S01.E20: Bombshell

[jhlipton]

2 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

McCain did receive those questions.

With regards to the "first Indian British PM", I interpreted that to mean someone of Indian heritage who is a British citizen gaining the Prime Minister's Office. She may not actually be an Indian citizen but her lineage is definitely Indian.

re McCain -- Similar but nowhere near the same:

Quote

Questions in 2008 about the presidential eligibility of McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone to two American parents, never reached the level of Obama or even Cruz, and McCain was helped out by his fellow senators and even Democratic presidential candidates agreeing that he was eligible.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/there-was-a-very-real-birther-debate-about-john-mccain/?utm_term=.66bacb52c384

 

re the PM: That's what I took them to mean, but it was poorly worded.

[aemom]

As an English Canadian who works every day with both French Canadians and French-from-France people, there is a definite difference in accents.

As for Hannah recognizing Jason's ring, I'm pretty sure that I saw engraving inside when she was examining it, and that's when she mentioned Jason's name.

Edited May 13, 2017 by AEMom
Typo

[jhlipton]

1 hour ago, AEMom said:

As for Hannah recognizing Jason's ring, I'm pretty sure that I saw engraving inside when she was examining it, and that's when she mentioned Jason's name.

Maybe it was super-hot in the container and she saw this:

[paigow]

Hannah: Mr. President, I must get to Mordor within 24 hours....

[TimWil]

That limo chat between 

18 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

McCain did receive those questions.

With regards to the "first Indian British PM", I interpreted that to mean someone of Indian heritage who is a British citizen gaining the Prime Minister's Office. She may not actually be an Indian citizen but her lineage is definitely Indian.

He put it incorrectly. The term is Anglo-Indian NOT Indian British. Anglo-Indian is the term used for UK nationals of Indian heritage. Somebody didn't do their homework.

I see Kiefer continues the grand tradition of pronouncing the word "nuclear" as "nucular" as he did on 24. How comforting.

The vicious manner in which Alex threw down that TV remote did it for me. That and that sneer of hers when she said "Tom, I'm always on your side."  She. Is. Evil! EVIL, I tell you!

Edited May 13, 2017 by TimWil

[queenanne]

I am starting to feel like... possibly you can have a show where "the Designated Survivor is worried about governing and how he learns"; *or* you can have a story about "How the FBI unraveled a huge terrorist conspiracy", but you can't... have both?  At least last episode, they tried to balance the show better and line up less President Kiefer, which could be a step in the right direction (making it ensemble), if the other plots are good (please note I said "if").  This week they went all in, on what felt like fifty minutes of President Kiefer... it's like the old Reese's Peanut Butter Cup commercials.  "You got chocolate in my peanut butter!", or the old Sesame Street (?) "one of these things just doesn't belong here..."  

Edited May 13, 2017 by queenanne

[Mrs peel]

23 hours ago, oakville said:

It was probably easier to get a French Canadian actress in Canada. I think the show gets tax credits for filming in Canada, so they have to hire a certain percentage of Canadian Actors. Kiefer is Canadian & so is the White House Villain employee.

I guess the GOP majority in Congress would want her to resign as Speaker or not be VP.

I get the House might want her to resign.  But she could have become a pretty well paid lobbyist or consultant.  Instead, although the show hasn't shown her to be particularly interested in Education, she agrees to a pretty low level cabinet position?  That I don't get.

[TimWil]

Kiefer was notorious on 24 for being instrumental in getting Canadian actors on his show, which shot primarily in LA. Remember the disastrous Alberta Watson who played Erin Driscoll? He was also very fond of actors from all around the Commonwealth-the UK, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, most prominently. It wasn't a coincidence that so many came from those countries.

As for the French president she looked unfortunately at times like a man in drag. If it had been a real man in drag it might have been more interesting. Like Michael/Dorothy in Tootsie.

Edited May 13, 2017 by TimWil

[Dowel Jones]

4 hours ago, Mrs peel said:

But she could have become a pretty well paid lobbyist or consultant.  Instead, although the show hasn't shown her to be particularly interested in Education, she agrees to a pretty low level cabinet position?  That I don't get.

Unless you're planning to get the entire House, Senate, Supreme Court, POTUS and VPOTUS, and the Cabinet to have a special meeting for some inexplicable reason just below Hoover Dam.

