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


  • 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)


  • FBG Calendar
  • Street Team Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







More Info

Spambot Registration Prevention Question

Found 263 results

  1. More BREAKING @maddow just reported that Steve Bannon will return to continue his testimony before the House Intel Cmte on *Thursday* Acting Chair Rep @ConawayTX11 says Bannon *remains under #subpoena* #TrumpRussia #ImpeachTrump
  2. Maybe I'm just becoming jaded, but the more analyses I read of the Russia investigation as it goes on, the more seemingly wishful thinking gets interjected regarding people's motivations, who are associated with Trump, that somehow they're going to do the right thing under pressure. One thing has been constant under Trump is that folks associated with him in any way will consistently do the wrong thing. They will protect Trump, even if it requires them to take heat. They'll cover up for him (see all the latest folks covering up for his ####hole comments) at their own expense. They'll engage in obstruction of justice from within congress with impunity. They'll incorrectly report interactions with Russians repeatedly, with impunity. I'd love to see a list of folks who previously were involved with Trump who have publicly turned and done the right thing? The best we have been able to hope for is that they just shut up. Where is Chris Christie? Rudy Guiliani? Those are conspicuous silent folks. Mooch still has Trump's back. Bannon was set to apologize to Trump, and has gone on to call him a great man and carry more water for him. Where's Preibus? What about any of the folks in congress who have at one point or another stood up to Trump, but now carry water for him? There are simply no good players in this saga at this time. Perhaps some of them are cooperating behind the scenes, without us knowing. But what has become incredibly clear is that anyone, in any way involved with Trump right now is in deep enabling him and his team to continue to corrupt our country, squander our influence, piss off our allies, and obstruct justice internally with impunity. So for all the folks analyzing the situation, from the early Maddow conjecture about Preet going to go public with what he knew after being fired, to Seth Abramsom's guesses about how folks will be flipped and compelled to help Mueller...I just don't see it absent them being backed into a corner and given absolutely no way out. There seem to be no good actors in this saga. Jeff Flake seems to be one of the few who can express more than a disappointment with phrasing that we're used to seeing from folks like Ryan and other congressional folks. Trump doesn't seem to have had any significant cognitive decline from my perspective...he's the same vapid, short fused, ignoramus he's always been, yet folks want to believe he's exhibiting a decline. Things are bad here for two main reasons: Trump is simply a terrible person and president, and he's surrounded on almost all sides by people who enable him for a variety of likely self-serving reasons. Neither of those things are going to change...barring specific rock-solid charges from the Mueller investigation, which I'm growing increasingly pessimistic that we'll see. The moment we start seeing indictments for important figures, i'll change my tune. My hope is that Mueller has been keeping things close to his chest, but to be honest, my hopes are founded as much in biased thinking toward an outcome I'd love to see happen as many others who assume Mueller is working with Trump to unearth deep state corruption. It's pretty pessimistic when day after day, Trump takes our country to new lows, and there is always a wiling cadre of folks beside him to carry his water or defend the indefensible, all the while Mueller is silently plodding away in what we hope is something that can bring Trump down but to be honest...if it's sufficiently prolonged, it may not matter. Trump is doing such damage to our country that no indictments will be able to overturn. What's worse is that he's being aided and abetted by many in congress, and many in the american public are cheering them on. These are dark moments for our country, and make me extremely pessimistic. And all the while the stock market is going's like witnessing a murder inside a carnival where everyone seems to be cheering and having fun. It's somewhat maddening.
  3. He linked Rachel Maddow and Evan McMuffin the other day. ETA: I do appreciate that he provides links to back up his thoughts, even if the links and sources are sometimes misguided/propaganda. I also appreciate that Maurile has thicker skin than most in this forum and doesn't report/ban people under the guise of "abusive language" just because they disagree with him. Maurile and Dodds have done a good job of making the political forum a better place.
  4. Let's be real here: The end goal of the left is Trump. Not Manafort. Not Flynn. It always has been. That's all the left has been calling for since Day 1. THEY made it about Trump. We have DNC propaganda networks (MSNBC) dedicating entire shows (Maddow) to the Russian hysteria. SOMETHING would have leaked by now if it were Trump. Instead, every day we have a new GOT 'EEM!, only to be revised and backtracked on the next day to "Well, not really". Of course, we all realize the narrative is changing now that it looks like this is a wild goose chase and witch hunt. Gotta' save face, I guess, and make it sound like catching anyone is the justice the left was always looking for. But it's not. Anything less than Trump is a catastrophic failure.
  5. The word on both of those guys is that they’re jerks in real life. I’ve also heard that Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are super sweet. But who knows? This is all conjecture.
  6. Anyone know what this is about? JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUΔL³³º¹‏ @th3j35t3r FollowingFollowing @th3j35t3r More <Placeholder Tweet> I'll just leave this here for now. Saipan. Woolsey. </Placeholder Tweet> 5:34 PM - 30 Mar 2017 JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUΔL³³º¹‏ @th3j35t3r 5m5 minutes ago More Replying to @th3j35t3r JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUΔL³³º¹ Retweeted Evan Rosenfeld ^^^ Toldja. Back in March. Evan Rosenfeld‏Verified account @Evan_Rosenfeld FollowFollow @Evan_Rosenfeld More BREAKING: @maddow: Spox for former CIA Director, Trump adviser James Woolsey confirms Woolsey & his wife have been contacted by FBI, Mueller
