S05.E14: Stupid Watergate, Special Counsel investigation 2018.06.10

[Athena]

Quote

Other segments: Rodrigo Duterte, United Kingdom Parliamentary censorship laws
Guests: Gilbert Gottfried

 

[Annber03]

You know, for somebody who's tied to Cohen, Hannity really has some kind of nerve to keep spouting his mouth off the way he is. The absolute best karma would be if Hannity got nabbed someday on some criminal offense of his own. He's definitely got that whole "protest too much" thing going on, and it would not surprise me one bit to learn he's got his own shady stuff lurking somewhere. 

Also, the way these idiots keep desperately trying to bring up Hillary is remarkable. Every time I hear them mention her, I just want to tell them the same thing they were gleefully telling her voters after the election: "She lost. Get over it." I honestly get the feeling some of these people are secretly pissed that she's not president, because they were itching for the opportunity to have four to eight more years to continue dumping on her. And now they've been robbed of that, and they can't deal with it. I just wish somebody would ask them point blank how Hillary can be both this scheming mastermind and yet fail so spectacularly in having her evil scheme actually pan out. 

I wasn't born yet when Watergate was happening, but I've heard about how that investigation took a few years. For those who were around then, were there people who were this skeptical back then, too, or claiming some sort of conspiracy (aside from Nixon, perhaps :p)? Or is the reaction here unusual in that regard? 

As for other topics, Duterte is a scary man. That bit about shooting female soldiers in the vagina. Dear god. 

And on a happier note, LOL at "America's first draft" as a description of the U.K., and I like the Gottfried bit at the end :p. That's really strange, that U.K. rule about Parliament. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Annber03

[TVcritic]

The LWT team should have made Gilbert Gottfried doing a Queen impression when not showing the Parliament bit. ;-)

Edited June 11, 2018 by TVcritic

[biakbiak]

Nevermind read several articles that better contextualized the kiss.

Edited June 11, 2018 by biakbiak

[Danny Franks]

You know, you hear all the gags about Fox News being for the ancient, but it never really hits home until you see that their adverts are for embarrassing ailments and fucking sock assist things for people who can't bend over (though to be fair, that could be due to obesity rather than age).

But it's frightening just how polarised American society is, with one large section of it simply not living in the same reality as the other. You watch Hannity and his dreadful friends, you will genuinely believe this alternate version of reality, and the only way out is to change your viewing habits. It's they speak in some sort of code, that makes complete sense to regular viewers, but none at all to anyone else.

And the Trump supporters now, from the lowest trailer park redcaps to the highest echelons of Fox News and the Republican party, are trapped in a cult. all they can do is double, triple, quadruple down on their bullshit. As Hannity said himself, they won't believe anything you say, no matter the proof. It doesn't matter how obvious the Trump administration misdeeds are, it doesn't matter how much proof there is, they won't see it on Fox. And even if they accidentally came across it, they wouldn't believe it.

Dan Carlin described it as a Civil Cold War on his podcast last week, and that term seems scarily appropriate. There is just no communication now, between the right and left, other than anger, suspicion and accusation. The real fear is... what will it take to turn that cold war hot?

The anti-satire law in the UK is news to me. I feel sure that I've seen Parliamentary footage on Have I Got News For You, over the years.

[Eyes High]

Gilbert Gottfried loudly reading three-star Yelp Boise restaurant reviews--somehow much funnier than reading one-star reviews would be--was one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. I pretty much literally laughed out loud throughout that entire bit.

[attica]

Whenever I need some light teevee watching, I zip on over to CSPAN's coverage of UK Parliament's Question Time.  It's a reliable hoot without satire! (That said, pull up your socks, you thin-skinned pols.  Unless you have mobility issues, in which case Hannity has a sock-puller-upper-thing you can buy.)
I remember watching a show last summer, in which a focus group was asked about this presidency. (Might've been Sam's show, can't recall.) Anyway, when the interviewer got to the lightning round 'say whatever pops into your head', and mentioned Mueller, the people in the group who identified as Fox viewers did not know who he was. Because that was before we had any indictments, so out of Fox sight, out of mind. Now that he's a threat to the Pumpkin Pol Pot, they all know who he is, and that he's evil. JO's right, we gotta know what they're saying over there, and we have to figure out how to fix it.

[stillshimpy]

7 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

You know, you hear all the gags about Fox News being for the ancient, but it never really hits home until you see that their adverts are for embarrassing ailments and fucking sock assist things for people who can't bend over (though to be fair, that could be due to obesity rather than age).