[Danielg342]

8 hours ago, Mrs peel said:

I get the House might want her to resign.  But she could have become a pretty well paid lobbyist or consultant.  Instead, although the show hasn't shown her to be particularly interested in Education, she agrees to a pretty low level cabinet position?  That I don't get.

It was, at best, lazy writing. The writer must have thought, "since this week is 'the education episode', I'll tie in the plot about Kimble to have her saved by becoming the Education Secretary!"

It's emblematic of the writing on this show- no forward thinking.

6 hours ago, TimWil said:

Kiefer was notorious on 24 for being instrumental in getting Canadian actors on his show, which shot primarily in LA. Remember the disastrous Alberta Watson who played Erin Driscoll? He was also very fond of actors from all around the Commonwealth-the UK, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, most prominently. It wasn't a coincidence that so many came from those countries.

As for the French president she looked unfortunately at times like a man in drag. If it had been a real man in drag it might have been more interesting. Like Michael/Dorothy in Tootsie.

It rankles me a little that the actors Kiefer's getting are no-names even in Canada. There's quite a few people up here who should have their shot on U.S. television. Where's guys like Peter Keleghan, Yannic Bisson (hey, Murdoch might be fun on this show), Eric Peterson or Lorne Cardinal? Just to name a few. We've got plenty of vets that might appreciate a shot.

As for the French President- I assumed that the accent was the actress' natural accent. It still felt kind of weird, though, and, well, I must say I might have liked someone whose English was clearer. She was hard to hear at times.

9 hours ago, queenanne said:

I am starting to feel like... possibly you can have a show where "the Designated Survivor is worried about governing and how he learns"; *or* you can have a story about "How the FBI unraveled a huge terrorist conspiracy", but you can't... have both?  At least last episode, they tried to balance the show better and line up less President Kiefer, which could be a step in the right direction (making it ensemble), if the other plots are good (please note I said "if").  This week they went all in, on what felt like fifty minutes of President Kiefer... it's like the old Reese's Peanut Butter Cup commercials.  "You got chocolate in my peanut butter!", or the old Sesame Street (?) "one of these things just doesn't belong here..."  

I agree. Hannah often feels like she's in a different series, probably because she should be. I get that perhaps as part of the contract Kiefer wants to be the star of the show, and that perhaps Maggie Q only agreed to be a part of this if she was an "alternate lead", but it begs the question- why bring in both?

[waving feather]

When the show first started in the pilot, it was written and framed as a terrorist / government conspiracy thriller. That is why I continued to watch. But somewhere down the line, it became a day-to-day political affair, which has been incredibly boring.

[marinw]

5 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Where's guys like Peter Keleghan, Yannic Bisson (hey, Murdoch might be fun on this show), Eric Peterson or Lorne Cardinal? Just to name a few. We've got plenty of vets that might appreciate a shot

This is one of the many, many reasons I love The Expanse. They have Canadian actors aplenty. Warms my cold Canadian heart.

[queenanne]

5 hours ago, waving feather said:

When the show first started in the pilot, it was written and framed as a terrorist / government conspiracy thriller. That is why I continued to watch. But somewhere down the line, it became a day-to-day political affair, which has been incredibly boring.

True, but to some extent by the very nature of the show, "it can't not" take said path at some point.  The President is not going to throw up the Presidency and become Jack Bauer; thus the President needs something to do which cannot be "cozy up to the FBI constantly"; and Kiefer is the lead of the show.  They're using his name to sell it in the promo. He was cast as the wrong character if they wanted to keep it 100% a conspiracy thriller with the focus simultaneously 100% on him.  They need to focus on the less boring of the two workplaces (the FBI), if they want to do this, because the White House storyline/West Wing rip-offs, is basically a giant boring policy wonk dragging the plot down in comparison.  Any time they have to discuss policy, the plot comes to a screeching halt.  Take "Scandal" for example, which melds the two workplaces in a far more seamless manner - "what happens when the 'Fixer",' is also the President's lover?"  That makes the Fixer a known quantity to the existing president's staff, with already existing friends, allies, enemies, conflicts galore, etc., relationships she has independent of her lover - all interwoven into the fabric of the existing concept.  Designated Survivor, is a gold-star example of "high concept story which sounded good on paper but which is ultimately rendered unsustainable by its very premise."