  7. I don't remember Greenwald writing anything other than editorial. That's why I like him. Me personally, I'd rather have it that way and know where someone stands than reporters who pretend they are impartial. He's generally on the right side of history (imo) and a good advocate for civil liberties. In the article he cites USA Today's story, Dem congressman Don Beyer's tweet, and Maddow's show, and they all seem to suggest that Russia 'hacked' their 'elections,' when there is no evidence given for it other than DHS saying so and the system was actually voter registration systems and two of the states rebuked the DHS' claim anyway. Did they walk back their stories at all or did it just sail off into mainstream conscience like usual?
  8. On her show tonight, Maddow portrayed it as if Steele was waiting on Burr and Warner to send him what day they wanted to meet him, but didn’t hear from them again.
  9. Ha, well for some there's such a thing as 'too good to check.' Maddow makes the point that the document sent to MSNBC was patently implausible on its face as well, but of course they are journalists. - eta - Would that kind of faked pleading be easy to generate?
  10. My presumption has been that they have simply been making things up or imagining connections to reach end results. It has also occurred to me (and I've seen it with bloggers before) that they are taking anon tips as really sourced, which of course is not journalism. However it looks like she (the hoaxer) may have been indeed creating fake documents. That seems like something else. There's definitely a civic value to exposing such things, however there's also a real chance there was a purposeful effort to discredit here. Just from the POV of the Guardian's reporting, I think that's worth investigating as well, it seems just as inappropriate for the Guardian to say "the hoaxer did xyz" with no other background on who the hoaxer is or may be (Trump supporter? Other?). A similar scheme was attempted on Maddow.
  11. FWIW, I don't know if it was from this person, but Taylor did get a quality fake subpoena (may have been an indictment) the other day and I know Maddow had a big segment one day on another forged document. So someone is out there creating fake court documents.
  12. Jon, actually try to follow up on how that would look. - To get Hillary to where Trump is - Hillary would have had to have Brian Fallon secretly coordinate with the producer of MSNBC, to have an MSNBC commentator who is also an investigator, concoct a story (let's say) about her server having been set up by an IT person who was a GOP operative, and then concoct a story that that GOP operative would have been murdered by a cabal of GOP officials, then Rachel Maddow would have had to have propagated this, and then Hillary herself would have had to personally review and approve it being done, then Fallon would have to lie about ever having heard about such claims altogether. - Seriously, try to create a comp for what is going on here. It's tough, I don't think you can get to first base (beyond legal arguments, like 'it wasn't marked classified', which is not a cover story, that's a defense). I will say that perhaps (maybe) the obstruction only matters if someone actually takes this story and tries to tell the FBI or Congress that story under oath. There may be an argument there as to why Trump's cover-ups (plural) may not be obstruction, but I'm not sure. I do think these things - Nunes' insane attempt to frame Dem WH officials, the Don Jr. statement, and now the Seth Rich story - together form a pattern of trying to create public or political interference of the investigation. And the first two may involve Congressional testimony. I'm not sure if anyone has said anything to Mueller's team yet. However Sekulow at least may be in trouble if he tried to pass off the story about who crafted the Don Jr. story not involving Trump. Sekulow did meet with Mueller's team IIRC.
  13. It belongs in this one. I caught his first interview with Maddow and he gave the POV that Russia absolutely needed US help for microtargeting down to precinct level. - FYI this guy oversaw the Russi/Ukraine/Eurasia bureau at State IIRC. Did Michael Carpenter mean that hypothetically, Russia would need US help for microtargeting down to precinct level? Or did he mean that Russia actually did get this US help before the 2016 Presidential Election? And "microtargeting" means something like "social media messaging to a focused set of people", correct? The reason I ask is that, IMHO, when you start talking about "affecting an election" and once you mention "US help", getting to voting machines directly becomes a possibility ... and I want to be clear about what kind of election-influencing actions Carpenter was talking about. .
  14. It belongs in this one. I caught his first interview with Maddow and he gave the POV that Russia absolutely needed US help for microtargeting down to precinct level. - FYI this guy oversaw the Russi/Ukraine/Eurasia bureau at State IIRC.
  15. There's something wrong if people are watching Hannity (or Maddow for that matter) and are super excited positively or negatively. If this makes you feel anything other than disgust than you should check yourself.
  16. What's a good source? A major media outlet citing BuzzFeed or an unnamed source? Is that acceptable to the Conspiracy crowd here? And we aren't getting anymore Russian evidence. Nobody is taking about it besides you guys and Rachel Maddow.
  17. Un####ingreal. Can you imagine a similar tweet from say Maddow and replacing Trump with Clinton?!? The R's ad Trumpites would ask for a public stoning.
  18. Maddow talking about an upcoming Bloomberg story detailing a RICO lawsuit against Sater. Tim O'Brien, the writer, coming on in a minute. I guess he writes that Sater and his business partner said they actually steered some Trump business to a specific firm specifically because it was closer to Putin.
  19. Maddow talking about WaPo story on EDVA grand jury issuing subpoenas related to Manafort and Flynn. Additionally, I think someone here also mentioned that Senator Whitehouse thinks Flynn is cooperating with the FBI. I think both of these were mentioned by Claude Taylor several weeks ago. If so, credit where it's due. Taylor's also retweeting everyone who's pointing this out, as he does.