Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DDySiegs

(253 posts)
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 09:58 PM Aug 2018

Rachel - Misleading and Extremely Disappointing Tonight

I was totally dismayed - and maybe more than a little disgusted - at Rachel’s opening segment tonight. After recounting the fact that all but one of the members of the upper echelon of the FBI whom former FBI director Comey told and/or memo’d about his interactions with Trump (e.g. Trump’s attempt to get Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn, etc.) have been driven out of the FBI, she more than than strongly (and over and over) implied that these individuals have thereby been prevented from supporting the accuracy and honesty of Comey’s story. This is plainly (almost) deliberately deceptive nonsense! All these former FBI higher-ups obviously can testify about what they know about the interactions between Comey and Trump and about Comey’s memo. In my view Rachel, in this situation, was engaging in inappropriate scare mongering.

I have never been so disappointed with Rachel. I think she should apologize for this abomination.

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rachel - Misleading and Extremely Disappointing Tonight (Original Post) DDySiegs Aug 2018 OP
You'll survive. Everybody has off days (if that's what it was), she's been a rock. Crutchez_CuiBono Aug 2018 #1
Rachel seems to pride herself on either exclusive scoops, breaking new or her own Dream Girl Aug 2018 #2
Yes. Remember when she had a couple lines Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2018 #29
I was also wondering why she didn't note that all these people can still testify. The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2018 #3
good assessment. It''s interesting though that David Bowditch (who fired Strzok) triron Aug 2018 #11
I think she was eluding to the court of public opinion. nt Snotcicles Aug 2018 #4
That is what I got ouy of it. LiberalFighter Aug 2018 #59
I thought she was spot on Vinnie From Indy Aug 2018 #5
My husband and I both got the same message that the OP did -- that somehow pnwmom Aug 2018 #15
Exactly. Watching again, to confirm my first impression. elleng Aug 2018 #34
I kept thinking the same thing. greymattermom Aug 2018 #6
Greymattermom My thought also. They can say more now than if they were still FBI katmondoo Aug 2018 #40
First question on cross examination for any of these folks: Atticus Aug 2018 #7
Answer: No, they found out I had accepted service of a subpoena, and then they fired me. n/t pnwmom Aug 2018 #16
??? nt Atticus Aug 2018 #20
That can be their response. They were fired AFTER they agreed to answer Mueller's pnwmom Aug 2018 #24
I've gotta wash my socks. This'll be my bookmark. n/t rzemanfl Aug 2018 #8
I agree, I was very disappointed that she Raven Aug 2018 #9
I still watch her occasionally, but it's not like when she helped get me through bush years. Hoyt Aug 2018 #10
The bottom line is that she, and all others, are fighting to maximise ratings. Kaleva Aug 2018 #12
Brilliant observation Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2018 #31
The opening segment was poor manor321 Aug 2018 #13
What was dumb about the hacker story? I thought it was a significant story, pnwmom Aug 2018 #17
Because hacking a website is completely different from hacking election results ... mr_lebowski Aug 2018 #25
They pointed out that it could cause the wrong results to be announced on election night, pnwmom Aug 2018 #36
Because Russian election hacking is not a problem? jpak Aug 2018 #56
+1 Ignore the Mythologists who try to minimize this. lagomorph777 Aug 2018 #62
I thought that was strange, too. And so did my husband, who was busy filling the dogs' bowls, pnwmom Aug 2018 #14
Being fired by Trump is an honor, not a disgrace. lagomorph777 Aug 2018 #63
They can testify lapfog_1 Aug 2018 #18
Hillary was right. Deplorables. triron Aug 2018 #21
Dismayed, Extremely Disappointed,More than a little disgusted njhoneybadger Aug 2018 #19
Is this going to be the new newbie thing? Ripping Rachel a new one? Meh. Hekate Aug 2018 #22
Yep. Divide and conquer . . . Iliyah Aug 2018 #27
We have been through this before here, and Rachel survived the mutiny. nt Lisa0825 Aug 2018 #35
This is the second time Madam Mossfern Aug 2018 #71
The remaining FBI agents who didn't get fired - they all got the message FakeNoose Aug 2018 #23
I kept thinking" this is ridiculously wrong" and I bailed redstateblues Aug 2018 #26
Could she have meant that top people with the ability to investigate are gone? renate Aug 2018 #28
I think her real point was ... Whiskeytide Aug 2018 #30
Me thinks you "protesteth too much ... (reference to Shakespeare). maryallen Aug 2018 #32
Unnnnnn, Red Don's lawyers will be able to make crap up ... that about it uponit7771 Aug 2018 #33
151 posts. No comment. Sophia4 Aug 2018 #37
Thank you, this post is what I was looking for. a kennedy Aug 2018 #50
This is a nonsense OP. That's not what's she was on about. Trump was OnDoutside Aug 2018 #38
Not only is it nonsense, this person just dropped it here and ran away. GoCubsGo Aug 2018 #46
Yes, I'm with you on that. OnDoutside Aug 2018 #60
Oh, and GoCubsGo, you and your cubbies are going down tonight and tomorrow. a kennedy Aug 2018 #61
We'll see about that. GoCubsGo Aug 2018 #65
Ha ha, you have owned the Brewers for EVER...... a kennedy Aug 2018 #66
I dunno... GoCubsGo Aug 2018 #67
Huh? malaise Aug 2018 #39
Yup jpak Aug 2018 #53
... padah513 Aug 2018 #41
It was all about MFM008 Aug 2018 #42
DDySiegs - Misleading and Extremely Disappointing Last night Older Than I Look Aug 2018 #43
! jpak Aug 2018 #54
I think she was just making a list of the planned ousters of Trump's perceived enemies. Vinca Aug 2018 #44
Nice hit-and-run post! GoCubsGo Aug 2018 #45
Thank you for reminding me my socks are probably dry now. (See my post above #8). n/t rzemanfl Aug 2018 #51
Ding Ding Ding! jpak Aug 2018 #55
I thought it was assumed they could still testify bigtree Aug 2018 #47
I interpreted the segment as simply saying HAB911 Aug 2018 #48
I agree. Sunsky Aug 2018 #58
+1 uponit7771 Aug 2018 #69
Rachel has always been about hype that exceeds content Lee-Lee Aug 2018 #49
Yeah, that was the tipping point for me. bearsfootball516 Aug 2018 #52
Wow snowybirdie Aug 2018 #57
Yes Tursiops Aug 2018 #64
Did you know all of this information before you saw the Rachel Maddow Show? UCmeNdc Aug 2018 #68
+1, Good point, I didn't put it together than Strock was original crew that was investigating uponit7771 Aug 2018 #70
UCmeNdc in Reply #68 You Have Asked Some Reasonable Questions - Here Are My Responses DDySiegs Aug 2018 #72