 

Right?  These are the people currently supporting disastrous policy and hateful measures?  People who need help peeing and putting on their socks.   Jeez, awesome.  They can thread their body parts into whatever tube assists with whichever garment, saddle up and ride off to see the catheter cowboy to get help with that pesky pee problem and then off they toddle to the polls relentlessly.  

 

Awesome.  Just imagine the establishing voiceover in the dystopian future film that will tell the tale of what has brought us to what will no doubt be a crumbling ruin of a world in the opening credits.  "In the years before, in the world we once knew, rose up a great and terrible power.  At least, they tried to rise up but actually needed an easy chairlift to jettison them forth from their seats to their walkers, where they somehow managed to take down democracy despite increasingly brittle bones."  

Way to go out with a whimper, world.  A whimper about edema from the sounds of those advertisements.    

The Venezuelan (edit:  my mistake! it was the Philipines) kiss segment was the least comfortable thing I've ever seen.  It made me want to shimmy up a drainpipe, to the roof beyond, to get to a very tall tree so that I might escape the sight.  That poor woman. 

Next week ought to be interesting if John covers the G7.  I suppose he'll just light his desk on fire and drink himself to death on maple syrup rather than go into the details of the whole thing. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by stillshimpy

[Sharpie66]

People with arthritic hips or needing/waiting for/recently undergone a hip replacement can use those sock assist things, I’m just saying. And those people are of all ages and political leanings, so have a little compassion, please. (I just took my arthritis Tylenol this morning for my bad shoulder when I woke up in agony.)

[Robert Lynch]

Hanity could go far away and never be seen again. The man spouts BS like no other. He is Trump's lackey, for goodness sakes. How can anyone listen to this man is beyond me.

[ganesh]

11 hours ago, Annber03 said:

You know, for somebody who's tied to Cohen, Hannity really has some kind of nerve to keep spouting his mouth off the way he is.

His arrogance is galling. He acts like he's bulletproof because he's the 'network star' and Trump talks to him on the phone, but really no one is. I hope his phone is tapped. 

1 hour ago, Eyes High said:

Gilbert Gottfried loudly reading three-star Yelp Boise restaurant reviews--somehow much funnier than reading one-star reviews would be--was one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. I pretty much literally laughed out loud throughout that entire bit.

I cannot look at Jared Kushner and not have "I'm Jared Kushner and I DO BUSINESS" in my head. 

Please tell me when John was doing his 'what about' bit that someone else noted that his list had 'The Olson Twin' on it. 

I found the whole segment on whataboutism to be very interesting because it has pervaded our culture. It was Soviet propaganda technique, and it's just tragic that it's the go-to tool of Fox "news". I'm continually amazed that people get taken in by it because it's so transparent to me. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by ganesh

[stillshimpy]

1 hour ago, Sharpie66 said:

People with arthritic hips or needing/waiting for/recently undergone a hip replacement can use those sock assist things, I’m just saying. And those people are of all ages and political leanings, so have a little compassion, please. (I just took my arthritis Tylenol this morning for my bad shoulder when I woke up in agony.)

Yes, but we're talking about the identified advertising pool versus all people who suffer.  The people we're talking about are watching Hannity and taking that stuff as gospel.   I don't think anyone is denying compassion to the infirm except for the voters who support taking away people's health insurance.    

There's a pretty rich vein of irony there would be the point.  

I like John's segment specifically for that reason.  He wasn't targeting illness or incapacity he was talking about demographics and what appeals to them.    It's pretty rich that a group that supports the erosion of civil liberties are the prime demographic for items that have to do with restricted movement.   

Edited June 11, 2018 by stillshimpy

[ganesh]

Would the sock helper be covered under the ACA? 

[stillshimpy]

14 minutes ago, ganesh said:

Would the sock helper be covered under the ACA? 

I bet it would, there would be a bunch of legitimate physical conditions that would support the need for those things, as funny looking as they are, I bet they are a godsend after surgery.   I think they are largely being marketed to people in the Medicare demographic judging by the other ads. 

I don't think the point of the segment was to be in anyway unkind about illness, it was just pointing out that the demographic for Hannity's nuttiness tends to skew older with all the concerns that go with that. 

Parliment not being shown for the purposes of satire in the UK genuinely surprised the hell out of me and my mom is a Brit.  They're not typically a reverent group.    Godfried's segment was funnier than hell, so at least the UK isn't being unduly punished for that oddity.  

