Jump to content

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

Too bad they had technical difficulties with Michael Beschloss - I love listening to him.  He's usually on only for a few minutes, so I assume they decided to devote only about 5 minutes to Barbara Bush's death.  That's fine, because other than a tribute or two, there's no need for Rachel to do a long obit piece.  There are other venues for that.  I assume MSNBC will cover the funeral whenever it occurs, as all the news shows will do.  In a weird way, I always enjoy watching the funerals of presidents and first ladies.  It's a look back at a time in history, and it's always interesting to see the surviving presidents and first ladies. 

2

Share Post


Link to post

I think they handled the passing of Mrs. Bush very appropriately.  It is rare that a President outlives his wife, so more newsworthy when the President is still present.  (I am thinking of Pat Nixon.)  And of course, we have not had a wife plus mother of two Presidents since the age of mass media, and there are many current political people and even news media that are close with the Bush family.  So, she is newsworthy in a different way than many first ladies.  So far, the evening programs have been covering the political news for most of the programs. 

And speaking of political news, Rachel left out one wrinkle regarding Geoffrey Berman; she mentioned the deadline, but not one of the possibilities, which are (1) Trump actually nominates Berman, which starts the nomination process, (2) Trump nominates someone new who could be confirmed, or (3) Trump does nothing, and federal judges in Manhattan have to appoint a new U.S. Attorney for Manhattan/Southern District.  They could choose Berman, who would then have an indefinite term until the President appoints someone.  I would think Trump is spending all his time trying to find a confirmable appointee.  It is not like Trump does nothing, and the No. 2 person becomes interim. 

Edited by jjj.
1

Share Post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Calvada said:

 I assume MSNBC will cover the funeral whenever it occurs, as all the news shows will do.  In a weird way, I always enjoy watching the funerals of presidents and first ladies.  It's a look back at a time in history, and it's always interesting to see the surviving presidents and first ladies. 

Yes, I agree about the historical aspects of this.  Usually, it is other First Ladies who attend the funeral of a First Lady, but because presumably two former Presidents will be present at her funeral, other former Presidents might also attend. I would certainly expect to see Bill Clinton.

Edited by jjj.
2

Share Post


Link to post

I'm glad Rachel pointed out the date error in the WH  statement on Bar . They really can't do anything right.

8

Share Post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, attica said:

I'm glad Rachel pointed out the date error in the WH  statement on Bar . They really can't do anything right.

It really is remarkable.  I am sure they went through the text several times to make sure everything was spelled correctly.  But there is always something that eludes them.

3

Share Post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, attica said:

I'm glad Rachel pointed out the date error in the WH  statement on Bar . They really can't do anything right.

All that money spent on Kevlar seat covers, cones of silence, charter flights, and dining tables - should've hired some GS-9 proofreader.  

I think Carter, Clinton and Obama may attend Barbara Bush's funeral not only because there are two former presidents in her immediate family, but because it is likely the last time they will see George HW Bush. 

7

Share Post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Yokosmom said:

Me too.  I bet that they broke out the champagne and confetti!

Nah, probably just sent an intern out for tacos. 

2

Share Post


Link to post
Quote

I'm glad Rachel pointed out the date error in the WH  statement on Bar . They really can't do anything right.

The entire time I kept thinking " mention the date...mention the date....mention the date".  I thought at first she just had it enlarged so we could see it ourselves but she mentioned it at the end. 

1

Share Post


Link to post

Is it just me, or does it seem like Karen McDougal got rolled in this settlement with the National Enquirer? I don't care what Mr. Earnest Face Lawyer says, I don't think having to pay $75000 if she sells her story is a good deal. From the expression on Rachel's face, I think she agrees with me.

McDougal should have hired Michael Avenatti.

6

Share Post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Lokiberry said:

Is it just me, or does it seem like Karen McDougal got rolled in this settlement with the National Enquirer? I don't care what Mr. Earnest Face Lawyer says, I don't think having to pay $75000 if she sells her story is a good deal. From the expression on Rachel's face, I think she agrees with me.

McDougal should have hired Michael Avenatti.

I agree, but also, I was bored out of my mind.  I’m tired of talking about Trump’s sexual escapades for an hour.

