All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[ScoobieDoobs]

Anyone impressed by Beto?  Seems nice enough, but meh.  Glad Rach only gave him a half hour.  Was much more interested in Rachel’s updates on the court battles over Trump’s financials.

[BuckeyeLou]

54 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Anyone impressed by Beto?  Seems nice enough, but meh.  Glad Rach only gave him a half hour.  Was much more interested in Rachel’s updates on the court battles over Trump’s financials.

Same, I was not impressed by Beto(and he was on "The View" this morning, and I didn't think he was much better)….he talks a lot and throws out a lot of words, but it doesn't really excite me. 

[stormy]

He'll be on CNN next Tuesday for a town hall. Maybe he will come across better with live studio questions and interaction.

[Natalie68]

3 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Anyone impressed by Beto?  Seems nice enough, but meh.  Glad Rach only gave him a half hour.  Was much more interested in Rachel’s updates on the court battles over Trump’s financials.

He is ok and I want him to run in Texas again but too soon for Pres.  There are too many others I like.  

Edited May 14, 2019 by Natalie68

[fairffaxx]

He said that generations of men in his family have been named "Francis", so that's his middle name and his son is named Ulysses Francis O'Roarke, which means that the boy's initials are UFO!   I've always appreciated candidates who are funny, starting with Adlai Stevenson (and Abe Lincoln, who was a few years before my time) -- but that's not enough reason to vote for someone (Mike Huckabee?), so I'm waiting to see what else he's got (in addition to being a better looking version of Bobby Kennedy, whose middle name was Francis).  I wish he'd beaten Cruz, and I wish he'd stayed in Congress where he's badly needed.

[MMEButterfly]

3 hours ago, BuckeyeLou said:

Same, I was not impressed by Beto(and he was on "The View" this morning, and I didn't think he was much better)….he talks a lot and throws out a lot of words, but it doesn't really excite me. 

It took me a while to realize I wasn't enthused by Beto was that he bored me. I'm sure he's a lovely person. 

[MMEButterfly]

14 minutes ago, fairffaxx said:

He said that generations of men in his family have been named "Francis", so that's his middle name and his son is named Ulysses Francis O'Roarke, which means that the boy's initials are UFO!   I've always appreciated candidates who are funny, starting with Adlai Stevenson (and Abe Lincoln, who was a few years before my time) -- but that's not enough reason to vote for someone (Mike Huckabee?), so I'm waiting to see what else he's got (in addition to being a better looking version of Bobby Kennedy, whose middle name was Francis).  I wish he'd beaten Cruz, and I wish he'd stayed in Congress where he's badly needed.

I'm happy someone else remembers Stevenson's humor. It was not only witty but modest, very charming.

[car54]

Beto bored me as well.

 I think the way the democrats should winnow down the field a bit is if a candidate cannot show that they could deliver the electoral votes for their own home state, they need to step back and go home and do something to change that. I feel like Beto really likes to talk a lot but I never really know what he's said when he moves on to his next event or speech.

I also have concerns with the fact that when he was running for senate he did nothing to include and involve the Democratic Party and even declined to take Obama's endorsement.   We need a 100% team player this time---not just his own team.

[tessaray]

Anything not directly related to Beto's interview with Rachel, including other appearances, is off-topic.   

[The Solution]

23 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Anyone impressed by Beto?  Seems nice enough, but meh.  Glad Rach only gave him a half hour.  Was much more interested in Rachel’s updates on the court battles over Trump’s financials.

No. There were a lot of words but he didn't say anything. I found myself responding out loud "Why?" and "How?" to most of his comments. That means "I don't believe you."

Plus, he's unemployed.

[SpiritSong]

On 5/14/2019 at 9:37 AM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Anyone impressed by Beto?  Seems nice enough, but meh.  Glad Rach only gave him a half hour.  Was much more interested in Rachel’s updates on the court battles over Trump’s financials.

If he had come out and started talking policy details--Here's how I'm going to see every American has health care, here's how I want to handle immigration, etc.--I would have been impressed. But he's very careful not to get into specifics. I know it's early days yet, but every candidate should be able to clearly explain their positions on any topic.

I'm sure the Maddow show does a pre-interview before booking guests. I wish they would have dug a little deeper about what Beto would and would not talk about.

Edited May 15, 2019 by SpiritSong
jdlr

[Apprentice79]

9 hours ago, The Solution said:

No. There were a lot of words but he didn't say anything. I found myself responding out loud "Why?" and "How?" to most of his comments. That means "I don't believe you."

