Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for 'maddow' in content posted in The Russia Investigation: Trump Commutes Stone's Sentence.

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 256 results

  1. I think this is an even-handed criticism of Maddow's coverage of the Steele dossier: Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to be true. Then it fell apart. By Erik Wemple Dec. 26, 2019
  2. I know most write off Rachel Maddow but her show tonight deserves some attention. Essentially she takes deeper dive on the Ukraine call topics of Manafort investigation and the server Trump believes is in Ukraine - not to remove the stain of Russia from Trump’s presidency, but to tee up unwind of sanctions imposed on Russia related to election interference. Further, Trump’s repeated suggestion for the new Ukraine president to settle with Russia ties in to unwind additional sanctions which were based on Russian aggression toward Ukraine. Rip away, but I sort of agree that for a President who has attention span of a gnat, a great deal of his focus does seem to seek removal of sanctions on Russia. It’s mind boggling to me that a guy like Bill Barr would use the time and energy he has as US AG to ‘uncover’ facts which would rewrite previous US Intelligence conclusions. Also, whether or not he believes he is doing all of this purely for Republican politics of clearing Trump re: Mueller report.
  3. First link is worthless - just talks about some gaffes about one particular story. Should we talk about the Attorney General's bias in his summary of the report? That was laughable. Maddow is insufferable, but that doesn't prove MSM bias. That would be like me saying Tucker Carlson has a right wing bias. Pointless. I couldn't read the third link but it appeared to be the same as your first link. A story about stories on one story. Again with this fourth link, you're still just sending me links about one particular event. You've failed to send me a link showing prevalent bias across a broad range of topics.
  4. How these two goofs didn’t know, or bother to find out, that Mueller was not up for the task of following difficult questions is hard to understand. Nadler and Schiff are both lawyers. A first-year law student wouldn’t put a witness on stand blind like that for a minute, let alone seven nationally-televised hours. But they pressed on, convinced the Special Counsel could breathe new life into a case they believed had waned only because Mueller’s long report was a “dry, prosecutorial work product” that the public couldn’t or wouldn’t digest. This in itself was crazy. Hopeful blue-staters across the country for months have indulged in readings of Mueller’s report like it was the word of God – with celebrity jackasses like Annette Bening, John Lithgow and Kevin Kline donning Rick Perry-style smart glasses to conduct televised deliverance of the gospel. The report has been hyped plenty. It’s sold hundreds of thousands of copies and has now been on the New York Times bestseller list for thirteen weeks. In #Resistance America it’s as ubiquitous as Gideon’s Bible. What Nadler and Schiff seem to have wanted was something beyond familiarity with the work, like video of Mueller calling Trump a crook that could be used in commercials. Instead, they revealed something no one expected. Now we understood why the Special Counsel avoided live exchanges across two years of being one of the most famous people on earth. When Mueller’s morning session in Nadler’s committee ended, NBC’s studio seemed like a funeral parlor. “If, uh, Democrats were looking for a pristine ten to fifteen second sound bite that made the point they wanted to make, uh, it probably didn’t happen,” said Lester Holt. Chuck Todd, who along with colleague Rachel Maddow has been one of the most energetic Russigate torchbearers, offered that on the bringing-Mueller-to-life front, the testimony was “a complete failure.” He added it “didn’t do anything to help” impeachment arguments.
  5. Around the Mueller report, there was a wave of gaslighting opinion pieces trying to get ahead of the actual facts with the conspiracy deep state crap. I don’t think we’ll have a clear idea of the scope of what happened in the lead up to 2016 for many years, but think as we do it will be closer to Maddow’s accounting than further.
  6. This is after the report (thanks) and shockingly Breitbart thinks Maddow was wrong. Thanks for that. Eh, Mueller doesn't find there were no tapes. Hope Hicks just testified before Congress that she was told of these rumored tapes during the campaign, well before Steele's report. That doesn't mean the tapes exist (nor that they don't) but it does reflect that Trump was concerned about them existing.
  7. Well it does Bluto, you're talking about people making claims before the results were out. I notice all three authors don't point to any specific issue or claim or supposed allegation by Maddow.
  8. Yet you claim Maddow and her team are always factually correct.
  9. Didn’t watch a ton of Maddow. I have watched her enough to respect the meticulousness of her team’s journalism. They are serious and excellent fact gatherers.
  10. You didn’t watch much of Maddow but you are defending everything she reported as facts.
  11. For one, I don’t think any of this is funny. Trump welcomed foreign help, has rewarded enemies for their support, and has kids living in squalor away from their parents in camps. He has been named as a felony co-conspirator, and was implicated in tax evasion, amongst dozens of other scandals. Last night, he waxed on about the airports in the 1770s. He’s unfit to lead, an apparent rapist, and morally repugnant. Two, all of those articles suppose that the Mueller report found conclusively that there was no conspiracy, when it didn’t. Again, I didn’t watch a ton of Maddow, but I trust and respect the fact gathering, and suspect she was on to something in many of the veins she has been mining. GOP efforts to bend reality have been epic, but gaslighting or no, the associations between Russian interests and the administration were and continue to be troubling.
  12. Oh ok
  13. Yes, but... implication that we know what happened is false. Mueller report has major redactions and was limited in scope. We don’t know where remaining investigations headed, nor what evidence exists in say, the counterintelligence probe. I didn’t watch Maddow a ton, but I stand by the assertion that her journalism was on point. She poked at the holes and exposed facts. Dozens of questions were not answered, myriad strange associations were uncovered and the idea that the case of conspiracy is closed and settled is bunk. Mueller report states that conspirators may have successfully obstructed and destroyed evidence. But Maddow’s team established a clear, fact-based timeline against which to ask poignant questions. They did, and many of them only lead to more troubling ones.
  14. Once again you post something with no links. The last link I provided says opposite.
  16. Journalism Maddow and team did was on point. They were months ahead of the story, and continue to point out the inconsistencies, which are many. If the attention to detail and fact are uncomfortable to you, good — they should be.
  17. Maybe you misunderstood my initial post about this but Maddow, to my ears, never did say "collusion." Russia, yes, but the word "collusion," no. So, if you are going to hear "Russia(n)" and conclude that "collusion" is a part of the story, well, that would be wrong. Saying Russia is one thing but the word "collusion" was parroted, rather incorrectly, a massive amount of time.
  18. I'd bet all my money that Hannity said "collusion" much more than Maddow.
  19. Maddow is too busy writing hard hitting moderator questions like “would you send Ivanka and Jared to prison” for the big Democrat debate next week.
  20. The "witnesses" were just hilarious yesterday. I swear to god....I really thought that it was a CNN panel gathering. Seriously though...when IS Rachel Maddow scheduled to appear or has MSNBC even been invited to participate in this forum?
  21. It's a real beaut isn't it. People who went fullbore and saw a conspiracy everywhere they looked, who lent credibility to the likes of Seth Abramson and Rachel Maddow lecturing others as not paying attention to the "facts". No- it's because we paid attention to the facts that we didn't fall for the hoax.
  22. House Judiciary Chairman Nadler tells @maddow that Robert Mueller wants to testify but only in private with a transcript released to the public. Nadler says Mueller doesn’t want to participate in a televised open hearing that could be a spectacle. // Mueller not interested in humoring Nadler’s flamboyant grandstanding. Doesn’t look like he’s in any hurry to expose the “cover up”.