Crutchez_CuiBono

(7,725 posts)
1. You'll survive. Everybody has off days (if that's what it was), she's been a rock.
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:03 PM
Aug 2018

Stay tuned. She'll amaze you tomorrow. It's Monday in everybodys world.

 

Dream Girl

(5,111 posts)
2. Rachel seems to pride herself on either exclusive scoops, breaking new or her own
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:04 PM
Aug 2018

Incisive analysis which is often wrong. I find Lawrence to be a much more accurate prognosticator.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
29. Yes. Remember when she had a couple lines
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:48 PM
Aug 2018

from somebody and dragged it out into an entire show? A "scoop"..and Lawrence carried her water the next hour? There's probably been so many bet you can't even help me remember the one I can't recall the subject of.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,271 posts)
3. I was also wondering why she didn't note that all these people can still testify.
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:05 PM
Aug 2018

They're not dead or in jail or otherwise unavailable. Normally she's very good and very accurate, but although she made an important point - that all the top FBI people who worked on the Russia investigation are no longer working for the FBI, for very questionable reasons - it was not accurate to suggest that they are unable to testify or even that their testimony is discredited (except in the eyes of the GOPers but that's to be expected). I wouldn't go so far as to call the show an abomination but I did find her omission rather disappointing.

Maybe an email to her is in order?

triron

(21,915 posts)
11. good assessment. It''s interesting though that David Bowditch (who fired Strzok)
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:21 PM
Aug 2018

was the only one left still in the FBI. Makes one wonder about Bowditch.

Vinnie From Indy

(10,820 posts)
5. I thought she was spot on
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:09 PM
Aug 2018

She did nothing more than explain exactly what has happened. You erected a straw man by implying that her message somehow involved saying these people are unable to testify now that they have been fired.

