President Donald Trump

[Redbirds Fan]

Once again, I have an idea, but thanks for another mildly condescending post.

Think of it as needing to put a violent offender or a habitual drunk driver away before he can hurt or kill someone. Think of it as being the only chance there will be, instead of there being another interview scheduled on another Sunday show in an hour.

Having five cases on a docket in one day is nothing for a prosecutor. The difference is that a prosecutor is prepared for all of those cases. And the prosecutor does the prep and research. And doesn't need anyone shouting questions in his or her ear.

Good lawyers always look calm in the courtroom, except when they want to rattle witnesses. Like when they start lying their asses off. But good lawyers know that because they have done all of their research in advance and they listen very carefully to the witnesses to detect any inconsistencies in what they say.

And do you really believe that if someone has a White House official on the ropes, about to make a massive confession, that they the director will break for a Charmin commercial?

[DMT]

http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/157058066625/we-have-at-most-a-year-to-defend-american

"http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/157058066625/we-have-at-most-a-year-to-defend-american

"Most Americans had a rule of law state for most of their lives, African Americans are an exception, and so most Americans think this will be there forever. They don’t get that a “disruption” can actually destroy much of what they take for granted. They have no notion what it means to destroy the state and how their lives would look like if the rule of law would no longer exist."

[gcstomp]

Impactful article DMT, that articulates such important issues as to how harmful a seemingly bad but not fatal move like constant referring to press as "opposition", and calling mass protests "thugs" or "paid operatives" is following a solid playbook of authoritarianism. Gaslighting a population via a fantasy narrative, backed by FOX and more extreme friends such as Breitbart, as well as the hammer of a majority in House and Senate who are too cowed to act morally, leads to a perfect storm where mass generational damage can occur, but it is not without history.

[cardboardbox]

I know he'll be confirmed, but you said the Dems won't filibuster and that more than 8 democrats would vote for him. Sure Avatar bet it is!

so are we betting on my terms or yours?

[TranaGreg]

I'm not sure which pic I'm more fascinated with ... the first one from earlier today that exemplifies Canada's attitude toward the US these days ... ... or the second which could lead to the end of Canada as we know it ...

<div class="getty embed image" style="background-color:#fff;display:inline-block;font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:#a7a7a7;font-size:11px;width:100%;max-width:594px;"><div style="padding:0;margin:0;text-align:left;"><a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/635101612" target="_blank" style="color:#a7a7a7;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;border:none;display:inline-block;">Embed from Getty Images</a></div><div style="overflow:hidden;position:relative;height:0; padding:64.814815% 0 0 0;width:100%;"><iframe src="//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/635101612?et=PPcDfpTJRyZRKAUn6a3U0A&viewMoreLink=o n&sig=nHG7fvZfeJu90-g1wQNtsvpMzqnzQUdLZiSqLokSI0U=&caption=true" width="594" height="385" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="display:inline-block;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;he ight:100%;margin:0;"></iframe></div><p style="margin:0;"></p></div>

<div class="getty embed image" style="background-color:#fff;display:inline-block;font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:#a7a7a7;font-size:11px;width:100%;max-width:594px;"><div style="padding:0;margin:0;text-align:left;"><a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/635111696" target="_blank" style="color:#a7a7a7;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;border:none;display:inline-block;">Embed from Getty Images</a></div><div style="overflow:hidden;position:relative;height:0; padding:70.033670% 0 0 0;width:100%;"><iframe src="//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/635111696?et=Hh0LyNtuQktOXX6CShTl7g&viewMoreLink=o n&sig=sJACyzwXkU0iI0Ogye_SNfGB3qK9XgEb6gnU_gdvDQI= &caption=true" width="594" height="416" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="display:inline-block;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;he ight:100%;margin:0;"></iframe></div><p style="margin:0;"></p></div>

[Hornsby]

Once again, I have an idea, but thanks for another mildly condescending post.

Think of it as needing to put a violent offender or a habitual drunk driver away before he can hurt or kill someone. Think of it as being the only chance there will be, instead of there being another interview scheduled on another Sunday show in an hour.

Having five cases on a docket in one day is nothing for a prosecutor. The difference is that a prosecutor is prepared for all of those cases. And the prosecutor does the prep and research. And doesn't need anyone shouting questions in his or her ear.

