Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for 'maddow' in content posted in The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.".


Didn't find what you were looking for? Try searching for:


More search options

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Our Forums
    • The Shark Pool (NFL Talk)
    • Daily Fantasy Sports
    • The Assistant Coach
    • The Assistant Coach Archive
    • IDP Forum
    • FBG Players Championship
    • Footballguys Free For All
    • The Politics Forum
    • The Baseball Forum
    • The Basketball Forum
    • Looking For Leagues
    • Mock Drafts R Us
    • Apps Questions (iOS/Android Draft Dominator)
    • Classic Applications Questions (PC/Mac Draft Dominator Classic, VBD Spreadsheet)
    • Website Questions (MyFBG, Web Applications, Login Issues)

Calendars

  • FBG Calendar
  • Street Team Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


More Info


Spambot Registration Prevention Question

Found 263 results

  1. Okay, first of all he wrote book released a couple days ago talking about his tenure including the opening of the investigation and why. He saw all the disruptions and interference and concluded that there was more than enough to swing the election. In being interviewed by Maddow, she quoted those portions of the book and asked, "So interference cost 80,000 votes" or something like that, the threshold number for the election to have swung. Next day newspapers run a story saying Clapper claimed 80,000 votes were changes. Well technically yes, but if you,look at everything and the context, it makes sense and was not an inappropriate guess by the author, nor was it really what he said.
  2. Rove explained what you were talking about. Now I understand. I have no opinion on that. If Clapper lies before Congress he ought to be indicted, and punished. The fact that nothing has happened to him is suggestive to me that he in fact did not lie, but I don’t know for sure. Nor is it relevant to what he said on Maddow. Like several other members of the intelligent community, Clapper has made arguments critical of Trump. Either those arguments resonate with you or they don’t. I happen to find them compelling.
  3. Clapper on Maddow was interesting. If you haven’t been brainwashed, you see the valor of career military and intelligence professionals. And to see the thought process of one of these professionals as American values (real ones, not the racist, xenophobic substitutes) are assaulted is heartbreaking and enlightening.
  4. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/ukraine-mueller-manafort-missiles.html I don't know if this was posted in here but it could end up being a huge story...Maddow did a great story on it the other night.. cliff notes...Ukraine was working with Mueller and had 4 open investigations on Mueller, Manafort's partner is a Russian spy and was in Ukraine and was likely back channel to Russia via Manafort, Ukraine wants missiles, Ukraine doesn't want to upset US so they close Manafort investigations and send Russian spy to Russia and cutoff Mueller communication, Ukraine gets their missiles. Coincidence?
  5. exactly...and Hannity has said nothing about "legal advice" he got. Maddow read the court transcripts about how it all went down yesterday and it was very clear that they were doing their best to conceal Hannity's name and Hannity requested to have his name remain concealed. Why? If it's a completely normal attorney client relationship why should it be kept hidden? Makes no sense.
  6. I k ow this can be said about so many issues with Trump. But...Imagine Obama’s lawyer being raided in a similar situation and his three clients were Obama, Soros, and Maddow. The right, Trump, and Hannity would lose their collective ####.
  7. Investigate Russia‏ @InvestigateRU FollowingFollowing @InvestigateRU More .@maddow reporting Special Counsel Robert Mueller has asked to interview Dana Boente. 6:21 PM - 10 Apr 2018
  8. I'm watching Maddow now, and here's evidence that Schiff was using the words 'circumstantial' and 'direct' correctly as legal terms of art. Schiff was on her show on Monday night and explained the difference between the two types of evidence. He said that some people consider 'circumstantial' to mean 'weak,' but that's not always the case. If there was no snow on the ground last night but when you wake up there is snow on the ground in the morning, that's circumstantial (and strong) evidence that it snowed last night. If you saw it snowing with your own eyes, that's direct evidence. (She replayed that clip tonight.) So he is using those terms knowingly. Update: Maddow went on to say that her show contacted Schiff's office today to ask whether he misspoke when he said that there is now non-circumstantial evidence, and his office replied: no, he meant what he said.
  9. No link (again) but thanks. Note, those are just individual show's ratings. However I see Hannity just once, at no. 13. I wonder what that show was on or when. I thought this was pretty interesting - February 2017 ratings. - Fox still no. 1 on cable for February. But: - MSNBC has moved up to No. 3. - Maddow has moved in at no. 6 for the month, just one spot behind Hannity who is at no. 5. It appears Maddow and Hannity are now neck and neck.
