General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachel - Misleading and Extremely Disappointing Tonight
I was totally dismayed - and maybe more than a little disgusted - at Rachels 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 memod about his interactions with Trump (e.g. Trumps 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 Comeys 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 Comeys 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.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Stay tuned. She'll amaze you tomorrow. It's Monday in everybodys world.
Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)Incisive analysis which is often wrong. I find Lawrence to be a much more accurate prognosticator.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)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)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)was the only one left still in the FBI. Makes one wonder about Bowditch.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,495 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)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)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.
elleng
(130,126 posts)Feeble straw man erected.
greymattermom
(5,751 posts)And that maybe they can even say more now than they would have been able to if still employed by the FBI.
katmondoo
(6,454 posts)Atticus
(15,124 posts)"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)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)questions truthfully.
rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)Raven
(13,872 posts)did not make it clear that they can still testify. I kept waiting for her to do that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2018, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Her bombshells seem to fizzle nowadays, but glad shes on Democratic side.
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)Not that that's a terrible thing in and of itself but it does lead to hype with the intent of drawing in viewers.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)manor321
(3,344 posts)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)though I'd already read it online.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)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)which could cause a huge loss of confidence in the system, even if the error was corrected.
jpak
(41,741 posts)do tell.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)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)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)Unless, of course, you were foolish enough to let him hire you in the first place.
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)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.
triron
(21,915 posts)njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)Wow, Rachel has jumped the Shark with her deliberately deceptive nonsense. Really?
Hekate
(90,189 posts)I have an appointment to rearrange my sock drawer.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Ball of confusion . . . .
Anywho, on SyFy formally known as SiFi - Sharknado is on (Cali time)
Lisa0825
(14,487 posts)Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)socks have been mentioned in this thread.
Did I not get the update for my code book?
FakeNoose
(32,340 posts)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.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)renate
(13,776 posts)Its 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 couldnt testify. Maybe she meant that after they were gone they couldnt testify about current events at the FBI?
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... 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)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.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)a kennedy
(29,462 posts)and exactly 151 post count??? Ah, not really paying to much attention to this drivel.
OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)attacking their credibility, one by one, to taint them as witnesses, not to stop them as witnesses.
GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)It strikes me as divisive shit-stirring.
OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)a kennedy
(29,462 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)a kennedy
(29,462 posts)so not really thinking the Brew Crew will win.
GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)The way the Cubs have been playing lately, they have a definite chance. Their pitching lately...
malaise
(267,801 posts)Not fooled
padah513
(2,483 posts)83 days until the election on Nov. 6. Focus
MFM008
(19,776 posts)The systematic destruction of their jobs, reputations, and truthfulness ( value as a witness). Read between the lines .....
Older Than I Look
(95 posts)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 memod about his interactions with Trump (e.g. Trumps 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 Comeys 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 Comeys 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.
jpak
(41,741 posts)Vinca
(50,168 posts)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.
GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)jpak
(41,741 posts)bigtree
(85,915 posts)...that Mueller already had their testimony.
HAB911
(8,811 posts)they had been targeted with precision, and their firing might lessen their reputations in corroborating Comey
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)And when lacking that about adding the drama to what she has.
I get it, it drives ratings, but I wish she wouldnt do it. Its 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 didnt have his returns as you n multiple returns. They didnt 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)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)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!
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)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)... Red Don's campaign
DDySiegs
(253 posts)Question 1: Absolutely not, I had no plan before Rachels opening segment to post anything last night. I was, and am still, a big fan of Rachels. 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 nights 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 Rachels 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 dont know what they printed or posted on these details. I also dont think it matters. What does matter here are her remarks during the segment that plainly implied that by knocking these recipients of Comeys reports in the winter of 2017 on his communications with Trump out of the FBI, Trump had eliminated their capacity to provide corroboration to Comeys 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.