Plus, he's unemployed.

He is rich. He is the type of Rich that works because he wants to do that..

[meowmommy]

Well, Governor Bullock seems like an interesting guy, and I give him a lot of credit for being able to get elected and re-elected in Montana, but I didn't get any sense of why he should be President.  And I understand that Rachel didn't really go there, because probably 99% of her audience has never heard him before, and so this was just an introduction.  I did appreciate him answering the nagging question of why he won't run for US Senate.  I think Montana would be screwed either way, in that whichever job he doesn't take is likely to be filled by a Republican, so is he more needed in Montana or Washington?  But the answer is irrelevant since he said he just doesn't want to be a Senator.

Now if Rachel has DeBlasio on for his presidential tour I'll be pissed.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

Sigh, another interview with a capable, nice guy who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting anywhere in the primaries.

Well, the Bullock interview was an interesting contrast to Beto, right?  Beto now seems even more phony, canned & vapid than I thought when I saw him with Rach.  But what both have in common is they could win Senate seats.  Jeez, I'm deeply disturbed they're both throwing away good shots at Senate seats for long-shot runs at the Presidency.  Ugh.

I must say, Rachel would be doing us a great favor if she'd say to those 2 (and maybe some others) that Dems are badly needed in the Senate.   Even if there is a Dem President, along with a Dem-majority House, a Repub Senate (particularly still headed up by the vile McConnell) would cause a lot of trouble.  This may seem all too obvious, but I have NEVER heard Rachel mention this once.  C'mon, Rach, get on this!

[meowmommy]

Is this the first time Rachel has expressed her opinion regarding impeachment?  "How is the president not being impeached for obstruction of justice right now?"

[teddysmom]

I love Rachel but her habit of saying the same thing over and over and reading transcripts is starting to wear on me.  I just listened to Brian Williams go over the Flynn stuff, which Rachel was talking about earlier and it was so much easier to digest because he got to the point, he had people on the panel to go into some details and he didn't get bogged down in the weeds. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by teddysmom

[meowmommy]

5 hours ago, teddysmom said:

I love Rachel but her habit of saying the same thing over and over and reading transcripts is starting to wear on me.  I just listened to Brian Williams go over the Flynn stuff, which Rachel was talking about earlier and it was so much easier to digest because he got to the point, he had people on the panel to go into some details and he didn't get bogged down in the weeds. 

BriWi was a network news anchor, so he's used to compressing the entire news of the day into 23 minutes, while for Rachel, 23 minutes may not even be the end of her A block.  

The transcript reading is getting excessive.  IIRC, she started getting into it on a regular basis because of the Manafort case, mostly, and then I think she decided she liked it, so now she always looks for reasons to do it.  

But another thing she does that I used to like and now not so much is outlining in detail the contents of a news article by a reporter, then having the reporter as a guest and asking him or her, did I get it right?  Why not just let the journalist explain their story?

Edited May 17, 2019 by meowmommy

[fairffaxx]

Well, you all won't have Rachel Maddow to kick around tonight -- Ali Velshi has announced that he'll be doing today's show for her.

[Quilt Fairy]

32 minutes ago, fairffaxx said:

Well, you all won't have Rachel Maddow to kick around tonight

We only do it because we love her.  Really.

[ScoobieDoobs]

The news is so consistently shitty lately, I can only bear it coming from Rachel.   Anyone notice she ain’t been as giddy the last few nites?  She’s shaking her head a lot, rolling her eyes & giving WTF looks to the cam.  I like that.  I don’t know if I’m alone here, but I find it comforting — cuz she’s directly expressing how I feel about the news lately.

Ali Velshi?  I’ll pass.  But I did hear yesterday he kicked the vile & icky Hugh Hewitt to the curb, so Ali is OK to me — but nobody is a good replacement for Rach.

[freddi]

“Rachel will be back on Monday.”  Even when I’m mildly tired of Rachel’s format, I’ll still take her any day over any substitute.  Just can’t watch anyone else in her hour, though Nicolle Wallace did a good job some months back.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

OK, Rach, so you spent the first 10 minutes plugging your book . . . er, can we expect this every nite till it comes out?   Hayes totally plugged the shit outta his book.  Hopefully, she won’t do the same.  I’m also hoping she’ll prioritize news of the day over plugging her book in the future.

Nice convo with the new head of Planned Parenthood & good signoff to LOD.  Adam Schiff?  I like him, but he & Nadler seem so weak & useless lately, it depresses the hell outta me watching either.

