Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

jjj

Member
  • Content Count

    3.5k
  • Joined

Posts 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 didn’t even reach out to ask for the password."  Full article (several free articles per month at VF, so choose wisely!):  https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/donald-trump-directed-him-to-commit-a-crime-michael-cohen-nails-the-casket-shut-on-his-former-boss  

    11 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

    Hmmm, interesting.  I thought the reference was to one of the youngies -- like Daniel Goldman. 

    Yes, Rossi and Rosenburg both worked in the Eastern District of Virginia.  

    Shallow note:  Rachel seemed to have longer eyelashes than usual this evening; maybe it was just me noticing this?  

    • Like 2
  2. On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 6:57 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

    In what seems like an overload of former prosecutors who are commentators on MSNBC, this guy [Gene Rossi] stands out.  He's super knowledgeable & he's got an engaging personality -- which I thought was surprising, given that he said he was a tax attorney (and they're usually dry as a bone).

    When Rach interviewed him, she seemed to imply it was his first appearance.  I bet it was his first apearance on MSNBC.  Sorry, but I thought his appearance with Rach was great.  Not only was he smart & confident in an understated & appealing way, he stated very astute observations on the judge -- that only he would know, having appeared before him.  

    And he made very specific predictions of what Manafort will be found guilty of.  Let's see if he turns out to be right.  I was very impressed with him.  Rach seemed to be too.  Don't be surprised if he turns up again on her show.  I'm not surprised he's turning up all over the MSNBC lineup.  This guy is a really good guest.

    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!  

    • Like 2
  3. 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?" 

    • Like 2
  4. There is no set I can discern -- just cameras in different locations.  It's like watching a bad conference call.

    30 minutes ago, novhappy said:

    No one on set. Show is lifeless. You know it’s bad when the weatherman has the most on screen presence!

    • Like 5
  5. 2 hours ago, ahisma said:

    I had been a little surprised that Brennan picked Rachel for his first interview—she's widely considered to be a lefty on a "biased" network. But it makes sense to me now. I think foremost, she's a Rhodes scholar, very well versed in the issues of the past couple of years, thoughtful, and genuine and forthright. He came across as extremely intelligent and deeply principled, so it was an excellent match. It's just too bad everyone who dismisses MSNBC won't watch the interview. 

    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

    • Like 8
  6. 16 minutes ago, gatopretoNYC said:

    Blech. I have zero interest in watching that slimeball Bannon. I'm disappointed Ari/MSNBC is wasting airtime on him.

    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.  

    • Like 1
  7. 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." 

    I missed the date thing at the end, but assume it was about the fact that this is a palindrome week.  

    • Like 5
  8. 1 minute ago, Lava VaVoom said:

    Actually, I think he looks like he stopped drinking.

    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. 

    • Like 2
  9. 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!  

    • Like 3
  10. 1 hour ago, suomi said:

    Any thoughts here regarding how the names of jurors came up? There were issues with specific jurors for that to be the case, right? 

    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-deliberations-in-paul-manaforts-tax--and-bank-fraud-trial/2018/08/16/d2b0f486-a170-11e8-8e87-c869fe70a721_story.html?utm_term=.c87db2229e6a 

    • Like 3
  11. 4 minutes ago, stormy said:

    I tuned into Hardball and Ari was there with a clip of his interview. I'll have to read your analysis. I can't watch Bannon. He looks like Professor Moody (Harry Potter).

    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! 

    • Like 2
  12. 33 minutes ago, car54 said:

    I know Lawrence doesn't usually work on Friday nights but I kind of wish he was going head to head with Bannon.

    Ari is a good interviewer and he's done really well getting things out of Republican operatives on his own show, so I'm sure he will do a good job.  That's a pretty big "get" for him.    First his intervention with Maya Wiley and Sam Nunberg, now this.   He's the GOP whisperer.

    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".   

    • Like 4
  13. 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! 

    • Like 1
  14. 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 jury, and the fact that some documents will not be unsealed because they could reveal names of jury members.  The judge also did say he is surprised at the level of attention he is receiving in this case, and does refer to the same thing Rachel heard about him following some coverage:  https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/17/manafort-verdict-latest-news-updates-783089  (Judge is also doing a soft ban of reporters who will run out of the courtroom as the verdicts come in, asking them to watch from the overflow room if they need to run out in mid-verdict, according to this article.)

    16 hours ago, Cajungirl64 said:

    I love when she has Chuck on though. She tries so hard not to sound panicky, but he knows her too well and does an excellent job with that smooth, calm voice of trying to talk her off the ledge at least for the moment (thus, talking most of us off the ledge, too, until the next insane thing happens). But it's obvious she's as nervous as the rest of us that the jury asking for the definition of "reasonable doubt" is a bad sign. Then of course, Brian Williams, while interviewing his go-to guy for the Manafort case, basically came out and confirmed that line of thinking. Which totally took away any zen I might have felt from Rach and Chuck's chat. Gaaaaaahhh! Gonna chew up some Xanax like baby aspirin.

    • Like 3
  15. 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!

    • Like 1
  16. 2 minutes ago, attica said:

    Chuck! Chuck! Chuck! 

    Btw, he did mispronounce 'imprimatur', which was cute that he thought he might.  It's impriMAHtur. I have been in his boots on that in my life.

    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.  

    • Like 3
  17. 27 minutes ago, FoundTime said:

    I think this is a shoutout to Gilda Radner's Emily Litella character on the original SNL. She was known for reading the story "Tiny Kingdom" where she did the same "reading" of that phrase:

    https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/looks-at-books/n8612

    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!  

    • Like 2
  18. 28 minutes ago, kassygreene said:

    If the two biggest loans in a bank's history add up to $16 million (or whatever it was), it is a teeny tiny bank.  And apparently Manafort didn't make any payments?  I'm surprised the bank still exists, because it's not difficult for the Feds to shut down a bank and "persuade" another bank to take it over (bless the FDIC).  A few years ago I think we had this happen to three or four local small banks.  Bye bye bank name, bye bye bank executives, but the customer money is protected.

    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 of stupidity and astonishing ambition, given his limited range of experience.  He will pay for this -- will Manafort?  I almost felt bad that Rachel was mocking his spelling and Wikipedia pasting, because he so clearly did not understand the deep, deep pile of s--t he was jumping into.  But he was aspiring to public office, so it's all public now.  

    • Like 3
  19. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

    Rachel said the prosecution would give closing arguments followed by the defense.  My understanding has always been that because the prosecution presents first and has the burden of proof, they get to sum up last.  Is my understanding obsolete?

     

    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, following jury instructions.  

    • Like 1
  20. 3 hours ago, FoundTime said:

    Oh, "perspective rolls." (Now I am imagining a still life of various bread products used to teach art students...well, perspective. Perhaps they can work that in on an imaginary season of The Great British Baking Show.) Apparently you don't have to know proper word usage or spelling to run a teeny, tiny bank in Wherever Town.

    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 opinion comments that could have/might hurt the prosecution.  

    Perspective rolls:  "Close is big, distant is smaller.  Class dismissed.":

                                          rolls - perspective.png

    • Like 17
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size