8

Share Post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Lokiberry said:

Is it just me, or does it seem like Karen McDougal got rolled in this settlement with the National Enquirer? I don't care what Mr. Earnest Face Lawyer says, I don't think having to pay $75000 if she sells her story is a good deal. From the expression on Rachel's face, I think she agrees with me.

McDougal should have hired Michael Avenatti.

We have been spoiled by Avenatti’s tv presence.  That guy was horrible.  What with music major and ?!?!  He should have led with the fact that she was paid $150k as part of the contract and she didn’t have to pay any of it back, that the $75k was a partial recoupment if she made any money on her story.  I was watching slack jawed in agreement with Rachel until he tossed that out.  Way to bury the lede dude.  Still seems like she could have gotten more but at least you can put a positive spin on it instead of bumbling around.

3

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TexasGal said:

We have been spoiled by Avenatti’s tv presence.  That guy was horrible.  What with music major and ?!?!

Yeah, I thought he was going to tie his music major into some salient point, but alas, no.  And he has none of the media savvy demonstrated by Stormy's lawyer.

Avenatti has become the new Johnnie Cochrane.  He could get any legal gig he wants, and if he wants to be a tee vee star, someone will make a show for him.

Rachel said she's be happy to interview Karen McDougal, and I think she would do it as a matter of news, but I think personally she would hate every minute of it.  She really doesn't like anything tainted (to use a word) by salaciousness.

5

Share Post


Link to post

That was especially a weird interview for the first segment -- at least Rachel was not going to let him off the hook.  I agree that I was expecting some payoff when he said, "Look, I was a music major, I was a composer, and so..."  <crickets>.  Did he get paid a commission for mentioning that? 

Oh, my, Comey was on "The View" today.  Rachel really is getting the crumbs on this righteousness tour.  I liked Comey, but he is losing dignity by going on so many talk shows.  I know it is the publisher who books these things, but still.  I hope Rachel's skepticism with Mr. Earnest-Face Former-Composer Lawyer was practice for skepticism with Comey.  

Edited by jjj.
1

Share Post


Link to post

No, it wasn't a weird lead-off at all -- at least, not if you know & watch Rachel.  Rach is extremely interested in anything that affects media.  And this story speaks volumes about NY media -- which she is in the center of.  Remember how Rach was all over the Gawker-being-sued-into-oblivion story?  No, I'm not surprised in the least she led off with this story & I'm really glad she did.

Clearly, she would have loved for Karen McDougal to be there herself -- and who knows, maybe some day she might be.  Sure, this guy was no Avenatti, but he didn't seem terrible either.  Keep in mind that Stormy & Karen are very different women, with different stories (as far as involvement with Trump) & different goals.  This guy said she wasn't after money -- that what she wanted most was to get out of any agreement with The National Enquirer & American Media.  Stormy & Avenatti want money & notoriety -- maybe for different reasons, but that's what they both want.  Those 2 are a much better fit.

Get plenty of sleep tonite, Rach & please don't disappoint us tomorrow.  Seriously, Rach, do you really want it to be known that Meghan McCain was tougher on Comey?

Edited by ScoobieDoobs.
2

Share Post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TexasGal said:

That guy was horrible.  What with music major and ?!?!

I believe he was trying to do some sort of witty retort on her "face the music" reference to going to court. He was going for something like "I'm not scared of trial. I'm a music major I can face the music all day". Unfortunately, it didn't work out so well.

It does seem that either he negotiated poorly, or she just wanted out so badly that she bailed at the first opening and there was no talking to her.

1

Share Post


Link to post

Yeah, add me to the group that doesn’t get what  Rachel's perplexed by. Most news outlets do not pay money for stories—it's not considered good journalistic practice. Only the trashy tabloids do it. Karen McDougal is at a point in her life where she's not trying to make beaucoup bucks or get any other exposure out of the National Enquirer, she just wants to be able to tell the truth to legitimate news organizations. If for any reason she does make money from her story, she gives 10% to NE up to $75K (less than they paid her to begin with!)—the lawyer should definitely have emphasized that more. Anyway, he got his client what she wanted—that's a win.