[attica]

37 minutes ago, ganesh said:

Would the sock helper be covered under the ACA? 

I bet not. Once a thing/drug is available without a prescription, insurances tend not to cover them. Hence the push to make birth control OTC, which is supported by Big Pharma for profit reasons, but is opposed by anti-choicers for misogyny reasons. Actual bc-taking women's views (which vary between a) yay, easier to get, b) boo, now not covered), are irrelevant.

[meowmommy]

12 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I wasn't born yet when Watergate was happening, but I've heard about how that investigation took a few years. For those who were around then, were there people who were this skeptical back then, too, or claiming some sort of conspiracy (aside from Nixon, perhaps :p)? Or is the reaction here unusual in that regard? 

I was in high school during Watergate--graduated two months before Nixon resigned--and no, the resistance to the investigation didn't take the path of conspiracy theories.  It was more just loyal Republicans who couldn't believe Nixon could or would do any of this, particularly since his reelection in 1972 had been clearly in the bag.  That's the huge irony of Watergate...none of it was necessary.  Nixon was going to be re-elected in a landslide no matter what, but he was so insecure and paranoid that he let his minions go too far and then actively worked to cover up their misdeeds.

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

But it's frightening just how polarised American society is, with one large section of it simply not living in the same reality as the other. You watch Hannity and his dreadful friends, you will genuinely believe this alternate version of reality, and the only way out is to change your viewing habits. It's they speak in some sort of code, that makes complete sense to regular viewers, but none at all to anyone else.

I have to admit I watched Faux News back in its early days, including Hannity and Colmes (poor Alan never had a chance), mostly because I didn't like Bill Clinton, but although I remember it being conservative, I truly don't remember it being this awful.  But then, perhaps I think it's this awful because there's absolutely no power on earth that would make me think DJT was an acceptable choice for dog catcher, much less president.  

Someone somewhere else made the point that back in 1973, there were three networks (plus PBS), and they all basically ran the same kind of news coverage and did very little active editorializing.  There was no talk radio and there were no prime time opinion shows, thus no place to go hide your head in the sand and no echo chamber of choice.  If you didn't want to hear the MSM coverage of Watergate, you turned off your set.

1 hour ago, Sharpie66 said:

People with arthritic hips or needing/waiting for/recently undergone a hip replacement can use those sock assist things, I’m just saying. And those people are of all ages and political leanings, so have a little compassion, please. (I just took my arthritis Tylenol this morning for my bad shoulder when I woke up in agony.)

 

40 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

I don't think the point of the segment was to be in anyway unkind about illness, it was just pointing out that the demographic for Hannity's nuttiness tends to skew older with all the concerns that go with that. 

I'd never seen that ad, but almost everything hurts these days and I might need a sock thingy.  I wish Tylenol worked.  What bothers me more is the rampant ageism that presumes everyone over a certain age is a senile Faux News viewer.  

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

Please tell me when John was doing his 'what about' bit that someone else noted that his list had 'The Olson Twin' on it. 

Mee!!!  Actually expected John to say something about it, but maybe it's better that he let us catch the reference ourselves.

Just a little surprised John didn't do anything with the rich treasure trove that was the G-7 disaster, but maybe too short notice.

[VCRTracking]

Back in Watergate and when things were really looking bad for Nixon most of the GOP knew they had to keep their distance and let him fall because they had Reagan in the wings who could bring them back later. Right now they have nobody so they're all in trying to save the fat cheeto.

Edited June 11, 2018 by VCRTracking

[ottoDbusdriver]

2 hours ago, ganesh said:

Please tell me when John was doing his 'what about' bit that someone else noted that his list had 'The Olson Twin' on it. 

In addition to @meowmommy, I also noticed the Olsen Twin in that list.  The whole list went as follows:
1. Harry Connick Jr.
2. Archduke Ferdinand
3. Cher
4. Wayne Gretzky
5. Joyce Carol Oates
6. The Olsen Twin
7. P!NK
8. Desmond Tutu
9. Sinbad (Comedian)
10. Sinbad (Sailor)
11. Yakov Smirnoff
12. Idi Amin
13. L. Ron Hubbard
14. Fatty Arbuckle
15. Fabio

[peeayebee]

That whole segment about the Fox "news" machine was/is so depressing, esp capped with the focus group that clearly only watches Fox. There's no f'ing way that any Fox-ites will accept any negative findings about Trump. Even if the pee tape was somehow released, they would deny that it was real. Or if it was proved real, then it didn't matter. Good for Trump for having that Obama mattress soiled!