She said no such thing.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
15. My husband and I both got the same message that the OP did -- that somehow
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:33 PM
Aug 2018

being fired meant these people were no longer available to testify. My husband asked me what Rachel had meant by that and I had no idea.

greymattermom

(5,751 posts)
6. I kept thinking the same thing.
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:10 PM
Aug 2018

And that maybe they can even say more now than they would have been able to if still employed by the FBI.

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
7. First question on cross examination for any of these folks:
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:11 PM
Aug 2018

"Isn't it a fact that you were fired/resigned in disgrace from the FBI and that you are testifying for the government in order to seek revenge against the president?"

This opening smear would not be available if they were testifying as long-serving FBI professionals.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
24. That can be their response. They were fired AFTER they agreed to answer Mueller's
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:22 PM
Aug 2018

questions truthfully.

Raven

(13,872 posts)
9. I agree, I was very disappointed that she
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:15 PM
Aug 2018

did not make it clear that they can still testify. I kept waiting for her to do that.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
10. I still watch her occasionally, but it's not like when she helped get me through bush years.
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:19 PM
Aug 2018

Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Her “bombshells” seem to fizzle nowadays, but glad she’s on Democratic side.

Kaleva

(36,146 posts)
12. The bottom line is that she, and all others, are fighting to maximise ratings.
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:22 PM
Aug 2018

Not that that's a terrible thing in and of itself but it does lead to hype with the intent of drawing in viewers.

 

manor321

(3,344 posts)
13. The opening segment was poor
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:28 PM
Aug 2018

She should have had a legal guest on to describe the implications, instead of her.

And that stupid, "11 year old hacker" story is dumb.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
17. What was dumb about the hacker story? I thought it was a significant story,
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:35 PM
Aug 2018

though I'd already read it online.

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
25. Because hacking a website is completely different from hacking election results ...
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:24 PM
Aug 2018

It's been breathlessly overhyped ... they're utterly two different things. If I could go hack 538 and make it say Hillary won, would she then take over at the White House?

There's your answer to why it's not significant.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
36. They pointed out that it could cause the wrong results to be announced on election night,
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 12:38 AM
Aug 2018

which could cause a huge loss of confidence in the system, even if the error was corrected.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
62. +1 Ignore the Mythologists who try to minimize this.
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 09:38 AM
Aug 2018

Hacking any significant part of our electoral process is a problem: e-voting machines, vote tally machines, Secretaries of State databases, major political party email servers, social media, and even MSM web sites can all cause real damage to Americans' faith in our democracy.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
14. I thought that was strange, too. And so did my husband, who was busy filling the dogs' bowls,
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:31 PM
Aug 2018

but stopped to ask why being fired made any of those people less able to testify.

My only guess is that Rachel and/or Trump thinks he has somehow discredited them by firing them -- but of course he hasn't.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
63. Being fired by Trump is an honor, not a disgrace.
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 09:40 AM
Aug 2018

Unless, of course, you were foolish enough to let him hire you in the first place.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
18. They can testify
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:37 PM
Aug 2018

but obviously their reputations have been damaged.

"So, Mr. Comey... were you fired as the head of the FBI because, in part, you completely ignored agency policies regarding affecting the election by announcing a reopening of the investigation into Hilary Clinton just days prior to the election?"

We are know that this is a lie... he was fired for looking into the Russia - Trump connections. But this sort of question will be asked and the fact that he has to say "yes, in part" means that his testimony will be less credible.

And, as Ghouliani keeps pointing out... the real jury here is the millions of idiots (er, voters) that still support the idiot in chief.

njhoneybadger

(3,910 posts)
19. Dismayed, Extremely Disappointed,More than a little disgusted
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 10:48 PM
Aug 2018

Wow, Rachel has jumped the Shark with her deliberately deceptive nonsense. Really?

Hekate

(90,189 posts)
22. Is this going to be the new newbie thing? Ripping Rachel a new one? Meh.
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:13 PM
Aug 2018

I have an appointment to rearrange my sock drawer.

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
27. Yep. Divide and conquer . . .
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:37 PM
Aug 2018

Ball of confusion . . . .



Anywho, on SyFy formally known as SiFi - Sharknado is on (Cali time)

Madam Mossfern

(2,340 posts)
71. This is the second time
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 12:50 PM
Aug 2018

socks have been mentioned in this thread.
Did I not get the update for my code book?