Good lawyers always look calm in the courtroom, except when they want to rattle witnesses. Like when they start lying their asses off. But good lawyers know that because they have done all of their research in advance and they listen very carefully to the witnesses to detect any inconsistencies in what they say.

And do you really believe that if someone has a White House official on the ropes, about to make a massive confession, that they the director will break for a Charmin commercial?

Yes, a prosecutor might have 5 cases in a day, but they're never TRYING 5 cases in a day. They're 1st appearances, bail hearings, motions, and the like. While that is a lot to juggle, each interview is a live event, with a huge audience, and no, that producer is NOT shouting questions in your ear, they're shouting out time cues, video cues, counting down to the wrap, and eventually yelling at the anchor for a hard out. The anchor has to juggle all of these balls in the air, and look calm and professional about it. I'm just telling you that it's not as easy as people think, and it's nothing like they portray in movies and TV. The prep work is indeed done before the interview, sometimes by a producer, but most likely approved and supplemented by the anchor him or herself.

And there's nothing condescending about my post...I don't presume to know the minutia of the legal profession, and I don't expect people to know the minutia of the Television profession. Both are portrayed, badly for the most part, in fiction. Just my attempt to pull back the curtain a little bit. Sorry if I ruffled your Red feathers...

[Redbirds Fan]

Yes, a prosecutor might have 5 cases in a day, but they're never TRYING 5 cases in a day. They're 1st appearances, bail hearings, motions, and the like. While that is a lot to juggle, each interview is a live event, with a huge audience, and no, that producer is NOT shouting questions in your ear, they're shouting out time cues, video cues, counting down to the wrap, and eventually yelling at the anchor for a hard out. The anchor has to juggle all of these balls in the air, and look calm and professional about it. I'm just telling you that it's not as easy as people think, and it's nothing like they portray in movies and TV. The prep work is indeed done before the interview, sometimes by a producer, but most likely approved and supplemented by the anchor him or herself.

And there's nothing condescending about my post...I don't presume to know the minutia of the legal profession, and I don't expect people to know the minutia of the Television profession. Both are portrayed, badly for the most part, in fiction. Just my attempt to pull back the curtain a little bit. Sorry if I ruffled your Red feathers...

Many times do prosecutors try five misdemeanors in a day. That's the way it works sometimes in crowded court systems. Also, a full on trial doesn't consist of "interviewing" a single witness. You often question several witnesses in a day, sometimes including experts.

But regardless of the pressures of a courtroom, a lawyer is expected to perform. I don't think we should excuse a poor performance by journalists because their job is tough. And if their performance is diminished by someone screaming in their ear, then there are serious operational issues.* If they are just taking up time between videos and commercials, it raises questions as to whether we are talking about journalists or props.

*(Why do you think they don't wire up lawyers so they can feed them information on witnesses, case law, statutes, etc.?)

[Sour Masher]

I don't think we should excuse a poor performance by journalists because their job is tough...If they are just taking up time between videos and commercials, it raises questions as to whether we are talking about journalists or props.

I think this is a fair point. I too have often been frustrated by what I consider poor journalism during interviews with politicians. Hornsby has enlightened me as to just how much harder it is than it appears to me as an armchair qb at home. But I do know, that as hard as it is, it is possible to do well, so when I see it done less well, or down right poorly, it is frustrating, because that journalist is a surrogate for me, and it frustrates me when they don't perform well in that capacity.

I guess watching some of these guys bumble and comparing it to times I saw Tim Russert be so prepared and nail every question is like seeing a young back up qb come in for Aaron Rodgers. Yes, it is a hard job, but it is still frustrating when you see someone you want to do well do it poorly.

[Pogues]

Think of it as you being in the courtroom, but not only do you have the case you're currently arguing, you have 4 more on the docket that same day. And all of them are high profile cases covered extensively by all kinds of media. And for good measure you have the head of the law firm wired into your ear yelling new facts and directions that you need to cover. And also yelling that you need to wrap this up so that you can get to the law firm's commercial break on time. All the while you need to look calm and composed, like you're having a simple conversation with an acquaintance at a social function. It's a hell of lot harder than people think it is...the good ones make you believe anyone could do it, trust me, they couldn't.