Trump, and others, just spout baldfaced lies, and supporters eat them up. Like Hannity said, if you show them the facts, they won't accept them.

[ganesh]

I forgot about the Sinbads. 

[VCRTracking]

1 hour ago, peeayebee said:

That whole segment about the Fox "news" machine was/is so depressing, esp capped with the focus group that clearly only watches Fox. There's no f'ing way that any Fox-ites will accept any negative findings about Trump. Even if the pee tape was somehow released, they would deny that it was real. Or if it was proved real, then it didn't matter. Good for Trump for having that Obama mattress soiled!

Trump, and others, just spout baldfaced lies, and supporters eat them up. Like Hannity said, if you show them the facts, they won't accept them.

Googled "elderly protesters"  to see what we might deal with in the future and could only find it in regards to elderly Venezuelans protesting against Maduro last year. I don't know if MAGA seniors are going to risk getting pepper sprayed protesting FOR Drumpf.

Edited June 11, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Annber03]

6 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

But it's frightening just how polarised American society is, with one large section of it simply not living in the same reality as the other. You watch Hannity and his dreadful friends, you will genuinely believe this alternate version of reality, and the only way out is to change your viewing habits. It's they speak in some sort of code, that makes complete sense to regular viewers, but none at all to anyone else.

Exactly. People keep saying how we need to just reach out to Trump supporters-HOW? I have tried to talk to some of them. They're not operating in a fact-based world! This isn't a simple matter of having basic disagreements on typical policy stuff. I mean, Trump supporters happily voted for a guy who spent seven years claiming Obama wasn't born in the U.S. How can I find common ground with somebody who genuinely believes that kind of conspiracy nonsense? Why doesn't anyone ever tell them to come to the table, and quit dismissing all our concerns and facts about the (many) problems in this administration as some sort of "elitist liberal nonsense" or "deep state conspiracy"?

Quote

And the Trump supporters now, from the lowest trailer park redcaps to the highest echelons of Fox News and the Republican party, are trapped in a cult. all they can do is double, triple, quadruple down on their bullshit.

As somebody who spent much of her childhood living in a trailer park, I'm embarrassed that these people continue to reaffirm the stereotypes of trailer park residents. 

But yeah. Exactly. It's a cult. That's precisely what it is. Like @attica said, we need to find some way to combat this. There's got to be a way.

4 hours ago, ganesh said:

His arrogance is galling. He acts like he's bulletproof because he's the 'network star' and Trump talks to him on the phone, but really no one is. I hope his phone is tapped. 

That'd be hilarious. 

I guess that's another reason I fail to understand how people are refusing to believe this Mueller investigation is legitimate-look at Hannity's desperate attempts to deflect attention. Look at the constant unhinged rants Trump goes on on Twitter in relation to this investigation. These are not the behaviors of genuinely innocent people. How does that not ping people's radar that something's off here? 

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I was in high school during Watergate--graduated two months before Nixon resigned--and no, the resistance to the investigation didn't take the path of conspiracy theories.  It was more just loyal Republicans who couldn't believe Nixon could or would do any of this, particularly since his reelection in 1972 had been clearly in the bag.  That's the huge irony of Watergate...none of it was necessary.  Nixon was going to be re-elected in a landslide no matter what, but he was so insecure and paranoid that he let his minions go too far and then actively worked to cover up their misdeeds.

Thanks. That's both comforting, in terms of conspiracy theories not being a thing with this, and sad. On many levels. 

I guess the best we can hope for is that Trump's own insecurity and stupidity will be his ultimate downfall, the way Nixon's insecurity and paranoia was for him. 

Quote

Someone somewhere else made the point that back in 1973, there were three networks (plus PBS), and they all basically ran the same kind of news coverage and did very little active editorializing.  There was no talk radio and there were no prime time opinion shows, thus no place to go hide your head in the sand and no echo chamber of choice.  If you didn't want to hear the MSM coverage of Watergate, you turned off your set.

Another valid point. Very true.

And that's the especially sad part. Even in the rare moments when somebody at Fox News does try and criticize Trump, all that does is get the Fox News viewers to turn on the pundit, instead of turn on Trump. Megyn Kelly was suddenly a "liberal traitor" when she called out Trump. Shepherd Smith gets mocked by viewers, too. So we can't even hope for Trump supporters to acknowledge the truth if and when somebody from their favorite news channel states it. 

I dunno. At some point maybe we just need to write off the diehard Trump supporters as a lost cause and just keep focusing on doing what we can to let this investigation continue playing out to its natural conclusion. 