FakeNoose

(32,340 posts)
23. The remaining FBI agents who didn't get fired - they all got the message
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:13 PM
Aug 2018

NO disloyalty, NO whistle-blowing, NO criticizing the emperor's new clothes! If you do, you'll be fired.
See what happened to these other guys? That's what will happen to you.

I took her comments to be from the standpoint of the agents who are watching this happen, not from the viewpoint of the media or private citizens. So maybe in that way we can give her credit for being right.

renate

(13,776 posts)
28. Could she have meant that top people with the ability to investigate are gone?
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:43 PM
Aug 2018

It’s not insignificant that top FBI officials who have offended Trump have been fired unfairly.

But I was wondering the same thing about why their firings meant they couldn’t testify. Maybe she meant that after they were gone they couldn’t testify about current events at the FBI?

Whiskeytide

(4,459 posts)
30. I think her real point was ...
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:48 PM
Aug 2018

... that the administration is sending a message to the FBI and DOJ that they better tow the line or else. Take a stand against trump and goodbye career. I thought she made that point pretty well.

maryallen

(2,172 posts)
32. Me thinks you "protesteth too much ... (reference to Shakespeare).
Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:52 PM
Aug 2018

Rachel was just fine. Contrary to other television hosts, she uses few panels. She researches her material as deeply as she can and won't let go until she finds out the answers she seeks. She is one of the best.

a kennedy

(29,462 posts)
50. Thank you, this post is what I was looking for.
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 08:47 AM
Aug 2018

and exactly 151 post count??? Ah, not really paying to much attention to this drivel.

OnDoutside

(19,906 posts)
38. This is a nonsense OP. That's not what's she was on about. Trump was
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 05:18 AM
Aug 2018

attacking their credibility, one by one, to taint them as witnesses, not to stop them as witnesses.

GoCubsGo

(32,061 posts)
46. Not only is it nonsense, this person just dropped it here and ran away.
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 07:44 AM
Aug 2018

It strikes me as divisive shit-stirring.

GoCubsGo

(32,061 posts)
67. I dunno...
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 12:11 PM
Aug 2018

The way the Cubs have been playing lately, they have a definite chance. Their pitching lately...

MFM008

(19,776 posts)
42. It was all about
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 06:09 AM
Aug 2018

The systematic destruction of their jobs, reputations, and truthfulness ( value as a witness). Read between the lines .....

 
43. DDySiegs - Misleading and Extremely Disappointing Last night
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 06:29 AM
Aug 2018

I was totally dismayed - and maybe more than a little disgusted - at your opening comment last night. After Rachel recounted the fact that all but one of the members of the upper echelon of the FBI whom former FBI director Comey told and/or memo’d about his interactions with Trump (e.g. Trump’s attempt to get Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn, etc.) have been driven out of the FBI, you more than than strongly (and over and over) implied that Rachel was talking about actual testimony under oath about Comey’s story that they may provide to Congress, a grand jury, or a court. This is plainly (almost) deliberately deceptive nonsense! Since all these former FBI higher-ups obviously can testify about what they know about the interactions between Comey and Trump and about Comey’s memo, Rachel must have been (and clearly was) talking about Trump repeatedly - obviously & clumsily - trying to discredit them ahead of that testimony. In my view you are, in this situation, being inappropriately disingenuous.

I have never been so disappointed with you. I think you should apologize for this abomination.

Vinca

(50,168 posts)
44. I think she was just making a list of the planned ousters of Trump's perceived enemies.
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 07:40 AM
Aug 2018

It is true, though, that despite being ejected at the wishes of the dictator they can still appear in court and testify. She did allude to the fact that Trump eliminating these people was another indication of obstruction of justice. Mueller will notice.

HAB911

(8,811 posts)
48. I interpreted the segment as simply saying
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 08:12 AM
Aug 2018

they had been targeted with precision, and their firing might lessen their reputations in corroborating Comey

Sunsky

(1,737 posts)
58. I agree.
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 09:22 AM
Aug 2018

She did say on one of her previous shows- the aim is to destroy the credibility of these witnesses. Bolster his bs deep state narrative to the gullible fools. Also, it sends a message to others who may want to speak up against him, that their careers will be jeopardized if they choose to do so.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
49. Rachel has always been about hype that exceeds content
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 08:17 AM
Aug 2018

And when lacking that about adding the drama to what she has.