[meowmommy]

43 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

OK, Rach, so you spent the first 10 minutes plugging your book . . . er, can we expect this every nite till it comes out?   Hayes totally plugged the shit outta his book.  Hopefully, she won’t do the same.

And just when I was thinking TRMS was a blessed oasis from the cesspool of self-shilling that most of the dregs of MSNBC swim in.  I am beyond disappointed.  

I'm trying to imagine Walter Cronkite or Chet Huntley carving out time during their broadcast to plug some pet project, and I can't imagine it because they never would have done it or even thought about it.  I think you should have to turn in your journalist card if you shill something outside of work during your work, especially something that you're flat-out asking your viewers to pay for ("Pre-order it now!").  Most employers won't even let you sell Girl Scout cookies during work hours any more.  And she goes right on to talk about unethical financial transactions, not catching the slight irony involved. 

And it's coming out in goddamn October, FFS.  It's going to be a long summer.

43 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Adam Schiff?  I like him, but he & Nadler seem so weak & useless lately, it depresses the hell outta me watching either.

I understand the committees are rightfully frustrated by their subpoenas being ignored and having to go to court to have them enforced, but I read that NYT story about Deutsche Bank today that Rachel referenced.  Why haven't the committees called that former employee as a witness, in open session?  

Edited May 21, 2019 by meowmommy

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

I didn't mind the book plug in the beginning. She's an author and almost never mentions previously published book. She didn't breathe a word about this project until tonight and she's had every opportunity 

Her content is so good, I don't see how talking about her outside projects distracts from it. I watch the show because  trust her as a journalist. Naturally, I am interested in other projects she's worked on as well and it is a safe assumption that most people who follow her will be interested as well.

[ScoobieDoobs]

I feel the exact opposite.  She’s been talking about the Mazars trial for weeks & an important decision came down.  So instead of leading off with that story, she talked for 10 minutes about the book — and in such a self-congratulatory way.  She tried to sound humble & it came off insincere & phonyish.  I didn’t care for it.

Learn from this, Rach.  End the show with your book plug, if you must plug it.  At least LOD will be more than happy to help with the plug — and it won’t interfere with news of the day or come off like a desperate effort to plug.

[car54]

I'm actually interested in Rachel's book---I read a piece this morning that "surprisingly"   Russian oil is replacing Venezuelan oil in the marketplace, so it sounds like she was on it with this.    I have been wanting them to bring Tillerson in to testify in Congress --he seems to be hinting he has some tea to spill.

I doubt that she will push it much until closer to the pub date.   She did not over-promote Bag Man.

I am glad Rachel is having time to do other things--she has a great analytical mind and is a first class researcher so I would imagine to some degree it is good for her to do something like this instead of the daily political scandal grind.

At first  yesterday I was all excited to hear the Mazar decision but it sounds like they are going to have to go through that exact same case over and over at every level of the court system for them and for the Deutsche bank cases and with the room full of lawyers Trump has hired, it is not going to go as fast as we'd like.   But it does sound like this judge's opinion was very firm and hopefully the appeals will uphold it.    

[QueerGirrl]

Super excited for Rachel's new book.  Drift is outstanding. 

[M. Darcy]

Heh, no matter how many times she plugs the book (which congrats! Rachel), there is no way she can come close to Chris Matthews.  No matter what the subject, he someone made it about it his book about RFK.

I honestly did not know about today's protests by Planned Parenthood until Rachel brought it up.   

[tessaray]

I only listened to the podcast so I may have missed some visual clues but imo she sounded a little embarrassed to be plugging the book, more confident with the subject matter and relieved when she finished up.  I'm sure she's contractually obligated to do some promotion and there's nothing better than pre-sales when it comes to that kind of thing. (Though I was surprised about the theme, I figured her next book would be something from the Watergate era.)   

[meowmommy]

33 minutes ago, tessaray said:

I'm sure she's contractually obligated to do some promotion and there's nothing better than pre-sales when it comes to that kind of thing.

Then she should go on Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel and do a book tour, like other authors have to do.  Not turn her own show into an infomercial, IMNSHO.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by meowmommy

[ScoobieDoobs]

Right now, I’m just not interested in her book.  To me, right now, it’s about Mazars, Mazars, Mazars.  As the Dems in Congress continue to look like weak, spineless jellyfish & Trump stampedes over them & gets away with doing whatever lawless shit he wants, the Mazars trial is the ONE win for Dems — till what seems like forever.