[Enigma X]

1 minute ago, Annber03 said:

Exactly. People keep saying how we need to just reach out to Trump supporters-HOW? I have tried to talk to some of them. They're not operating in a fact-based world! This isn't a simple matter of having basic disagreements on typical policy stuff. I mean, Trump supporters happily voted for a guy who spent seven years claiming Obama wasn't born in the U.S. How can I find common ground with somebody who genuinely believes that kind of conspiracy nonsense? Why doesn't anyone ever tell them to come to the table, and quit dismissing all our concerns and facts about the (many) problems in this administration as some sort of "elitist liberal nonsense" or "deep state conspiracy"?

And this is where I agree to disagree with many of my politically likeminded people. I just can't and won't. 

[ruby24]

This episode really wasn't good for rage suppression. I cannot stand those idiots and liars who make it their business to sow division and ignorance and fealty in a segment of the population. These are the tactics of the old Soviet Union and they work, like John said. You can blame the people I suppose, but the creation of outright state propaganda in the media like this is horrifically irresponsible and unpatriotic. It's appalling.

Edited June 11, 2018 by ruby24

[stillshimpy]

4 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I'd never seen that ad, but almost everything hurts these days and I might need a sock thingy.  I wish Tylenol worked.  What bothers me more is the rampant ageism that presumes everyone over a certain age is a senile Faux News viewer.  

5 hours ago, ganesh said:

 

It's actually Fox who is perpetrating that assumption as well as the advertisers themselves based on age demographics of viewership.     There are plenty of older liberals but they are unlikely to be watching Fox News.   Those ads were targeted to an older audience because the audience for Hannity is older.   

I'm sure there are some younger viewers but the advertising itself skews older presumably because market research has indicated that older viewers watch Hannity.   That does not then imply that  all older viewers watch Fox or Hannity, just that the advertisers think they can sell products aimed at people with ailments associated with aging.  

The advertisements for the Hannity tend to be about ill health but there are plenty of super vital ads geared towards older people where they take an arthritis drug, run in a marathon, ride bicycles, or sit side-by-side in separate tubs waiting for the Cialis to kick in.  

 

The Fox ads seem to be anticipating a grievous slip and fall following that or something because they are marketing towards people who are older, but also not in the best health.   

Edited June 11, 2018 by stillshimpy

[iMonrey]

Quote

The Venezuelan kiss segment was the least comfortable thing I've ever seen. 

I thought that was the president of the Philippines, no? Or am I mixing up my stories?

Quote

I'm sure there are some younger viewers but the advertising itself skews older presumably because market research has indicated that older viewers watch Hannity.   That does not then imply that  all older viewers watch Fox or Hannity, just that the advertisers think they can sell products aimed at people with ailments associated with aging.  

You also can't help but wonder if advertisers target Hannity viewers because they perceive them to be gullible. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by iMonrey

[stillshimpy]

3 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I thought that was the president of the Philippines, no? Or am I mixing up my stories?

No, I beg your pardon, that was entirely my mistake.  I'll correct it.  Thanks for catching it.  

[Victor the Crab]

6 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I was in high school during Watergate--graduated two months before Nixon resigned--and no, the resistance to the investigation didn't take the path of conspiracy theories.  It was more just loyal Republicans who couldn't believe Nixon could or would do any of this, particularly since his reelection in 1972 had been clearly in the bag.  That's the huge irony of Watergate...none of it was necessary.  Nixon was going to be re-elected in a landslide no matter what, but he was so insecure and paranoid that he let his minions go too far and then actively worked to cover up their misdeeds.

^^THIS!!! Nixon and his cronies didn't need to find any way to bring down the Democrats. Because the Democrats were able to do it all on their own. And Nixon and the GOP could sit back in the big sofa and watch the slapsticks like they came home from school to watch the Three Stooges.

 

7 hours ago, ganesh said:

I cannot look at Jared Kushner and not have "I'm Jared Kushner and I DO BUSINESS" in my head. 

This may, arguably, be Gilbert Gottfried's finest work.

 

Quote

Please tell me when John was doing his 'what about' bit that someone else noted that his list had 'The Olson Twin' on it.

I noticed it too. But I also noticed Wayne Gretzky's name. That's just the Canadian in me. Only a crew like LWT's writing staff can come up with a diverse list of people from Pink to Fatty Arbuckle, who was so one century ago.

