stuff... and feed it back to us later at 9.  I already have the day scheduled off.   🙂

[formerlyfreedom]

~~MOD NOTE~~

The topic is for discussion of what actually airs on The Rachel Maddow Show - please stick to that. Thanks.

[freddi]

Rachel’s final minute, of Cohen saying that Trump might not allow a peaceful transition of power after the 2020 election, was something I only saw on her show.     I was so struck by it that I watched for it again on the rerun, and the network suddenly cut away to the Vietnam summit.  I was so disappointed, then they went right back for that final Rachel minute.  What a chilling but totally believable thought.  

[car54]

17 hours ago, freddi said:

Rachel’s final minute, of Cohen saying that Trump might not allow a peaceful transition of power after the 2020 election, was something I only saw on her show.     I was so struck by it that I watched for it again on the rerun, and the network suddenly cut away to the Vietnam summit.  I was so disappointed, then they went right back for that final Rachel minute.  What a chilling but totally believable thought.  

I noticed that Cohen comment during the hearing.    That one, and the comment he made about him having lied and done the dirty work for 10 years and now he's paying for it that was directed at the GOP committee members--telling them "you guys will understand  that".

I found both of those statements chilling and I was glad Rachel included it in her closing.   We need to remember the run-up to the election in '16 and all the repetition of how the election was going to be "rigged".    

[wendyg]

Yeah, it was a chilling moment (which I also saw live in the testimony), but practically speaking how exactly would Trump be able to resist a peaceful transition? He can handcuff himself to the White House radiators and throw a tantrum, but to retain the presidency would require external support. Realistically, where's he going to get that? In such a scenario I would expect the military, the secret services, the police, the courts, and the vast majority of the people to be arrayed against him. I was disappointed that Maddow chose to highlight the creepiness of the comment without also pointing out the logistical difficulties.

[roughing it]

5 hours ago, wendyg said:

Yeah, it was a chilling moment (which I also saw live in the testimony), but practically speaking how exactly would Trump be able to resist a peaceful transition?

Release the nukes?  Share the nuke codes with Putie?  Other intel??

Edited March 1, 2019 by roughing it