Uh, but is Mazars a win for Dems?  Trump has predictably appealed, so what does that mean?  Rachel has covered this so well, I was so disappointed & annoyed she waited till 20 minutes into her show last nite to cover it.

The book?  Good luck & God Bless, Rach.  I’m sure it’ll be good & it’ll do well.  But in the future, big news first, please . . .

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

3 hours ago, tessaray said:

I only listened to the podcast so I may have missed some visual clues but imo she sounded a little embarrassed to be plugging the book, more confident with the subject matter and relieved when she finished up. 

She was absolutely self-conscious  about doing it.

That is why I don't get why she's getting criticized for it. She was clearly apprehensive for this very reason. You'd think regulars of her show would cut her some slack given how rare she self promotes this way

[meowmommy]

32 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

That is why I don't get why she's getting criticized for it. She was clearly apprehensive for this very reason. You'd think regulars of her show would cut her some slack given how rare she self promotes this way

I sorta have zero tolerance on this.  And have been just as pissed off as when Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Chris Hayes, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Joy Reid (am I missing anyone?) have done the same thing.  They have all brazenly and shamelessly plugged their projects on their own shows, and then they go on other MSNBC shows as "guests" when they're really there to sell their product.  (Hey, do you like how I did that?  They're, there, and their in the same clause!)

I might be ok with Rachel saying at the end of her show something like, "I'm starting my book tour at the Barnes and Noble in Cleveland this Saturday, would love to see you if you're in the area."  Period.

But I guess it's time to agree to disagree.

[shok]

9 hours ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

She was absolutely self-conscious  about doing it.

That is why I don't get why she's getting criticized for it. She was clearly apprehensive for this very reason. You'd think regulars of her show would cut her some slack given how rare she self promotes this way

Yeah, she gets so flustered and embarrassed when somebody mentions she's won an award or anything. Hell, she blushes and covers her face with her script if Lawrence O'Donnell even compliments her. Rachel is the last one who would spend half her show boosting her book or herself although I'm sure she'll get a lot of attention and it will be a best seller.

[meowmommy]

I love old news footage, but dammit, the news in 1974 was broadcast in color.  You don't have to make it look like newsreels from the 1930s.  Did the news division not save color tapes?

But I'm so glad Rachel pulled up the historical record to contrast against the ridiculous stunt in the Rose Garden today.  I only wish she hadn't shown video of it.  I realize not everyone had heard or read the details, so I guess she was forced to, to give context to her remarks.  But I had to reach for the mute button unexpectedly.

[freddi]

This is hilarious to me, because it looked completely like a news broadcast would have looked in 1974– and only when I read your comment did I realize of course it would have been broadcast in color.  I didn’t have a color TV until the mid-1980s!   Maybe the archival tapes are B&W.  

16 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I love old news footage, but dammit, the news in 1974 was broadcast in color.  You don't have to make it look like newsreels from the 1930s.  Did the news division not save color tapes?

[stormy]

Rachel confirmed my beliefs.  Richard Nixon, overall, wasn't a bad president.  

She's gone over all the things including Watergate in the past, but yet months before he resigned, he was still doing the job of being president.

[Ohwell]

While I usually don't watch Rachel because, frankly, I find her annoying, I do have to give props to her spidey sense about Michael Avenatti.  She didn't like him from jump because she smelled a rat, and she was right.  He is.

Still won't watch her though. ☺️

[ScoobieDoobs]

14 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I love old news footage, but dammit, the news in 1974 was broadcast in color.  You don't have to make it look like newsreels from the 1930s.  Did the news division not save color tapes?

But I'm so glad Rachel pulled up the historical record to contrast against the ridiculous stunt in the Rose Garden today.  I only wish she hadn't shown video of it.  I realize not everyone had heard or read the details, so I guess she was forced to, to give context to her remarks.  But I had to reach for the mute button unexpectedly.

Jeez, it takes me by surprised when Rach plays a Trump clip.  Had to make a mad dash for the remote to mute it quick.  Please don't make me do that again, Rach!  I get it.  Trump was acting like a 2 year old -- for the zillionth time.  I just don't need to see it or hear it, thanks.

Ah, Rachel & her lists.  Good list on how the Dems in Congress are inching (er, emphasize INCHING!) closer to getting Trump's financials.  Except it's still kinda maddening cuz we have no idea when Dems are ever gonna get 'em.  So while it was a good list & it made Rach giddy as hell, I was left sorta annoyed & disgusted.