I'm glad Rachel went back to the Flint story. Governor Snyder should rename himself Snidely Whiplash. Is he trying to become the face of evil?!

1

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ahisma said:

Yeah, add me to the group that doesn’t get what  Rachel's perplexed by.

She was perplexed by the timing of the settlement and that the lawyer missed an opportunity to obtain records through disclosure from Trump. Karen's lawyer kind of answered the first question but not the second. The second attorney that was on (can't remember his name, the former US Attorney) answered both questions. On the first issue, he said that AMI decided that they didn't want to fight two legal battles at the same time and the civil battle was the lesser of the battles. They made an offer that Karen was happy with- got her out of the contract, she didn't have to pay the entire $150,000 back, only 10% up to $75,000, and no more obligations to AMI. She apparently wasn't after anything else (like extra money for pain and suffering or whatever). So she got what she wanted. As far as the second issue, SDNY will still be able to get any documents pertaining to the AMI case despite the civil case being dismissed, and in fact would be able to get more documents above and beyond what a civil case could ask for. And I bet they already have them ;)

Rachel was also a little perplexed about how Karen was already out there telling her story when she wasn't out of her contract. It sounded like her attorney was saying she didn't tell it before the lawsuit because she was afraid of being sued by Cohen (like Stormy) but once they filed the lawsuit she felt protected by that filing and could tell some of her story. It's still a little wonky of an excuse. I bet we hear a lot more about that 10 month affair now. She has a lot more to tell than Stormy. Remember, Stormy already told her whole story back in 2011; Karen hasn't said anything other than "we had a 10 month affair" and that's it.

2

Share Post


Link to post

I really liked Rach spotlighting AMI's super sleazy maneuver of having Karen's previous lawyer push her to sign a contract which conveniently benefited AMI & Trump way more than her, while also shutting her up.  AMI (uh, The National Enquirer -- well, actually David Pecker) is gross.

And I also liked how her guest Chuck Rosenberg said with a really dramatic pause that the timing of this sudden settlement, given what's going on now with Cohen, is probably not a coincidence.  Ya think?

I keep thinking about the first woman Bill O'Reilly had to settle with.  She got 9 million bucks!  In comparison, cheapo Trump throws crumbs.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I did not realize the entire hour on Thursday would be with James Comey -- this is what Chris Hayes just said on his program to promote TRMS.  I will skip the interview and will count on you all to let me (and others!) know if we should watch this three hours later.  I feel like I have heard his story so much just via watching coverage of his many other appearances. 

Edited by jjj.
1

Share Post


Link to post

Rachel.....STFU and get to Comey already.  Your dissertations are making me dislike your show.  

1

Share Post


Link to post

I lost patience & switched over to Jake Tapper interviewing Comey.  He is even more maddening with Jake Tapper -- being cagey as hell, avoiding answers with constant Idk's or "I can't answer that" or a convenient "read my book".  I came to this not liking Comey.  I really dislike him now.  Switched back when Rach finally, finally, finally got to interviewing him.  He's no diff with Rachel than he was with Tapper.  But Tapper was obviously losing patience with Comey.  Can't blame him for that.  He's annoying as shit.

Rachel hasn't lost her cool, & she did get in a dig about asking him questions he might actually be able to answer.  Well, at least Rach is getting in some questions about the memos which just were released.  Jeez, Comey ain't answering nothing in the least bit interesting about them.  Ugh, Comey sucks!  This would be a complete & total waste of time, if not for Rachel reading these memos aloud.  Oh Rach, I know you were psyched & excited about getting this interview, but this is a whole lotta nothing.

Avenatti is way more fun to watch than this clown!

Edited by ScoobieDoobs.
4

Share Post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I lost patience & switched over to Jake Tapper interviewing Comey.  He is even more maddening with Jake Tapper -- being cagey as hell, avoiding answers with constant Idk's or "I can't answer that" or a convenient "read my book".  I came to this not liking Comey.  I really dislike him now.  Switched back when Rach finally, finally, finally got to interviewing him.  He's no diff with Rach than he was with Tapper.  But Tapper was obviously losing patience with Comey.  Can't blame him for that.  He's annoying as shit.