I get it, it drives ratings, but I wish she wouldn’t do it. It’s why I gave up on regularly watching a long time ago.

Remember when she was all hyping “We have Trunps tax returns” all day long. Then as the day progressed they didn’t have his “returns” as you n multiple returns. They didn’t even have one single tax return. They had one sheet of paper out of hundreds from on year.

Loads of hype all day long for... basically nothing. But they hyped it way up to get tons of people to tune in expecting a bombshell to only get a dud firecracker.

bearsfootball516

(6,369 posts)
52. Yeah, that was the tipping point for me.
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 08:59 AM
Aug 2018

I like her, but I don't watch her regularly. That "We've got Trump's tax returns and we're releasing them live on air" only for it to be one page from 13 years ago was terribly misleading and sort of turned me off permanently.

snowybirdie

(5,191 posts)
57. Wow
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 09:04 AM
Aug 2018

Donald and the righties can't bring themselves to dispute info on Rachel's show. Funny how some on DU have taken to dissing her show, which she slaves over for us 24/7. Every day can't be a day of startling breaking news and or important findings. Give the woman a break, it's summertime!

Tursiops

(89 posts)
64. Yes
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 09:46 AM
Aug 2018

She never said that they could not testify but implied (correctly) that they were open to attacks from defense. And that the firings have probably created a chilling effect.

UCmeNdc

(9,589 posts)
68. Did you know all of this information before you saw the Rachel Maddow Show?
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 12:37 PM
Aug 2018

Did you have a plan to inform people about this information she presented to her listeners tonight?

Do you think her listeners learned something new tonight?

Did any other news channel present the possible outcomes Rachel Maddow identified tonight?

Did you think she might be correct in her observations? What if her ideas and thoughts are correct?

Maybe she did do her job tonight after all?

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
70. +1, Good point, I didn't put it together than Strock was original crew that was investigating
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 12:40 PM
Aug 2018

... Red Don's campaign

DDySiegs

(253 posts)
72. UCmeNdc in Reply #68 You Have Asked Some Reasonable Questions - Here Are My Responses
Tue Aug 14, 2018, 07:13 PM
Aug 2018

Question 1: Absolutely not, I had no plan before Rachel’s opening segment to post anything last night. I was, and am still, a big fan of Rachel’s. In my opinion Rachel normally holds herself to a very high standard in regard to her reporting and her commentary. But I believe that during last night’s opening segment she failed to maintain that standard. I found this failure to be quite serious and disturbing. I decided to post my OP because of that failure.

Question 2: Yes, I think that many of her listeners learned valuable information from Rachel’s first segment. In fact, I learned valuable information. Although I believe I am quite well informed about the ongoing Trumpian catastrophe, I did not learn until that segment that all but one of the FBI higher-ups to whom Comey had reported his communications with Trump (by memo or otherwise) had been driven out of the FBI. I knew that some had left the Bureau but not that nearly all were gone.

Question 3: I assume that you are referring to other TV channels (cable or network) in this question. I have no idea what other such channels presented on this matter. As for print or internet, I also don’t know what they printed or posted on these details. I also don’t think it matters. What does matter here are her remarks during the segment that plainly implied that by knocking these recipients of Comey’s reports in the winter of 2017 on his communications with Trump out of the FBI, Trump had eliminated their capacity to provide corroboration to Comey’s position. Because she made absolutely no reference during the segment to the fact that all those recipients can still give testimony about what Comey informed them of and when, I felt that her failure to mention that fact was not merely an oversight – rather, I concluded that she was, as I put it in my OP, scare mongering. I still feel that way.

Question 4: Most of her observations were spot on in my opinion. But that is not the point. In my opinion she left out (whether intentionally or carelessly) any discussion of the continuing capacity of these recipients to testify in the Senate in the event of impeachment, or at trial in the event of indictment. It is virtually inconceivable that she was unaware of this during her segment. If she had some reason why she believed there is a possibility that these recipients could be kept from testifying, she absolutely should have discussed her reasoning. It was dereliction for her not to have done so.

Question 5: I think the answers above cover this question. I continue to believe that she let her audience down last night. I stand by my OP.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rachel - Misleading and E...