Edited May 14, 2017 by queenanne

[Mrs peel]

14 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

Unless you're planning to get the entire House, Senate, Supreme Court, POTUS and VPOTUS, and the Cabinet to have a special meeting for some inexplicable reason just below Hoover Dam.

Season 2?

[TimWil]

If Alex is as EVIL! as I think she is I hope she kills both Emily and Hannah in the Season 2 premiere. She can do it offscreen, that would be OK.

[waving feather]

2 hours ago, TimWil said:

If Alex is as EVIL! as I think she is I hope she kills both Emily and Hannah in the Season 2 premiere. She can do it offscreen, that would be OK.

Aw, I will always have a soft spot for Maggie Q, even though her character on this show is so dumb. But Emily, though, I haven't found her charming since episode 1. I am not sure if it's the character or the actress. I think it's mainly the actress. Speaking of getting rid of people, can they get rid of Kirkman as well? Never gonna happen but I don't know if I can take much more of his sanctimonious speeches.

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, waving feather said:

Aw, I will always have a soft spot for Maggie Q, even though her character on this show is so dumb. But Emily, though, I haven't found her charming since episode 1. I am not sure if it's the character or the actress. I think it's mainly the actress. Speaking of getting rid of people, can they get rid of Kirkman as well? Never gonna happen but I don't know if I can take much more of his sanctimonious speeches.

Well, if they kill off his family, his speeches would likely be more Jack Bauer.

[TimWil]

7 hours ago, waving feather said:

 But Emily, though, I haven't found her charming since episode 1. I am not sure if it's the character or the actress. I think it's mainly the actress. 

I think so, too. I can predict exactly where in each scene she'll fold her arms. It would be my #1 priority to get rid of her early in Season 2 if I was Showrunner #4.

Edited May 15, 2017 by TimWil

[thuganomics85]

So, for the penultimate episode of the season, the A-plot is Kirkman and Moss basically trying to convince NATO about an arms reduction, only for it to all fall apart, once Abe's story is published.  I mean, that's not exactly a bad plot or anything, but it feels insignificant compared to everything else that is going on.  And the hopeful resolution with the French Prime Minister was weak, because all it basically amounted to was "We'll talk..... at the next summit."  Also, I was disappointed that there was any of the British Prime Minister, but I was moderately intrigued over her being young and possibly inexperienced as well, and was curious to see how Kirkman would play off someone like that.

I swear, I don't know if this is what they were going for, but Alex really came off almost sinister in her phone conversation with Kirkman. I really won't be surprised if she ends up turning bad.

Man, Seth, you can't even survive a quick flight to Toronto, without puking your guts out?  Well, at least he was able to not get bowled over by all the nonstop questions and accusations from the media.  And didn't have to hide in the bushes either!

Aaron and Emily's scene just felt like they wanted to reminded everyone that Aaron is still around and he and Emily use to be a thing.  Poor Aaron/Adam Canto.

Hannah briefly escapes and gets a mayday out, only to get captured again, have Lozano gloat about killing Jason, and then she wakes up in a van filled with bombs under the FBI headquarters, with numerous agents thinking she is here to blow it up.  Are they trying to set her up?

Abe so has a target on his back.

[Chas411]

9 hours ago, waving feather said:

Never gonna happen but I don't know if I can take much more of his sanctimonious speeches.

Hands down the worst part of the entire show for me. And There's a lot of issues with this show. His cringey speeches are actually obnoxiously naive at this point.

[queenanne]

1 hour ago, thuganomics85 said:

So, for the penultimate episode of the season, the A-plot is Kirkman and Moss basically trying to convince NATO about an arms reduction, only for it to all fall apart, once Abe's story is published.  I mean, that's not exactly a bad plot or anything, but it feels insignificant compared to everything else that is going on.  And the hopeful resolution with the French Prime Minister was weak, because all it basically amounted to was "We'll talk..... at the next summit."  Also, I was disappointed that there was any of the British Prime Minister, but I was moderately intrigued over her being young and possibly inexperienced as well, and was curious to see how Kirkman would play off someone like that.

I swear, I don't know if this is what they were going for, but Alex really came off almost sinister in her phone conversation with Kirkman. I really won't be surprised if she ends up turning bad.

