Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Love that Rach barely mentioned Omarosa.  Now if only the other nitwits at MSNBC would follow suit.  Yeah sure.  Will not happen.  It's like asking 'em to stop playing those damn fucking Rudy & Trump clips that I can't stand & have to imnediately put on mute or shut off.

I haven't watched TRMS yet tonight (just don't like the idea of watching her at 6 pm), but I am still playing in your orchestra of NO CLIPS.  What's worse on just about all the other shows is not only do they run footage of the nitwit, their purpose for running said nitwit footage is solely to ask the poor interviewee, "What is your reaction to what you just heard?"  As if any cogent response would be anything other than, he's a nitwit. 

That said, I don't mind listening to Rudy, because he's so OTT stupid as to be amusing.  I listened to him contort himself on State of the Union yesterday, denying he said something on ABC News, and I just knew the entire production staff at CNN was immediately running to get the footage, which of course they ran a few minutes later.  And I don't know Omarosa from a hole in the wall (never watched The Apprentice), but 99% of the interest in what she has to say right now is because she got it on tape. 

And I'm also 99% sure that Omarosa has a smaller chance of being booked on Rachel's show than Rachel has of dumping Susan and marrying Michael Avenatti. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

The relief of Rachel's show, such as today, is that there are not long segments where I have to mute because I have already heard the recording in question earlier in the day (and repeated in every other show on MSNBC).  I hated seeing the list of departed FBI colleagues of Comey, but at least it was necessary to see, and had not already been on the air all day.  

What an image, Meowmommy!  (Both ideas!)

4 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

And I'm also 99% sure that Omarosa has a smaller chance of being booked on Rachel's show than Rachel has of dumping Susan and marrying Michael Avenatti. 

Edited by jjj
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I haven't watched TRMS yet tonight (just don't like the idea of watching her at 6 pm), but I am still playing in your orchestra of NO CLIPS.  What's worse on just about all the other shows is not only do they run footage of the nitwit, their purpose for running said nitwit footage is solely to ask the poor interviewee, "What is your reaction to what you just heard?"  As if any cogent response would be anything other than, he's a nitwit. 

That said, I don't mind listening to Rudy, because he's so OTT stupid as to be amusing.  I listened to him contort himself on State of the Union yesterday, denying he said something on ABC News, and I just knew the entire production staff at CNN was immediately running to get the footage, which of course they ran a few minutes later.  And I don't know Omarosa from a hole in the wall (never watched The Apprentice), but 99% of the interest in what she has to say right now is because she got it on tape. 

And I'm also 99% sure that Omarosa has a smaller chance of being booked on Rachel's show than Rachel has of dumping Susan and marrying Michael Avenatti. 

Rudy looks & acts like a ghoul at this point.  He's scary as hell to look at.  I don't find him funny in the least.  Look, if the other MSNBC hosts are playing the Rudy & Trump clips constantly & endlessly to make the point they've said these things they claim to have never said, then it's overkill & unnecessary.  It also annoys the piss outta me & motivates me to tune out.  If MSNBC is looking to promote Rudy & Trump, then OK, I'll watch Rach & that's it.

It really is noticeable how Rachel is THE ONLY ONE who does NOT endlessly play those awful Trump & Rudy clips.  Notice that Rach's only mention of Omarosa was in terms of her having tapes?  Her point was that she's so damn uncredible, anything she says is worthless -- just waste-of-time white noise.  What do ya bet Rachel had zero interest in interviewing Omarosa?  Wouldn't be surprised if she was asked to interview her & passed.

2 hours ago, jjj said:

The relief of Rachel's show, such as today, is that there are not long segments where I have to mute because I have already heard the recording in question earlier in the day (and repeated in every other show on MSNBC).  I hated seeing the list of departed FBI colleagues of Comey, but at least it was necessary to see, and had not already been on the air all day.  

You know, I had the exact opposite reaction.  This was great dot-connecting from Rach.  Seemed obvious, right?  I mean that of all the peeps Comey told about his Trump meeting about Flynn, there's only 1 left in the FBI.  OK, so then why has nobody from the NY Times or WaPo or another host or guest on MSNBC or CNN put this together like Rach just did?  Uh, this is why Rach cannot take another 2 week vacay for a long while.

Her discussion of Stephen Calk's email to Manafort on the "Perspective rolls" he wanted in the Trump admin was great.  And I thought I heard some background LOL's at the mention of "perspective rolls".  Good stuff, Rach!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, jjj said:

Chilling:  the list of fired, or "resigned under fire" contemporaneous FBI-colleague witnesses of Comey's recounting of the discussion with Trump.  I was not overly concerned, because they have not been poisoned, but I suppose the point is that some consider them to be less reliable because they were fired.  But that was an amazing list.

