Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

jjj

Member
  • Content Count

    3.5k
  • Joined

Everything posted by jjj

  1. Yes, I thought the Lanny Davis interview was amazing. And he really threw the president under the bus (for the second or third time today, the others in court). Emily Jane Fox was another great interview, with long-term access to Cohen, including late today. And remember yesterday when Rachel was going "hmmmm, if Cohen is cooperating, why don't the Feds have his Blackberry password?" Well, here is the answer in Fox's article late today: "communication was so limited that although prosecutors filed a letter in court noting that they couldn’t access one of Cohen’s Blackberry devices, they d
  2. Gene Rossi was on a show earlier today, along with Chuck Rosenberg, and at one point, the host said that Rosenberg used to be Rossi's boss!
  3. Bill Kristol seems to be talking to someone sitting on his left -- is he actually on a set with someone?
  4. So Joe (rightly) has a segment making fun of the idiot president's "CBC" misstatements, then comes back and says "Alll the news that's print to fit." At least he looked a little confused after he said it, like "what did I say?"
  5. Now they are all starting sentences and stopping, because no one can tell who is talking. It's not rude cross talk, just people not knowing when to talk and when to yield.
  6. There is no set I can discern -- just cameras in different locations. It's like watching a bad conference call.
  7. President Jimmy Carter and his wife watch "Law & Order": "They watch Atlanta Braves games or 'Law & Order'." The rest of the article is good reading, also! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/08/17/feature/the-un-celebrity-president-jimmy-carter-shuns-riches-lives-modestly-in-his-georgia-hometown/?utm_term=.54d07f8df794
  8. And Rachel said near the end that she particularly appreciated that he sat down for the interview, because he knows that she has publicly disagreed with him in the past: "for all my disagreements with you on a number of different policy matters, I have profound and earnest respect for your service." Here is the full transcript of the interview: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rachel-maddow-interviews-john-brennan-read-the-full-transcript
  9. This is the only way I would watch him (and I only had it on in the background) -- on MSNBC, with a critic as interviewer. But it's useful to get a sense of what he is saying to devout followers. it is worth watching for the panel reaction, if you can FF through the Bannon parts.
  10. It was great to get the Brennan interview, and also brave of both of them to do it live -- I had thought ahead of time that it might be a taped interview (nothing wrong with that) that might have been edited. I noticed that Rachel called the 2016 events "the Russian attack," as opposed to interference, and perhaps she has used that term previously. But "attack" was certainly the perspective of Brennan: "Nothing short of treasonous." Rachel: "Nothing short of treason means treason...it means you think the President is serving another country rather our own?" Brennan: "Well, yeah."
  11. Actually, I think you are right. Wow, the end of that episode, from the journalist (I have to get the names on the repeat): "I never want to see another interview with him, and I hope everything he attempts, he fails at." This was a very good organization for the show: interview/disgusted panel/interview/outraged panel/interview/full blast condemnation.
  12. It is very interesting, and good planning, that Ari is mixing panel comments alongside the interview segments. One panelist (sorry, not able to get all the names) basically said this interview shows how reprehensible Bannon is. I'll have to watch the repeat to catch the panel comments. I am sure that between Omarosa and Bannon tonight and Brennan on MTP Sunday and the Manafort verdict, Trump will be removing security clearances every day to try to distract us. No, that will not at all be obvious!
  13. This WaPo article is more clear: media outlets were actually asking for the names of jurors. Unsealing documents did not seem problematic for jurors, because names and identifying information can be redacted. But this is different. This article also says that because of threats, the judge is being protected by U.S. Marshals during the trial, and is staying at a hotel during the weekdays of the trial. I assume his home is also receiving some protection now. So, yes, this judge fully appreciates the danger of releasing juror names. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/jury-begins-delibera
  14. I do not believe I have ever watched a Bannon interview. Frankly, the clips I saw provided enough of a glimpse into the denial atmosphere of the White House to make it potentially worth watching. But I am ready to mute if necessary. Hopefully others will post analysis -- I doubt it will be from me!
  15. It is interesting that Ari is hosting the interview on Lawrence's show rather than Ari's show. I assume if the "get" had been for "The Last Word," Lawrence would have certainly done the interview -- and it was pre-taped, because I saw the clips already. So, someone must have decided this would be better in prime time. I think they are right -- but still some finagling of whose show gets the "get".
  16. Tonight, Ari Melber is guest hosting for Lawrence -- but stay tuned! He is interviewing Steve Bannon, and I saw some clips earlier today on MSNBC. The bits I saw have Bannon saying the midterm elections are a referendum on Trump, and that Trump is being told, "don't worry about losing the House" -- but Bannon said the Republicans are not taking this seriously enough. I'll watch that!
  17. Interestingly, the bookends to her show, "All In" and "Last Word", had prosecuting U.S. attorneys saying, pish, juries always ask about "reasonable doubt" and what it means. Tonight, Rachell will hand off to Ari Melber (our fave guest host!) -- and he has an interview with Steve Bannon -- so: Rachel with Brennan handing off to Ari with Bannon. Quite an evening. (I've seen previews, will post over in the Lawrence O'D thread). Wow, Rachel has discussed the judge, jurors, and sealed documents so much that I am posting this article about threats to the judge, potentially to the jur
  18. I don't get to see the show much because of the time difference on the west coast, but I can't even remember the last time I saw Mika. If it were not for this thread, I'd think she had left the show. And I rarely see Joe. Kasie looks great. Oh, just heard the lightning/thunder for Kasie's intro!
  19. This article is not about the details of the case, but about the very disciplined attorneys whose remarks Rachel has been reading in the transcripts. Even the contents their meal orders are not revealed! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/us/politics/special-counsel-investigation-mueller.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_180817
  20. At least he used it in the correct context! (As I would expect!) You know he will be looking it up later. That opening segment clips were way too many exhibits of "that's classified, sorry" for my taste.
  21. "Hi, Judge!" (I love that Rachel was entranced by the idea that the judge was watching her show.) "Glad you're watching, Judge Ellis! Get that man a Nielsen box."
  22. What a good catch -- Rachel might have heard Emily Litella, or a parent using that lilt, when she was a teeeeny, tiny child!? Her cadence is exactly the same!
  23. I think Rachel likes any opportunity to say "teeeeny tiny [whatever]". And yes, this bank qualifies in the category. I suspect the depths of this fraud have only become apparent to the bank in the past two weeks; and I am afraid that the stupidity of Calk will put specific people out of their jobs, and probably make the bank ripe for assimilation into another bank via the FDIC. They are very experienced at sweeping in on a Friday afternoon and making it a whole new bank by Monday, in the most efficient and humane way possible. But Calk was a classic pigeon waiting to be hunted, combination
  24. Not obsolete; the plaintiff historically has presented its closing argument first, then the defendant. The plaintiff does have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal at the very end. I'm sure it is in Wikipedia (!), but here is a summary from the American Bar Association: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/closingarguments.html I read that the judge wants to reduce the time of closing arguments from two hours each to 90 minutes each. If they start in the morning, the jury could have the case by afternoon, followin
  25. That is hilarious, "perspective rolls" as models for art students. I have no idea what Steve Kornacki just showed us about the Kansas election (there was a Chart, but it made things worse). I'm sure I will understand more on the repeat. Loved Rachel's reading of the back-and-forth in the courtroom today, and her news that the sealed transcripts would be released at the conclusion of the trial. I have to admit, this really went by fast; will the jury need more time to deliberate than the trial took? And I was delighted that Rachel focused on the judge being called out on his opin
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size