Aaron and Emily's scene just felt like they wanted to reminded everyone that Aaron is still around and he and Emily use to be a thing.  Poor Aaron/Adam Canto.

Yeah, well lucky for Alex she's got a Generically Sinister Russian Mother, so anything's possible.

I agree the NATO plot wouldn't be bad, but let's not forget it was preceded by riveting arts education debates as the issue du jour, some 10 weeks after the entire U.S. government sans 3 individuals went boom.

And the irony is, if Adnan Canto were a woman they'd probably phase out Italia Ricci instead (assuming they are; they don't really seem to know what to do with either).  Because while Canto may not be tremendously worse than the experienced and skilled Kal Penn, both lap Ricci by several yards in the acting department.  She is nice to look at, though.  (And holy cow, I just looked at her filmography, and she's been series regular in like seven series so far.  Where's that "Home Alone" emoji when you need one??)

57 minutes ago, Chas411 said:

Hands down the worst part of the entire show for me. And There's a lot of issues with this show. His cringey speeches are actually obnoxiously naive at this point.

Don't forget the winsome aw-shucks head-ducking, lol.  And I say this as someone who has a bit of a crush on the man, so you know it's bad.

Edited May 15, 2017 by queenanne

[Roseanna]

On ‎11‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 4:36 PM, Blue Plastic said:

I think that was supposed to be the ring belonging to Jason Atwood, Hannah's former boss from the FBI who has been helping her try to find out what's going on with the conspiracy to bomb the Capitol.  Lozano shot Atwood point blank in the last episode and is apparently dead.  While Hannah was distracted from looking at the ring and realizing that Atwood must be dead, Lozano sneaked behind her and gave her yet another dose of knockout potion.

Lozano said that he killed one of Hannah's "family" (Atwood) on revenge because Hannah had killed his "bother", Macleish. But MacLeish wasn't shot By Hannah but his wife. And despite being "brothers", Macleish gave the order to kill Lozano (and in discussion with his wife, both believed that he had indeed been killed, not somebody who impersonated him). And Lozano killed Atwood because he spied the house where Mr Head-of-the Conspiracy was.  

 

On ‎11‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 8:45 PM, blackwing said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

someone digging a tunnel from a building across the street from the Hoover Building and planting explosives in the Hoover Building basement.  Which I found very unrealistic.

Nice to see Chuck.  Regarding this mole in the White House.  Aren't there cameras EVERYWHERE in the White House?  I would think you wouldn't be able to flatulate in the hallways without someone in security hearing it.  Much the same way the NSA supposedly listens in for key words in phone calls, wouldn't the White House speakers be designed to flag any mention of "Lozano" or similar words?  Also, if there are cameras everywhere, why couldn't Chuck have just called up the camera in the Cabinet Room as soon as the deletion started?  Or how about, you know, Mike asking someone...  "who was just in the Cabinet Room"?  I can't imagine it's a room that just anybody can walk in and out of.  Stupid.

 

I agree.

On ‎12‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 5:09 AM, dbell1 said:

I have no idea what this show is supposed to be anymore. The NATO summit was laughable

Kirkman is super super naive by believing that his word is enough.  Hasn't he read history? The British gave their word to Poland in 1939, but they didnät help then and then Churchill (and Roosevelt) betrayed in Yalta. 

One should never trust that any state does anything else for other states but what benefits its own interests. Finding common interests is the only sound basis for the alliance.

On ‎12‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 9:14 AM, SanDiegoInExile said:

This episode was dreadful. It didn't build up any hype/suspense for the Season Finale.  The Toronto Trip seemed pointless. The ocean voyage seemed pointless. The "technical savvy" of the Mole was lame. The phone call from the First Lady was (barely) Hallmark Movie material. 

I agree,

On ‎12‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 10:00 PM, Mrs peel said:

Which actually makes no sense.  Why would she recognize a plain gold band?  

At least in our country, there is an inscription inside the wedding ring: the name of the spouse and the date of wedding, sometime also a maxim.  But of course one could easily make a copy.

[jhlipton]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

At least in our country, there is an inscription inside the wedding ring: the name of the spouse and the date of wedding, sometime also a maxim.  But of course one could easily make a copy.

Here in the US, it's optional.  Neither mine nor my wife's (current or ex) has/had an inscription.

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, jhlipton said:

Here in the US, it's optional.  Neither mine nor my wife's (current or ex) has/had an inscription.