Rach hasn't lost her cool, & she did get in a dig about asking him questions he might actually be able to answer.  Well, at least Rach is getting in some questions about the memos which just were released.  Jeez, Comey ain't answering nothing in the least bit interesting about them.  Ugh, Comey sucks!  This would be a complete & total waste of time, if not for Rach reading these memos aloud.  I know you were psyched & excited about getting this interview, Rach, but this is a whole lotta nothing.

I have been in a grouchy mood, and assumed it was just me who was irritated at this interview buildup and actual event (watched a couple of minutes).  If this had been the *first* interview, it would be so much more interesting.  But Rachel is just getting rewarmed hash of what has been served up for the past week or so, to far lesser interviewers than her. 

1

Share Post


Link to post

Actually, the Comey interview with Stephanopoulos is really quite good.  I recommend watching it or reading the transcript.  This could have been totally avoided.  I'd rather watch a regular ep of Rachel than this waste of time.

By now he's got nothing left to say except Idk & read my book.  This has happened to Rachel before.  She gets all excited about getting an interview with someone in the news -- except she gets to be the 100th person to interview him/her.  Not good.  I figured, given Rachel's now much higher ratings, she wouldn't be in such a position anymore.  But I guess she still is -- certainly if the yentas on The View got to him first & he gave them a more interesting routine than he's giving her.  Sorry, Rach, but this is a snooze.  Rachel's trying, but it's dull as fuck.  Ya gotta get to these peeps first, Rach!

Oy, Rach, who cares what Comey thinks of Rudy being hired as Trump's new lawyer?  And anyway, he's giving pretty much no answers to what he thinks about anything.  Wow, this interview was a total fail.  Learn from this one, Rachel.  If you're gonna be the 8 millionth to interview someone, especially someone as cagey, dull, and unlikable as Comey -- skip it!

Edited by ScoobieDoobs.
1

Share Post


Link to post

Wow - Lawrence kept Rachel on for 9 minutes into his show. That's the longest I've ever seen. When he asked her one question, Rachel responded Comey was still there, and he's 6'8". I met him once, and my first thought was - boy howdy - you are tall!

1

Share Post


Link to post

I thought Rachel's last question on Loretta Lynch got muddled -- or at least Comey's answer was once again cagey & I was lost on what he was saying.  I get that Rachel was rightly making a point about how he made some really questionable implications about Lynch in his book (almost seeming to blame her for his actions relating to Hillary), but his answer was unclear & Rachel sheepishly let it go.  I feared she would do this -- and I groaned that she ended the interview with this.  Ugh, this was such a fail on so many levels.

1

Share Post


Link to post

The Maddow to O'Donnell handoff went 9 minutes into Lawrence's show. At the end he shared that the last tweet he responded to before his show was one that said "Give Rachel your airtime tonight" so he told Rach "and here we are, glad to oblige, anytime" (paraphrased). Maybe Rach asked all the right questions and that's why she got so many "I can't answer that" or "I can't answer that, well, I can, but I can't."

1

Share Post


Link to post

I actually thought Rachel's interview was very interesting.  She had the advantage of the memos that were just leaked.  His previous interviews just talked about stuff in his book.  No one else asked him about the Loretta Lynch thing.  No one else asked him about his description (in the book) of Rudy Guiliani.   In his interview, Stephen Colbert had asked Comey about his statement about Hillary Clinton and Comey seemed very uncomfortable in his answers.  I'm glad Rachel didn't take up more time with rehashing that.  I found her interview with Comey fascinating .  She talked about things I hadn't heard before, but I didn't see all his previous interviews.  

11

Share Post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, SierraMist said:

She had the advantage of the memos that were just leaked.

I don't know. You'd think it would be an advantage, but it actually seemed like she was hamstrung by those breaking so close to the interview. She said at one point that she was reading stuff she hadn't seen before, and it seemed pretty muddled despite knowing that she put in a ton of preparation for it. Bottom line I don't think that was an advantage.

I'm just disappointed that I didn't get more out of it.

I did find it amusing watching Rachel's face as Lawrence kept jabbering like she was wondering when it was going to end.  

Edited by vb68.
3

Share Post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, vb68 said:

I did find it amusing watching Rachel's face as Lawrence kept jabbering like she was wondering when it was going to end.  