Edited May 23, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[BabyVegas]

I was surprised at Rachel's take on the Assange stuff. She seemed to be talking about Assange like he was a mere publisher and that's why the First Amendment stuff is so unprecedented. But the reason I watch Rachel is she really gets into the nuances of things and I thought she entirely missed the nuance in the Assange issue. The problem is that Assange actively encouraged Manning to commit a crime and participated in the commission of that crime. Assange/WikiLeaks is not like the New York Times or WaPo specifically because he was actively encouraging the crime and because he was disseminating the information not as a publisher but as an intelligence cutout. I really wish that she had invited on a lawyer for that segment because it's such a technical legal issue. 

I was also annoyed that she brought up Trump and how he would love to be able to argue that the press was committing espionage. If he wants to argue that, he's going to argue it anyway. He argues in bad faith. There's no reason to worry about giving him material. If he doesn't have it, he'll just make it up. Rachel is so good at the details that this segment was so frustrating to me.

I should clarify, I'm not saying whether I agree with the filing of the charges or anything, I'm just saying that from an analysis point of view, it bothered me that she didn't explain the specifics that make this a closer call than it might otherwise be.

Edited May 24, 2019 by BabyVegas

[meowmommy]

29 minutes ago, BabyVegas said:

I was surprised at Rachel's take on the Assange stuff. She seemed to be talking about Assange like he was a mere publisher and that's why the First Amendment stuff is so unprecedented. But the reason I watch Rachel is she really gets into the nuances of things and I thought she entirely missed the nuance in the Assange issue. The problem is that Assange actively encouraged Manning to commit a crime and participated in the commission of that crime. Assange/WikiLeaks is not like the New York Times or WaPo specifically because he was actively encouraging the crime and because he was disseminating the information not as a publisher but as an intelligence cutout. I really wish that she had invited on a lawyer for that segment because it's such a technical legal issue.

It struck me as a little odd, too, but also because the topic and the debate about whether Assange is a journalist or a tool of the Russians, and whether the Pentagon Papers precedent applies, was extensively hashed out in the media for days after the Assange arrest.  There seem to be strong arguments on both sides of the question.  It may all be a moot point anyway if the UK doesn't extradite, as I don't think the US would want to try him in absentia.

And I agree with you about having lawyers on to explain.  For that matter, where the hell are all Rachel's lawyers?  Barb McQuade was on briefly at the end, and I can't remember the last time she was on.  I see Chuck and Joyce all the time on other shows, but again, can't remember the last time they were on TRMS.  But then, someone will remember for me, and I'll be reminded again that I have CRS.

I thought it was pretty funny that Jerry Nadler commented on Rachel's transcript-reading.  Obviously he watches her show.

Over-under on Rachel showing up on the Friday before a holiday weekend?

[ScoobieDoobs]

Cute signoff to LOD.  Not only does Nadler watch Rach, but he also watches LOD too, eh?  Very sweet of Rach to mention Nadler's referral to LOD.

[possibilities]

I was also surprised, and a bit confused, by both Rachel and Chris Hayes presenting the Assange indictments in the way they did. I am left wondering if these new indictments are different than the previous ones, and that is the problem? Because for sure there is a difference between publishing information that falls into your hands, and actively collaborating to illegally obtain it. If publishing is a defense against espionage charges, then anyone who spies can just publish their findings and not be considered a spy anymore?

Nadler not understanding that the difference in impeachment hearings is that more people will pay attention and more networks will broadcast and report them, thus informing the public, was depressing to me. The hearings are not just for the people on the committees. They are for the public. How can he be in office and not understand that?

[wendyg]

I think a lot of us are hoping that if Assange gets extradited from the UK it's to Sweden, where he still hasn't faced the sexual assault/rape charges. In the past, the UK has eventually (after a lot of controversy and pressure) declined to extradite people facing hacking charges (which is what Assange is accused of, really) to the US. 

It's important also to remember that Wikileaks/Assange are being indicted on events that took place in 2009/2010. At the time, Wikileaks was much more credible as a journalism/publishing operation than it is now. There are lengthy descriptions written by witnesses at the time of him and his colleagues working hard to understand the material they'd gotten from Manning and how best to present it and what to select. There's no doubt in my mind that at that time (when he was also much less famous) he was behaving the way a journalist would. The fact that *since* then he appears to have behaved as a partisan in the 2016 US elections isn't really relevant to that.