It's optional also here but most people use. Also in detective novels, when a missing person is found, the wedding ring is often one of the earliest signs of identity. 

But did I misinterpret? If Jason alive, Lozano could pressure Hannah to keep silent in order to keep him alive. But why should she believe him after Atwood's son was killed diespite the promise of the Mysterious Lady?

[Roseanna]

On ‎11‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 8:45 PM, blackwing said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

someone digging a tunnel from a building across the street from the Hoover Building and planting explosives in the Hoover Building basement.  Which I found very unrealistic.

 

Regarding this mole in the White House.  Aren't there cameras EVERYWHERE in the White House?  I would think you wouldn't be able to flatulate in the hallways without someone in security hearing it.  Much the same way the NSA supposedly listens in for key words in phone calls, wouldn't the White House speakers be designed to flag any mention of "Lozano" or similar words?  Also, if there are cameras everywhere, why couldn't Chuck have just called up the camera in the Cabinet Room as soon as the deletion started?  Or how about, you know, Mike asking someone...  "who was just in the Cabinet Room"?  I can't imagine it's a room that just anybody can walk in and out of.  Stupid.

Yes, super stupid.

In addition, why would Mr Chief of Building Comany call to the Mole as if he would  the one who would assassinate or give an order to assassinate Abe? We were told that the conspiracy has members everywhere, but it seems some of them must do all the work, just like Hannah.  

[MaryPatShelby]

On 5/12/2017 at 7:42 AM, AAEBoiler said:

And, her shirt always stays tucked into her pants.

And she never kicks off her spike heels so she can evade Bad Guys even more efficiently. Also, luckily, her bra seems to be functioning fine without that underwire. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎11‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 3:20 AM, marinw said:

 Such beautiful acting from Kiefer and Natasha. That may be the best scene those two have had this series. "I'm always on you side." *sniff*. Tom has weapons-grade earnestness which gives me feels.

To me, this scene showed once more what faults the screenwriters have made. The scene was empty: it had no contents, both content (Alex told Tom only what we had realized seeing her watch TV) and emotionally (it didn't reveal anything new about their relationship). One shouldn't never write such useless scenes.

As for acting, there was nothing to act. Both Tom and Alex meant just what they said. That kind of honesty is good irl but it's boring in fiction. In order to make a scene interesting, there must be subtext.    

To me, Tom is a naive man and an ignorant and incompetent President who constantly makes errors of judgment. He only annoys me. I miss Kimble. 

On ‎11‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 3:26 PM, oakville said:

The political discussions were amateurish at best.

To me, the worst part is that it hasn't been revealed in what kind of world DS is set in. On the basis of Nato scenes, Russia seems to be like it was in the 1990ies.  But even then the question wasn't only about nukes. Russia didn't like that its neighbors became members of Nato but considered it as a threat against it.  

[Roseanna]

On ‎13‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 7:49 AM, jhlipton said:

In the US, the President can't be an immigrant (sorry, Ahhhnold), so I thought the same might be true elsewhere. 

The President isn't exactly the same as the Prime Minister.  Our President, as the Head of State, must be a citizen by birth, but the Prime Minister and other minister must only be citizens.  Recently, a woman became a citizen just before she was elected a MP and became a minister, although her family had lived here for generations.

Unlike the USA, most countries give a baby a citizenship in birth because the parents are already citizens, not because the baby happens to be born in the country.  

On ‎13‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 8:31 AM, Danielg342 said:

With regards to the "first Indian British PM", I interpreted that to mean someone of Indian heritage who is a British citizen gaining the Prime Minister's Office. She may not actually be an Indian citizen but her lineage is definitely Indian.

It's funny that it caused difficulties as the subtitle in my language had it translated exactly so as we usually say: "the first British PM with the Indian background". 

[louisamay]

On 2017-5-13 at 8:42 PM, TimWil said:

On 2017-5-13 at 6:31 AM, Danielg342 said:

 

He put it incorrectly. The term is Anglo-Indian NOT Indian British. Anglo-Indian is the term used for UK nationals of Indian heritage. Somebody didn't do their homework.

As a British person of Indian origin I can tell you we are definitely not called Anglo-indians.  British Indian is commonly used on official forms.  Anglo-indian refers to people of mixed origin in India, usually a british father and indian mother and was used a lot during the british occupation of India. 