I know.  She looked like she was ready to call it a night and and Lawrence kept talking and talking.  But then she did jump in at the end like she usually does.  She's such a pro.

4

Share Post


Link to post

She is a pro.  But I had to turn her off on LOD.  Man, that was painful to watch.  I suspect Rachel knew just how lousy this interview was.  LOD was being kind, but Rachel looked like she wanted to go get a drink badly & forget about this one ASAP.  It's OK, Rach.  This ain't your thing.  Go back to your usual stuff -- please?

2

Share Post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SierraMist said:

I actually thought Rachel's interview was very interesting

I did, too. She did have the new news about the memos and about Giuliani to work with. That didn’t always work out since she hadn't seen the memos yet and Comey hadn't seen them in a year, but it added to the authenticity.

On the Lynch question at the end, I think she got there over several clarifications and iterations—essentially, she told Comey that the way it came across in the book, Comey had to come out totally separate from Lynch because stuff would get out that would show Lynch to be compromised (insinuating that she was). By the end, Comey basically said that he couldn’t say but that he absolutely did not believe any of the aspersions. It sounded like the allegation was that Lynch had been pressuring Comey, and he would know.

I know Comey is out and doesn't know, but Lordy, I hope the investigation into whether the NY FBI was leaking to Giuliani comes up with an answer! 

2

Share Post


Link to post

I come down on the 'good interview' side of things. I thought the angles of Rachel's questions were not the same-old that everybody else was doing, and I was interested in how Comey reacted. He seemed very much 'the witness on the stand' with Rachel in a way that none of the other interviews have made him look. By that I mean that he was much less 'Heeeeeey, buy my book, and let's dish a bit and roll our eyes!' Pushing back against his Loretta Lynch story warmed my heart's cockles. His retreating to 'she didn't do anything wrong' when his book implies the contrary [cough!mysogyny!cough!] doesn't undo it, but it helps. So, basically, what Ben Wittes said about the interview on Lawrence's show.

And because I want to keep my shallow-streak going here, I eyed with some mirth at how much Comey did not fit underneath Rachel's (see-through) desk. It's not like she's tiny, either! There just was not enough leg room for Comey. 

4

Share Post


Link to post

I kept falling asleep, both times I tried to watch it last night which I guess is a sign.  I'll try again tonight.  But I was amused by this:

12 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rachel hasn't lost her cool, & she did get in a dig about asking him questions he might actually be able to answer

And then at one point when she was asking him about the memos - which I was really confused about because I had no idea they'd been released (see napping) - and as they cut to commercial you could hear her say something like "oh, right here it says..." and Comey started to lean forward to read whatever it was.  That really amused me for some reason.

4

Share Post


Link to post

So was Rachel at a bit of a disadvantage, that the memos came out just as she was on air & interviewing him?  Not really.  The memos speak for themselves & Comey clearly would not have shed anything new on them.  I'm looking forward to Rachel's analysis on the memos tonite & already forgotten about that bunch of nothing from last nite.

1

Share Post


Link to post
11 hours ago, ahisma said:

I did, too. She did have the new news about the memos and about Giuliani to work with.

Washington Post agrees with you.

Quote

The past 12 hours brought two very big revelations involving former FBI director James B. Comey, President Trump and the Russia investigation, and they must be looked at side by side to fully grasp their collective importance....

2.  Comey confirmed to Rachel Maddow that before getting fired, he ordered an internal investigation into whether Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani had been privately tipped off by people in the FBI two weeks before the election that Comey would soon announce that “new” emails had been found, reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Importantly, Comey confirmed to Maddow that he doesn’t know the answer to that question, because he was fired before that investigation concluded.

4

Share Post


Link to post

Friday nights A block, about the similarities between the DNC suit and (what else, again) Watergate.  Rachael is killing it with the one liners, in reference to history repeating itself, she said:

'History is plagiarizing itself.'

9

Share Post


Link to post

For Thursday's Comey interview, because there were so many other interviews for comparison, I realized that one of the things I really appreciate about Rachel is the precision of her questions.