Hilarious yet horrifying:  the list of "Perspective Rolls" of the bank CEO's administrative wishes.  I was so dazzled by "perspective" that I did not even see "rolls" at first.  And Rachel, where he said "prospers" on the first page, I think he meant "sponsors".  Hey, no one said you had to be able to spell to get into this administration.

Yes and yes. 

I was thinking the same thing about the ex-FBIers—this isn't Russia; they're not dead. They can absolutely be called to testify. (And Trump hasn't made them any fonder of him!) 

The amount of laughter in the background during the letter just made me laugh harder! Not the Secretary of Education, indeed. Nor the Ambassador to spelling!

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

You know, I had the exact opposite reaction.  This was great dot-connecting from Rach.  Seemed obvious, right?  I mean that of all the peeps Comey told about his Trump meeting about Flynn, there's only 1 left in the FBI.  OK, so then why has nobody from the NY Times or WaPo or another host or guest on MSNBC or CNN put this together like Rach just did?  Uh, this is why Rach cannot take another 2 week vacay for a long while.

Yes, it's very suspicious when you consider it.  It's flying under the radar because they were removed one at a time instead of all at once.  But, as Rachel pointed out, it's a pattern, and one that Mueller would spot a mile away for the obstruction of justice charges.

1 hour ago, ahisma said:

I was thinking the same thing about the ex-FBIers—this isn't Russia; they're not dead. They can absolutely be called to testify. (And Trump hasn't made them any fonder of him!) 

And this makes it ironic.  Trump removed them to cover up obstruction, but removing them is more evidence of obstruction.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I did note that Rachel near the end of the show said she was bolted to her seat -- I guess assuring us that there is no vacation this week?  

Also, Chris Hayes is on vacation and I'm guessing they wouldn't have both of them out the same week so soon after Rachel was on vacation. 

Quote

How many other members of the "Chuck Club" do we have?

I like him because he explains things simply but doesn't act like he's dumbing it down.  He'd be a great teacher. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Watching Rachel's 'I'm trying not to look like this hurts, but omg it hurts' expression during the LOD toss made me wince in sympathy. OMN is really the 'Squirrel!!' to all the other newsers Dugs. I appreciate her restraint on the subject. And I loved her immediately pointing out to Lawrence that just because the addlebrained apricot claims to have had a conversation with somebody doesn't make it so, and at the same time giving props to Steve Benen on Maddowblog.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rudy looks & acts like a ghoul at this point.  He's scary as hell to look at.  I don't find him funny in the least.  Look, if the other MSNBC hosts are playing the Rudy & Trump clips constantly & endlessly to make the point they've said these things they claim to have never said, then it's overkill & unnecessary.  It also annoys the piss outta me & motivates me to tune out.  If MSNBC is looking to promote Rudy & Trump, then OK, I'll watch Rach & that's it.

It really is noticeable how Rachel is THE ONLY ONE who does NOT endlessly play those awful Trump & Rudy clips.  Notice that Rach's only mention of Omarosa was in terms of her having tapes?  Her point was that she's so damn uncredible, anything she says is worthless -- just waste-of-time white noise.  What do ya bet Rachel had zero interest in interviewing Omarosa?  Wouldn't be surprised if she was asked to interview her & passed.

You know, I had the exact opposite reaction.  This was great dot-connecting from Rach.  Seemed obvious, right?  I mean that of all the peeps Comey told about his Trump meeting about Flynn, there's only 1 left in the FBI.  OK, so then why has nobody from the NY Times or WaPo or another host or guest on MSNBC or CNN put this together like Rach just did?  Uh, this is why Rach cannot take another 2 week vacay for a long while.

Her discussion of Stephen Calk's email to Manafort on the "Perspective rolls" he wanted in the Trump admin was great.  And I thought I heard some background LOL's at the mention of "perspective rolls".  Good stuff, Rach!

I was laughing my ass off when Rachel was reading the email from Calk to Manafort. So was one of the backstage staff. Hilarious! I swear I'd be in a straight jacket by now if not for Rachel. I hope she knows what a lifeline she is for so many of us.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, izabella said:

And this makes it ironic.  Trump removed them to cover up obstruction, but removing them is more evidence of obstruction.