Ollie's latest look at Stupid Watergate™ might as well be a look at how Fox News operates. It's all about giving specific people what they want. A certain point of view that confirms their narrow minded worldview over facts. And they've been successful at it for over 20 years, going through the motions of administration changes. If a Democrat is in the White House, like if Hillary had won, they would be attacking them 24/7 with no mercy making them out to be the biggest traitors ever. But if its a Republican, they'll find excuses to cover for them and even go after their critics for dare questioning them and America (and in Drumpf's case, act as its mouthpiece). And their audience gobbles it up completely. Sean Hannity is a ginormous tool, but he's an effective one, doing Fox News and the GOP's dirty work for years. Roger Ailes may be wormfood now, and Rupert Murdoch's control is slowly being handed over to his children, but it's still business as usual over at Pravda America, aka Fox News, and will continue to be.

No one should be surprised about the Brits banning television coverage of Parliament for satirical purposes. Jon felt the same ban years ago when he did a spoof covering the British Parliament on TDS and, the following week, let them know how he felt. Or maybe Ollie already knew about it, and put out that series of clips about the House Speaker just to see if they'd go ahead and censor that clip.

I'm rather glad Ollie never brought up the fiasco that was Drumpf vs. the G6. That shitshow was so unnecessary, so depressing, and doesn't bode well for anyone.

Chef. Anthony Bourdain. Nothing else.

[mojoween]

4 hours ago, ganesh said:

I forgot about the Sinbads. 

“The Olsen Twin” amused me, but the Sinbads slayed me.

I love random Marlon Bundo sightings!  Now there is nothing wrong with the club life, but it looks like Marlon made the right choice to settle down.

I understand what John said, but I don’t watch FOX News for a REASON.  Thanks for the increased BP as I truly felt like my head was going to explode.  But I do wag my finger at John because he did a Whataboutism during the campaign when he tried to do a “yes Trump is the antichrist, but Hillary has done bad things too” false equivalency.

The sock thing made my teeth hurt because all it looked to me is that it’s going to stretch out the tops of your socks.

[ahisma]

9 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Someone somewhere else made the point that back in 1973, there were three networks (plus PBS), and they all basically ran the same kind of news coverage and did very little active editorializing.  There was no talk radio and there were no prime time opinion shows, thus no place to go hide your head in the sand and no echo chamber of choice.  If you didn't want to hear the MSM coverage of Watergate, you turned off your set.

And no online "news" sources and no Facebook/Twitter echo chamber.

Roger Ailes actually told Nixon during Watergate that it was too bad there wasn't a GOP news station where "his side" of the story could get aired. Forty years later, Ailes' dream exceeded his expectations, and there is a huge swath of Americans who literally don't know any better.

[Annber03]

Just now, ahisma said:

Roger Ailes actually told Nixon during Watergate that it was too bad there wasn't a GOP news station where "his side" of the story could get aired. 

That's...terrifying. 

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, Victor the Crab said:

Chef. Anthony Bourdain. Nothing else.

I should be more amazed at the care the production team takes updating the intro titles each week, given that each item is on the screen for maybe a second.  They are just that good.  I knew this wouldn't be a topic, unless John had coincidentally decided to do a suicide topic, but still a very nice little touch.

[ganesh]

6 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I guess the best we can hope for is that Trump's own insecurity and stupidity will be his ultimate downfall, the way Nixon's insecurity and paranoia was for him. 

John did point out that Mueller has issued a lot of indictments, so it's not like he's got nothing to go on. And John also pointed out that the legal authority for the investigation is rather broad. Mueller is running this like a RICO investigation into a mafia family, as he should. There's a reason why he hired lawyers who prosecuted Ukranian money laundering cases. That takes time to slowly build evidence. After a year, with all the indictments, I'd say he's progressing well enough. Eventually, you start hauling enough people in, someone is either going to flip entirely or just slip up and let something drop that unravels it all. 

I kind of do like that Mueller isn't saying jack to anyone. 

I do hope the next time Hannity bloviates about why Mueller won't "show the evidence" that he receives an indictment or subpeona the next day. 

Edited June 12, 2018 by ganesh

[Annber03]

All very true, and all very comforting to think about :D. I've heard about the state charges as well, to make it harder for Trump to pardon people so easily. I do appreciate the time and effort Mueller and his team are putting into this investigation, and making absolutely sure they've got all their ducks in a row. Should be quite the interesting day when all the information does officially finally come out. 