[TimWil]

I've lived in the UK for many years and have never heard the term "British Indian," only "Anglo-Indian." And everyone I know there has only ever heard the term "Anglo-Indian." It's the commonly used term, despite what you say about it being used in official forms. The character on Designated Survivor should have referred to the UK PM as Anglo-Indian.

 

Here's the Wikipedia definition of Anglo-Indian, by the way:

The term Anglo-Indians can refer to at least two groups of people: those with mixed Indian and British ancestry, and people of British descent born or living in the Indian subcontinent. The latter sense is now mainly historical, but confusions can arise.

 

‎

On 5/22/2017 at 6:03 PM, louisamay said:

As a British person of Indian origin I can tell you we are definitely not called Anglo-indians.  British Indian is commonly used on official forms.  Anglo-indian refers to people of mixed origin in India, usually a british father and indian mother and was used a lot during the british occupation of India. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by TimWil

[John Potts]

Tom - quit with the (false?) modesty. You're the President! And even if he used to have your job, you don't allow anyone in your Cabinet to shout at you like that. I wanted Tom to find his inner Jack Bauer and say back, "Mr Secretary, I accept that you are upset but you are addressing your President," (probably in a Kiefer whisper).

Can everyone stop with the "OMG! You mean it wasn't just Al-Sakr?" from everyone. Even if you believed the official story (and there must be plenty of people who don't), there must have been some insiders involved just to place that many bombs. Or did they think Catalan placed them all single handed!?

And on that subject, why would the NATO heads be all up in arms about Tom not being 100% open about the bombing? "Ambassadors are honourable men sent abroad to lie for their country" as the saying goes and that goes double for politicians (well, more lying and less honour perhaps!) so it should not be a surprise to anyone there that Tom hasn't told the whole truth. If the French wanted disarmament, the fact that the US President hasn't given them the whole story on the White House bombing really shouldn't bother them (though there might be some public grandstanding on the issue).

While it wasn't a success, our heroes do now know the traitor was inside the West Wing (the Cabinet Office, IIRC). That should leave you with a fairly short list of suspects to who the insider is, assuming even a vaguely competent investigator (though that may be a big assumption).

Nikita, probably a good idea to say "There's a bomb in the van!" rather than just standing there. Did like that the bomb had one of those helpful digital timers that all TV bombs have to have, though.

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 9:06 PM, jhlipton said:

"she's the first British Indian prime minister", which, no.  She can't be British and Indian and prime minister -- at best 2 out of three.  What they meant was "she's the first British prime minister of Indian origin", which is possible, but not likely.

Actually, to be UK PM, you don't need to be born in the UK. In theory, any Commonwealth (or Irish) citizen who has leave to stay in the UK (and is over 18) can run for Parliament and if they lead the majority party in the Commons, they become PM. We've actually had one non native PM (Andrew Bonar Law, born in Canada), though he did have the advantage of being white and male. Though I suspect they meant "of Indian ethnic descent", which is more plausible (Sajid Javid - born in the UK and son of two Pakistani immigrants - was one of the candidates for Tory leader and therefore Prime Minister in the recent poll, so it's not outside the realms of possibility). Unlikely, sure, but not actually impossible.

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:40 PM, littlecatsfeet said:

I was wondering the same thing about why Hannah is still alive; and on a baser note, why she apparently didn't have to pee after being chained up and then escaping after umpteen hours.

Hey, if Jack Bauer can go 24 hours without needing to eat, sleep or pee, Nikita can too!

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 9:32 AM, Roseanna said:

Lozano said that he killed one of Hannah's "family" (Atwood) on revenge because Hannah had killed his "bother", Macleish. But MacLeish wasn't shot By Hannah but his wife. And despite being "brothers", Macleish gave the order to kill Lozano

I know! Just when you think you can trust villains, they go and lie to you.

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 2:19 PM, Roseanna said:

why would Mr Chief of Building Company call to the Mole as if he would  the one who would assassinate or give an order to assassinate Abe? We were told that the conspiracy has members everywhere, but it seems some of them must do all the work

Maybe they really believe in efficiency! Though if I was engaged in treason, I certainly wouldn't be contacting my co-conspirators from inside the White House. Could he not take a walk somewhere secluded and discuss the matter there?