10

Share Post


Link to post

Great follow up on Ezra Cohen Watnick's "miraculous" rising up from the graveyard of Rachel's Trump-death-board & landing as an "adviser" in the Justice Dept. -- and ordered by Trump to be in this position.  Er, huh???  How in the hell is this young putz in ANY way qualified for this position -- and particularly given the way he crashed & burned in his previous position in the Trump admin? 

OK, this story has been reported elsewhere -- on CNN, & in The Times & Bloomberg, but please keep your spotlight on this little roachie, Rach!  This smells stinko & I got the definite impression Rach thinks so too.

4

Share Post


Link to post

Ha!  Total burn on Rand Paul.  But don't worry Rachel, I never believed he would vote "no". 

7

Share Post


Link to post

Rach only showed Nunes & Paul for a brief moment (thankfully), but I feel like she should add an L for loser to the foreheads of each of these clowns every time she shows 'em.  Oh, I know Rach wouldn't do that, but it's what I think every time I see the mugs of these 2.

2

Share Post


Link to post

I loved the way she said, “We broke the board!”

6

Share Post


Link to post

Every time they bring up the board and something goes technically wonky, my first thought is Russian Hackers! I despair that I've come to this state, honestly, but here we are.

5

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

I loved the way she said, “We broke the board!”

Maybe instead of the board, she should run a ticker at the bottom of the screen with all the names and titles of people who've left.  She might get all the names out by the end of the show.

1

Share Post


Link to post

If just 1 % of what Rachel reported about the WH Doctor, I just don't understand how he kept his job all this time.   As a lowly peon on my job, it does make me feel better that eventually, bad bosses are held accountable.  Though, I'm guessing from what Senator Tester said, the reason that they are listening is that it isn't lowly peons that are talking, its more important folks.  

4

Share Post


Link to post

Wow, everything Trump touches really does turn to manure, doesn't it? He talks up Setya Novanto, Novanto goes to prison for corruption. Ronny Jackson is basically known as a well-liked doctor, now his name is mud. At least Jackson probably won't go to prison like most of the other people who rode the Trump train.

3

Share Post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

If just 1 % of what Rachel reported about the WH Doctor, I just don't understand how he kept his job all this time.  

People hate firing people that rank near them, and will avoid it at nearly all costs. (Firing peons is comparatively easy, as the empathy level is lower.) Even the dude who made 'you're fired' his catchphrase wants Ronny to quit to save him the anxiety of firing him! Usually what happens is that they get sidelined or ignored until they move on to other jobs or retire.

1

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ahisma said:

Ronny Jackson is basically known as a well-liked doctor, now his name is mud.

I can't help but think that not only will the VA nomination be torpedoed, but that his Navy career might be on the line as well.  Rachel is the only one I've seen who's talking about the IG report, but it seems like that report should have caused a lot more waves at the time.

7

Share Post


Link to post
5 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I can't help but think that not only will the VA nomination be torpedoed, but that his Navy career might be on the line as well.  Rachel is the only one I've seen who's talking about the IG report, but it seems like that report should have caused a lot more waves at the time.

He might even lose his medical license.

1

Share Post


Link to post

Either way his Navy career is effectively ended - there was an article a week or so ago pointing out he'd lose at least a million in accumulated pension and benefits if he became VA chief....  But this kind of publicity (and it's a large enough number of consistent complaints that Tester is taking it seriously - Tester has never seemed to be the kind of guy who will score points for politics) should finish him in the WH, and I suspect the Navy will be strongly encouraging him to retire.

As to how Obama & Bush had a high regard for him - he's not going to be careless with his principal patient, and apparently he does have a magical "bedside", as in patient interaction, manner.  Finding out that the doctor who is treating you so well may have been occasionally drunk while doing so should be a pisser.

I wrote this guy off with that absurd medical "report" of T's health.  It was Sean Spicer all over again, except much more telegenic.

It's TTS - Trump Taint Syndrome.  

7

Share Post


Link to post
On 4/16/2018 at 9:22 PM, jjj said:

Who would have thought that the secret Cohen client would be so much more juicy than the (alleged) secret Dennison love child?  Just watched Rachel read the transcript again, and it was even more hilarious the second time. 

I like Monday's exhilarated Rachel much more than Friday's fox-hole-digging Rachel.

I would bet they giggled and danced for hours.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now