  10. That fake news angle was debunked when it leaked. This dude Maddow is a joke. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/57ffca79c36188ed738b463c/amp Obviously fake stuff like this, makes you have to wonder about all of her other recent "evidence". Unreliable, fake, has an agenda. I can't believe you guys are such Maddow marks.
  11. Apologies if this has been covered by Maddow had a great segment talking about how it's now being confirmed by former Trump aides in his campaign that they were behind the softening on Russia in the party platform during the RNC, something both Trump and Manafort long denied. Report also states the change was done at the request of Trump, who has denied any knowledge of the platform change. Maddow's segment also pointed out how Steele's dossier said the platform change was done in return for Russia hacking the election. More and more each day the infamous dossier is looking to be more and more accurate. Have the showers turned to gold yet over the White House?
  12. Maddow's doing journalism. I totally laugh and get the Paul Harvey 'now here's the rest of story' routine... And I know it's 24/7/365 liberal on MSNBC, and I know the New Yorker already put it out there, but I don't care, reality is Maddow is reporting major stories that are not reaching mass audiences otherwise. And this is brave stuff because it involves some very dangerous people. You get between dangerous people and their money, or put them in the Feds' spotlight, they notice. This is vast, unprecedented corruption. People will tune in to hear the truth, I believe that.
  13. More thoughts later, but I've been meaning to say this and keep forgetting: Everyone is talking about Trump getting hot under the collar about the Breitbart article as his basis for the FISA tirade. But, what stands out to me is Rachel Maddow had a really damning show exploring the whole FISA issue on Friday night (March 3). When I saw Trump go ape#### the next morning, without seeing anything else, my first thought went to Maddow's show--which is really the first I've seen from MSM get into the tapping issue--and how that must've set him off. That might explain, in conjunction with whatever Breitbart had (admittedly, I didn't see it), why this issue went dormant from November until March 4. Thanks for exploring this a bit. I think we're in the same zip code on where this stands and it's significance. Much more to learn.
  14. I was literally laughing out loud last night during Maddow’s segment last night on the President and his legal team. Apparently, Trump, the master negotiator, hired DiGenova WITHOUT EVER MEETING HIM. So he’s so tone deaf or just doesn’t care about his relationship with Dowd that I’m sure he gave no heads up that Trump was hiring another lawyer do Dowd smartly says screw this I’m out of here. So Dowd walks out the door leaving Trump with DiGenova. Then he comes to the WH and apparently Trump thought DiGenova looked discheveled and didn’t hit it off so he doesn’t hire him. Now he’s blown up his legal team and can’t get anyone to fill that spot. Again, he hired a guy based solely on his TV appearances. Now He’s asked at least half a dozen top firms and no one wants any part of him. So here we have a President who involved in the biggest potential scandal in the history of our country and he can’t even find a lawyer who will represent him. I just couldn’t help laughing at how unbelievably inept this guy is and yet a significant percentage of the country someone’s thinks he’s great and has some kind of plan. I manage my dynasty fantasy football team a hundred times better than Trump handles his own real life legal team. Just amazing. Hes got more more and better lawyers for his Stormy legal team than he does his Russia legal team.
  15. Somebody probably posted this already. David Frum tweeted a link to it this morning. It's 20 minutes of Maddow, which will turn some people off, but it's really well worth watching. It connects some interesting dots. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/new-commerce-secretary-at-nexus-of-lucrative-trump-russian-deal-886220355575
  16. MSNBC and CNN colluded with Russia? I was wondering how that could have happened given that Maddow was the first major cable host covering the Russia/Trump campaign connection/collusion story and MSNBC has not been particularly Russia friendly. After reading it, it turns out, the article claims that MSNBC and CNN were unwitting participants in colluding with Russia and Vladimir Putin, by covering the pro-Trump, anti-Hillary rally that the Russians organized. The claim is that the networks gave the rally 4-5 hours of coverage (I doubt that number) and accomplished Russia's goal to sow discord in the American society. Um, I don't think it is possible from a legal standpoint to unknowingly and unwittingly enter into collusion with another party. If the claim is the networks got played by the Russians, OK, but that isn't collusion.