Setting aside some voters' devotion to Trump blinding them to what this investigation's achieved, I also wonder if some people's ignorance about this investigation is some variation on that "CSI effect" everyone talks about. They forget or don't think about just how long investigations can take sometimes, especially ones of this magnitude, 'cause they're so used to TV shows wrapping stuff up fast, or seeing celebrity crime cases that move faster (or at least feel like they do), or whatever. And with the deluge of news about Trump that comes out every single day, the reports of indictments and plea deals kinda get lost in the shuffle as a result. Maybe with some people, it's not so much that they don't care, it's that they may not have been aware of just what all's come out thus far, or don't fully understand why you have to be careful about what you do and don't reveal in an investigation. 

A charitable theory, perhaps, but still...

[stillshimpy]

4 hours ago, mojoween said:

The sock thing made my teeth hurt because all it looked to me is that it’s going to stretch out the tops of your socks.

Yes, well it's been awhile since I faced my nemesis:  the quote box I can't delete (no one knows why it seems to be a problem unique to me and now two different Macs ...I suspect me) so I'll just go ahead and point out what I thought better of but now must commit to:  I think if a person is using that they may have circulatory issues and are putting on the type of socks without elastic.  Or at least that's what I told myself when the same thought was bugging me.  

I am not particularly interested in a great meeting of the minds between myself and the fans of 45 seated around the CNN roundtable of people talking about "it's a Witch Hunt".    I can't reason with that, it's pointless to try and have an exchange.  There have been guilty pleas.  I'm just at a loss as to where to proceed if they are just going to ignore the Russian interference part of the Russian Interference investigation. 

At least that clearly illustrated how these scams that actually thrived were possible.  Nigerian Princes, the IRS Tax Fraud Scam, the super awesome one where they assure you in the VM that there are pending charges against "your name"  and nothing short of hobgoblins will soon be descending upon your house to feed upon your soul because "your name" is on at least four warrants...and they never once utter the person's name yet apparently some poor soul is throwing money at them in a dead panic. 

 So now we know, some people and independent reasoning are just not besties to a degree that is rather unnerving. Yeah, well, for whatever it is or isn't worth, I could have done without that particular insight into humanity but also, what in the world are we supposed to do in the face of that?   

During Watergate people weren't being told what to think about Watergate.  They were given the facts and then left to sort through them.  Now people seek out news sources that tell them what to think about the news vs what the news is.  It turns out people are very susceptible to that and actual journalists are far outnumbered.  

Edited June 12, 2018 by stillshimpy

[purist]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I should be more amazed at the care the production team takes updating the intro titles each week, given that each item is on the screen for maybe a second.  They are just that good.

They really are. If those final frames from each episode's opening titles were made available as prints, I would be an enthusiastic customer.

[Hooper]

Quote

I wasn't born yet when Watergate was happening, but I've heard about how that investigation took a few years. For those who were around then, were there people who were this skeptical back then, too, or claiming some sort of conspiracy (aside from Nixon, perhaps :p)? Or is the reaction here unusual in that regard? 

Well, there was a lot of complaining about the "biased liberal press", that I think really took hold when reports started coming out that black people weren't really afforded basic rights in large segments of the country and that things weren't really going all that great in Vietnam.  Nixon, and to an even greater extent, Agnew certainly stoked a distrust of the press that was fairly entrenched in a segment of the population.  Agnew was a thug, but I'll give him this: "nattering nabobs of negativity" beats the hell out of "fake news" for wordsmithing. But I certainly don't recall the sort of conspiracy mongering back in the day that John highlighted last night.  Also, I've never heard the the trumpian manipulation of the media compared to the OJ trial as John laid it out last night, but it was an interesting comparison.  I can totally imagine "trump" "writing"  "If I Did It" from his jail cell.

[peeayebee]

8 hours ago, Hooper said:

Agnew was a thug, but I'll give him this: "nattering nabobs of negativity" beats the hell out of "fake news" for wordsmithing.

IIRC, 'fake news' was coined for actual fake news, stuff literally made up, like the Pizzagate thing. Trump just appropriated the term to use for whatever displeases him.

[Cyranetta]

One difference with the Watergate era is that the hearings were televised, so that if you cared to, you could get the testimony unfiltered by opinion. There may have been plenty of opinion pieces after, but the actual coverage wasn't slanted.

[paigow]

On 6/11/2018 at 11:41 PM, stillshimpy said:

I can't reason with that, it's pointless to try and have an exchange.   

