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. 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. https://theblacksphere.net/2019/07/cnn-ratings-plummet-hannity-crushes-maddow/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/29/msnbc-rachel-maddow-ratings-trump-mueller/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/05/29/foxs-sean-hannity-is-1-in-may-cable-news-ratings-as-msnbcs-maddow-has-worst-month-since-trumps-inauguration/#16cb301e6301 https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-03-27/maddow-other-msnbc-hosts-see-ratings-drop-fox-up
  3. 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.
  4. Oh ok https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/rachel-maddow-trump-russia-collusion-left-paranoia/ https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/rachel-maddow-mueller-report-trump-barr.html https://nypost.com/2019/03/29/the-sad-surprise-end-to-rachel-maddows-spy-thriller/
  5. 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.
  6. This thing is 12 minutes long. The point that YT started when I cracked it open is the part talking about the Putin/Yeltsin story about Putin/FSB framing the prosecutor ready to nail Putin and Yeltsin with kompromat. Is that the part you expect people to see? Let's stipulate Maddow said Putin might have "tapes." Dunno, I'm 96.1% guessing that happened. Is that even now so outrageous? Have to laugh at this. Not his character? Not Putin's? Trump is too careful? And the post above is Maddow with a screenshot of someone talking about tapes. Lol. Oh ok, what a silly report by Maddow. The Barr letter continues as fodder for score settling by one coterie of reporters feeling put upon for 2 years lashing out against their oppressors. But lord do it while not offering more basis for the original point. And as for Steele? Oh lo and behold yes that rumor is apparently circulating in connected Russian Kremlinesque groups. Very well then, well played. And the whole point of this isn't that there is (gasp) a peepee tape of Trump, it's that Trump thought there might be one. I mean if a guy that Trump did business with - Rtskhiladze - had heard of one, then yeah maybe Trump thought there might be one and couldn't quite remember everything he had done there since his first visit to the then USSR in 1987.
  7. 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.
  8. Great part of this article.. Maddow has acknowledged that allegations of Trump-Russia collusion are unverified. But she has ignored claims that cast them in a more skeptical light. For instance, James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, told NBC News on March 5 that U.S. intelligence has “no evidence” of collusion between Trump and Russia. On March 15, former CIA Director and Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell said “there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all.” Those statements have gone unmentioned. https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/
  9. Rachel Maddow MSNBC‏ @maddow 5m5 minutes ago Here's the DOJ press release on the Paul Erickson money laundering and wire fraud indictment. He was indicted yesterday, pleaded not guilty today, and has been released on bond. 1/2 Although prosecutors repeatedly referenced someone who appeared to be Erickson as Maria Butina's alleged co-conspirator, these charges appear on the surface to be wholly unrelated to the Butina case: That said... there are references to someone with the initials "M.B." and a payment to American University... so who knows... (uh... 3/2 i guess?) https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1093302493503782912
  10. https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1121226002099789824 Having been the leading promoter of the failed conspiracy theory for 2+ years, it perhaps shouldn't be a surprise that @Maddow is trying to revive the "pee tape" -- aka "the tapes thing" -- after the conspiracy theory's collapse: In claiming that she refused to entertain the thought that Putin might have compromising video tapes of Trump, @Maddow forgets that she did a whole segment speculating that Putin has those tapes and could use them to blackmail into Trump withdrawing US troops from Europe. Watch:
  11. 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. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-superhero-robert
  12. Rachel Maddow @maddow 4m4 minutes ago Senator Chuck Schumer will force a Senate vote tomorrow on whether or not the Trump Admin should be lifting sanctions on companies associated with Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Dear Colleague Letter below... "We should not be providing sanctions relief to Vladimir Putin's trusted agent before the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Mr. Deripaska has deep ties to President Putin and the Russian government and possible links to a range of criminal activity." https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1084940970708402176 (screen capture of letter at link).
  13. Here are Mueller’s “speaking indictments,” read by: - John Legend @johnlegend - Rachel Maddow @maddow - Charlie Sykes @SykesCharlie - Alina Polyakova @apolyakova - Toomas Ilves @IlvesToomas - David Kris @DavidKris - Ben Wittes @benjaminwittes https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-shorts-speaking-indictments-robert-s-mueller-iii It’s Robert Mueller as you’ve never heard him before. We have something special for you on the podcast today. Something very different. The Mueller report is coming. We all know that. We don’t know what’s going to be in it. We don't know when its showing up. But Bob Mueller has already told a remarkable story. He’s told it scattered through different court filings in a variety of cases, indictments, plea agreements, stipulations of fact. We decided to distill it, to organize it, to put it all in one place, to tell the story of the Russia investigation orally, to let a remarkable group of speakers read the speaking indictments that Mueller has issued. So here’s the story of the Russia conspiracy, distilled to a brief audiobook in seven chapters. What you’re about to hear is all taken nearly verbatim from actual Bob Mueller filings. We’ve cut a lot, moved stuff around, and changed a few words here and there to make it sound more like a narrative. We have changed the meaning not at all.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Once again you post something with no links. The last link I provided says opposite. https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-03-27/maddow-other-msnbc-hosts-see-ratings-drop-fox-up
  20. 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.
  21. 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.