Trump is such an idiot. Yeah, firing them from their jobs, and in some cases  preventing them from getting their well-earned retirement, hurts in the short-run, but they can still testify without the worry of retaliation. I am ex-State law enforcement and my dad is ex-Federal law enforcement, and we were talking about this today. Hopefully once Dems are back in control, the retirements can be reinstated due to bad-faith, political firings. Some made some stupid mistakes- Comey should not have reopened the investigation a week before the election (huge impact) and Strzok should not have used a company phone for private emails to his girlfriend (no impact). Over all, they were good men doing their job for the country. Removing them has not stopped the investigation. Other good men have moved into their positions and are continuing their work.

Why should Mueller wrap things up? The longer he takes, the more Trump commits obstruction. He is just making a stronger case to remove Trump from office before 2020, rather than just censor him.

In the past, when Rachel's crew would laugh, you could see a litle flicker of "knock it off" across her face". Now, she kinda looks like "yeah, right!?!!!!" Got to have a little levity with our news now,

Edited by Galloway Cave
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, jjj said:

Chilling:  the list of fired, or "resigned under fire" contemporaneous FBI-colleague witnesses of Comey's recounting of the discussion with Trump.  I was not overly concerned, because they have not been poisoned, but I suppose the point is that some consider them to be less reliable because they were fired.  But that was an amazing list.

Hilarious yet horrifying:  the list of "Perspective Rolls" of the bank CEO's administrative wishes.  I was so dazzled by "perspective" that I did not even see "rolls" at first.  And Rachel, where he said "prospers" on the first page, I think he meant "sponsors".  Hey, no one said you had to be able to spell to get into this administration.  And I suspect this person will not be managing his bank much longer, if that $11 million loan is not repaid.  (Or as Rachel said, his "teeeeny, tiny bank".)  

Yes, those FBI officials have been the equivalent of "disappeared." That was actually a bit terrifying, if only because it has happened so under the radar.

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.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
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

Edited by jjj
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

Blech, I tried to kick Kornacki & his flailing arms off the show thru my TV -- but alas, that didn't work.  Drats!

Rach was a bit repetitive about Calk and his dinner rolls -- oh, and don't forget somersaults!  But that's OK.  Gave me some much needed giggles.

Love that Rach's only mention of Omarosa was how Trump called her a dog, crazed & a lowlife -- and then related this to how he picks his admin.  Yup, and I really appreciated the zingers on Jared, Jared, Jared & his lovely "On it!" reply to Manafort's request to get Calk a Trump admin gig (for getting Manafort those million$).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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?

So Rick Gates stole from the inauguration committee, too?  I don't feel sorry for the inauguration committee, but damn, this guy, even with a plea deal, needs to do some serious jail time.  It's like who's competing to be the biggest crook.

51 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Blech, I tried to kick Kornacki & his flailing arms off the show thru my TV -- but alas, that didn't work.  Drats!

I defy him to talk without moving his arms.  Babble babble babble, with 10% of the vote in, fercryinoutloud.  Early returns don't mean shit.  And not even most of the interesting races.  Like friend of MSNBC Richard Painter getting trounced in Minnesota.  At least that should mean he gets back on the air.

Edited by meowmommy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Edited by jjj
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So Manafort found guilty on all counts by Rachel's show tomorrow, Judge Cranky sentences him to a million years on Thursday & Trump pardons him on Friday -- all while Omarosa releases a different tape everyday & Rach never mentions her name or plays her tapes?

Gave me a hearty chuckle that Rach (or her staff) found the only cogent paragraph (with zero misspellings) on Calk's crap resume was copied & pasted from Wikipedia -- and she found it merely thru google.  Heh, heh, heh, ya kill me sometimes, Rach!

Uh, Rach called Kornacki a "political genius"?  Er, was she being snarky there or what?  Probably not.  Made me snicker -- um, a lot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Gave me a hearty chuckle that Rach (or her staff) found the only cogent paragraph (with zero misspellings) on Calk's crap resume was copied & pasted from Wikipedia

What adult still does that when applying for a job??!!  Its one thing to cut and paste the job description when its something technical but its easy enough to cite it.   Of course, what adult also misspells roles.  I'm actually kind of surprised he wasn't hired for this Administration. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

What adult still does that when applying for a job??!!  Its one thing to cut and paste the job description when its something technical but its easy enough to cite it.   Of course, what adult also misspells roles.  I'm actually kind of surprised he wasn't hired for this Administration. 

Well, my opinion is that the reason Calk didn't get a job with the trump administration is because those millions from that teeny tiny bank went into Manafort's pockets instead of trump's. trump won't reward if the payoff isn't made to him!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Edited by jjj
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Don't feel too bad for him.  Who knows how many people he and his bank turned down for mortgages so he could buy his way into a Cabinet position through Manafort?