Into The Badlands has a new character this season named Pilgrim. Multiple characters have said: "Why visit him? You cannot reason with him. He is a zealot" 

[SomeTameGazelle]

On 6/11/2018 at 11:41 PM, stillshimpy said:

I think if a person is using that they may have circulatory issues and are putting on the type of socks without elastic.  Or at least that's what I told myself when the same thought was bugging me.  

I can't speak for all users, but as it happens my father, who is in his 70s, not obese, gets regular exercise (gym, golf, long walks), and wears regular socks with elastic, can't bend over to put on his socks and had my mother help him until we bought him one of those devices. The people in the ad were surprisingly young-looking and not very convincing at acting inflexible, so that and John's tone suggested that they were mostly lazy or something, but it is actually a useful tool.

Edited June 14, 2018 by SomeTameGazelle
Changed a preposition.

[attica]

Okay, here's a question that's been nagging at me since Sunday night. Why did LWT's drawing of a penis sport John Bolton's mustache instead of, you know, pubic hair?!

[Rlb8031]

2 hours ago, attica said:

Okay, here's a question that's been nagging at me since Sunday night. Why did LWT's drawing of a penis sport John Bolton's mustache instead of, you know, pubic hair?!

Because John Bolton's mustache would be improved with two balls hanging from it.

[juno]

1 hour ago, Rlb8031 said:

Because John Bolton's mustache would be improved with two balls hanging from it.

I have heard reports from Fox that the Walrus community is trying to expel Bolton from their group due to his conservative views. They have called it the "War on Walruses".

[iMonrey]

Quote

One difference with the Watergate era is that the hearings were televised, so that if you cared to, you could get the testimony unfiltered by opinion. There may have been plenty of opinion pieces after, but the actual coverage wasn't slanted.

Trying to compare actual Watergate with "Stupid Watergate" is really apples and oranges. Social media and the 24-hour cables news cycle have redefined how these things even take place anymore, not to mention how they are perceived. And I really feel my age when I stop to consider how many people at large weren't even born yet during original Watergate and have no idea what it was. It's sort of an out-dated reference, ironically enough.

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

And I really feel my age when I stop to consider how many people at large weren't even born yet during original Watergate and have no idea what it was. 

I'd find it really sad if people who weren't born yet when Watergate happened don't know what it was about or what people are referencing when they mention it, 'cause it'd make me wonder what the hell they're being taught in schools nowadays. Like I said up above, I wasn't alive yet when Watergate happened-I was born 10 years after Nixon resigned-and I know about it. I very clearly remember learning about and discussing it in high school. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Annber03

[iMonrey]

They don't really emphasize history in the curriculum at US public schools anymore, from what I gather. Isn't that what STEM is all about? 

[b2H]

On 6/10/2018 at 10:51 PM, Annber03 said:

I wasn't born yet when Watergate was happening, but I've heard about how that investigation took a few years. For those who were around then, were there people who were this skeptical back then, too, or claiming some sort of conspiracy (aside from Nixon, perhaps :p)? Or is the reaction here unusual in that regard? 

I was a junior in high school during WG and had the privilege of touring the White House the day before the resignation, so you can imagine what a pressure cooker that was, but I digress.

A couple of things we have now were missing then:

There were no Faux News channels then.  The three major networks were all that was available.  The reporters were true journalists.  The media were not profit centers.  Their owners, TV and newspapers alike, understood that news had to be ferreted out, regardless of the cost.  For a clear and pertinent example of this, get hold of a copy of the movie ‘All the President’s Men’ which tells the story of how the Watergate story broke.  The movie will give you a clear picture of why some of us older folks bemoan the current crop of talking heads that make up the media today.

Second, the WWII generation were in their 40s and 50s.  There was total and irrevocable respect for the institutions that made up the basis of our society.  None of them - NONE of them - would have tolerated the tearing down and disrespect being given all of the institutions that are being dragged through the mud and worse today.  They fought for these institutions.  No one was going to demean them on their watch.  It wasn’t skepticism; it was how in hell did his happen?

The Watergate scandal was new.  No one could imagine any President behaving like this.  Sure, there was Teapot Dome and such, but Watergate was much, much bigger.  

Today, we have Faux Noise; weakened and demeaned media; watered down institutions and 24 hour a day news cycles.  

Definitely go watch the movie.  It will open your eyes as to how today is so different.

[attica]

Also, the hearings preempted regular programming. I.e. the soaps went basically on hiatus.  No commercial breaks, except maybe during recesses.

[SnideAsides]

Australia's parliament has the same censorship law as the UK's. It was more surprising to me that the law is so new over there.