The big question for me is whether he collaborated in or directed stealing the material in the first place. I think Manning did act in the public interest, but if you use the Pentagon Papers as a guide, the New York Times and the Washington Post *received* them; they didn't advise Daniel Ellsberg about what to take or where from. I think that crosses a serious line.

That said, it's odd that Trump has turned so decisively against Wikileaks. He *loved* them in 2016!

[ahisma]

8 hours ago, possibilities said:

I was also surprised, and a bit confused, by both Rachel and Chris Hayes presenting the Assange indictments in the way they did. I am left wondering if these new indictments are different than the previous ones, and that is the problem? Because for sure there is a difference between publishing information that falls into your hands, and actively collaborating to illegally obtain it. If publishing is a defense against espionage charges, then anyone who spies can just publish their findings and not be considered a spy anymore?

Yeah, you'd still be on the hook for the spying part of what you did, and the publishing part is the gray area.

I get Rachel's confusion. There was a lot of coverage around Assange's first indictment that they very specifically decided to charge him with the hacking and not with the publishing, because publishing is protected under the 1st amendment by precedent. 

Now they are coming back and charging him with what they said they weren’t going to. Why? The hacking charges should be good enough to convict him. If they bring publishing into it and muddy the established precedent, what does that mean for real news organizations? I mean, Trump's anti-press bias could cause him to say that “send it to Rachel” incited someone to illegally get his information and so then she's on trial for airing it. Her concern for the press's 1st amendment protections is totally understandable. 

And seriously, why did they do a 180 on that?

[possibilities]

If she had explained it better, making those distinctions, I would totally agree with her! It's rare that she says something I find unclear, so maybe it was just an off day and she (or whoever the substitute host is if she isn't there) will revisit it and clarify on tonight's broadcast.

[BabyVegas]

11 minutes ago, ahisma said:

Now they are coming back and charging him with what they said they weren’t going to. Why? The hacking charges should be good enough to convict him. If they bring publishing into it and muddy the established precedent, what does that mean for real news organizations? I mean, Trump's anti-press bias could cause him to say that “send it to Rachel” incited someone to illegally get his information and so then she's on trial for airing it. Her concern for the press's 1st amendment protections is totally understandable. 

But the problem is that this is a slippery slope argument. And that was my problem with the segment. If she had invited on a lawyer who could have laid out the legal principles and rationale, then she could have talked about how and why this was concerning. That would have been exactly the kind of thing I trust Rachel's show to do.

I've seen several journalists who are saying "I encourage sources to get more information all the time." We don't want to inhibit that, but the problem occurs when a journalist (or "journalist," in Assange's case) goes beyond general encouragement and into specifically how to commit a crime to get more information. And that's where the segment could have used more air. I think "why would the DOJ charge Assange like this?" and "how are these charges different from the original charges?" are very good questions that should be answered. And, frankly, I think answering those questions would give us a lot more information with which to accurately discuss the very real First Amendment concerns. But "this will be used to go after legitimate journalists" is a take that I don't think is quite yet supported by the facts.

[car54]

I think violating the Espionage Act may carry the possibility of the death penalty--so the UK would probably not extradite him, so this may never come to trial unless they figure out how to get hold of him.   This may not go to trial to be debated.   

I think a lot of the press who are expressing deep concerns about the government going after the press have been shaken by this case that is going on in California right now.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/san-francisco-journalist-says-police-raided-his-home-after-he-n1004776

The police went into his home and handcuffed him, took his work materials and electronics because he would not reveal a source.

A lot of reporters have been discussing this online--Chris Hayes has tweeted a lot about it--so I think the Assange thing probably feels like another step in going after the press.

[freddi]

Joy:  “Rachel will be back on Monday with a very special show.”  

Ugh.  Clip show.  

I mean, I did not expect a live show, but do not need a “very special show.” 

That aside, Joy did a good job with the “A” block this evening.  I was very glad they immediately brought in a lawyer to talk about the security issues related to the release of the most highly sensitive information on the Russian probe and dossier.  It is such a violation of the trust built up over the years. 

Edited May 25, 2019 by freddi

[Medicine Crow]

On 5/24/2019 at 7:03 PM, freddi said:

Joy:  “Rachel will be back on Monday with a very special show.”  

Ugh.  Clip show.  

I mean, I did not expect a live show, but do not need a “very special show.” 

Well, THAT was NOT a "very special show"!!!!  Not live & no hand-over to L.O.  I feel really let down.