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
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!  

Edited by jjj
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the posters here of a certain age, LOL, recognized the homage to Emily's (1975) vocabulary and cadence the first time we heard Rachel use them. How nice to know the joy that was Gilda Radner lives on and to see that, once again, Rachel "gets it." 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, jjj said:

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. 

It's like watching The Sting, except, unfortunately, that would make Manafort either Paul Newman or Robert Redford. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/13/2018 at 7:12 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Love that Rach barely mentioned Omarosa.  Now if only the other nitwits at MSNBC would follow suit.  Yeah sure.  Will not happen.  It's like asking 'em to stop playing those damn fucking Rudy & Trump clips that I can't stand & have to immediately put on mute or shut off.

Omarosa is just the latest temporary distraction.  Completely agree with you about the Ghouliana clips. Instead of playing them, the host of the show should just say "Rudy appeared today or this weekend and told some more lies, which we're not going to bother to repeat or show you. If you must know the latest nonsense he's spewing, go watch the official Republican Propaganda Network, Faux News." It would save a lot of wear and tear on my mute button.

Bob Woodward's book about trump will be coming out soon. Bet Rachel will have him on her show. He has just a wee bit more credibility than that ridiculous Omarosa. I do love that she taped people in the WH though.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

"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."  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, izabella said:

Don't feel too bad for him.  Who knows how many people he and his bank turned down for mortgages so he could buy his way into a Cabinet position through Manafort?

This type of corruption is stunning and this is what happens in a banana republic.  How does a person blow $16 million? It is unfathomable to me. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

It's really unfortunate that THIS will be Ghouliani's legacy. He's almost as despicable now as the Traitor-In-Chief - and that's saying a lot. Thank God for Rach... Without her I'd probably be in a "ward" somewhere. I was truly howling and in tears the first night she brought up the Calk memo. My husband ran upstairs to see why I was laughing so hysterically. Knowing how important real news is to her, though, I wonder how she doesn't sometimes fall into despair. She's connecting the dots so we don't have to, but the depravity of it all has to take a toll on her. I missed her like hell when she was on vacation, but I can hardly think of someone who needed it more. 

Re: Kornacki... A friend said, "I bet he snorts a line before he goes on the air." I said, "I don't know about that, but I DO know watching him makes me feel like I snorted one." I seriously have to change the channel when he comes on and I hate that because he's the go-to guy on election nights. But he just makes me a nervous wreck. He's like Chris Matthews on Red Bull and Adderall. Just my $0.02. LOL.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

16 minutes ago, Cajungirl64 said:

Re: Kornacki... A friend said, "I bet he snorts a line before he goes on the air." I said, "I don't know about that, but I DO know watching him makes me feel like I snorted one." I seriously have to change the channel when he comes on and I hate that because he's the go-to guy on election nights. But he just makes me a nervous wreck. He's like Chris Matthews on Red Bull and Adderall. Just my $0.02. LOL.

He's only like that when he's talking election results.  He has filled in for Mathews and others on MSNBC and is a lot calmer when he is host.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, izabella said:

He's only like that when he's talking election results.  He has filled in for Mathews and others on MSNBC and is a lot calmer when he is host.

I've seen him start a show as a sub but as soon as I see its him, I change the channel. I'll have to watch next time he subs. Thanks for the heads-up. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Oy, I'm kinda nervous that Judge Shithead has confused the jury by not letting the prosecutors help the jury match up the charges with the evidence in an easier/clearer way -- as Rach pointed out.  Ugh.  And calm, cool Chuck Rosenberg & his smooth radio voice didn't make me feel any less anxious . . .

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh, and Rach played a long Trump clip I had to grab the remote real quick to mute.  GAH!  Why'd you do that, Rach?  Playing the SNL clip after it just didn't make up for that maddening Trump clip.  Please Rach, seriously, I beg you please, no freakin' Trump clips!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

"He's not getting rid of critics, he's getting rid of the witnesses."  I think Rachel finally took the gloves off tonight. 

I'm not gonna lie, that freaked me right the eff out.  I hadn't thought of it that way.  She usually makes me feel better but not last night.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Edited by jjj
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On whose show did Chuck Rosenberg first appear?  Just curious.  He seems to be "everywhere" that past couple of days.  Definitely "locked & loaded" for Rach & Ari tonight!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, jjj said:

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.)

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

Share this post


Link to post

Here's another great date for you, Rachel...

1/20/2021  =  1202021 forwards and backwards.

It's a great date because it is the date of the next scheduled presidential inauguration, and we know what that means!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size