I think what Redbirds is saying is if they aren't good at it, they shouldn't be doing it.

[Hornsby]

Many times do prosecutors try five misdemeanors in a day. That's the way it works sometimes in crowded court systems. Also, a full on trial doesn't consist of "interviewing" a single witness. You often question several witnesses in a day, sometimes including experts.

But regardless of the pressures of a courtroom, a lawyer is expected to perform. I don't think we should excuse a poor performance by journalists because their job is tough. And if their performance is diminished by someone screaming in their ear, then there are serious operational issues.* If they are just taking up time between videos and commercials, it raises questions as to whether we are talking about journalists or props.

*(Why do you think they don't wire up lawyers so they can feed them information on witnesses, case law, statutes, etc.?)

I don't think that you see a lot of poor performances by journalists on the network level, I really don't. Any more than you see an abundance of poor performances in a courtroom by a trial lawyer. I think that you see journeymen in both professions, and consummate professionals in both as well. Just as a lawyer has an opponent as (supposedly) educated and skilled as he/she is, the interviewer has a similarly skilled opponent in the interviewee. These are people who are very prepared for the most part, trained to stick to their scrips, and tough to trip up. To get any kind of an admission out of them is a pretty good trick, they're sent on these shows to push the party line, and not to deviate from it. That's why it's so heartening to see some of the major (in my eyes) gaffes by the Trump people.

As far as why they wire people up, it's what's done in TV. The commercial breaks pay the bills, and while I don't like it, money is the king at the end of the day. You don't hit the commercial spot on time, the advertiser gets a "make good", in other words, a free commercial somewhere down the line. And my business doesn't like to give ANYTHING away for free.

I admire print journalists, because they get more time with a subject, and usually in a more relaxed place. But even that has changed, as Judge Jude can attest to...now they have to blog, tweet, facebook, and often shoot video during the day, making for an extremely long and difficult day.

[Hornsby]

I think what Redbirds is saying is if they aren't good at it, they shouldn't be doing it.

Do you have good lawyers and bad lawyers? Good mechanics and bad mechanics? Good teachers and bad teachers? What do they call the person who finished last in his class at medical school? Doctor.

There are good, bad, and mediocre in every profession, not everyone is going to be a shining star.

[Redbirds Fan]

Do you have good lawyers and bad lawyers? Good mechanics and bad mechanics? Good teachers and bad teachers? What do they call the person who finished last in his class at medical school? Doctor.

There are good, bad, and mediocre in every profession, not everyone is going to be a shining star.

Good points here.

I did get an "lol", though, reading your line about the skilled opponent in the interviewee. When you are a lawyer, you have the hostile witness to deal with, plus opposing counsel objecting to your questions. That would add an interesting component to a "Meet the Press" interview...having White House counsel there representing Kellyanne...at least they could never use the common objection "asked and answered".

[Bernie Brewer]

I think this is a fair point. I too have often been frustrated by what I consider poor journalism during interviews with politicians. Hornsby has enlightened me as to just how much harder it is than it appears to me as an armchair qb at home. But I do know, that as hard as it is, it is possible to do well, so when I see it done less well, or down right poorly, it is frustrating, because that journalist is a surrogate for me, and it frustrates me when they don't perform well in that capacity.

I guess watching some of these guys bumble and comparing it to times I saw Tim Russert be so prepared and nail every question is like seeing a young back up qb come in for Aaron Rodgers. Yes, it is a hard job, but it is still frustrating when you see someone you want to do well do it poorly.

Thank God we don't have too much experience with that, right Chance!!

[Redbirds Fan]

Who will be the first to go?

I thought my Flynn bet was dead money after this weekend's SNL skit, but he and Spicey are going at it hammer and sickle coming out of the final turn.

[Hornsby]

Who will be the first to go?

I thought my Flynn bet was dead money after this weekend's SNL skit, but he and Spicey are going at it hammer and sickle coming out of the final turn.

The WaPo story tonight is pretty damning on Flynn, so I think that your first impression is going to be right. Pretty damn sad that the 1st to go essentially committed the offense during the Obama administration, and the Trump team was warned that things didn't look good.

Spicer is as good as gone as well, IMO...it's just going to take a little longer. What's amazing is that Omarosa has a WH position of some power...WTF happened to this country?