|
Pander posted:I can't see Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes ever having any moral failings, they seem like genuinely good people and I will fight anyone suggesting otherwise they're both democratic establishment hacks by dint of being on msnbc in primetime, but in maddow's case by her own admission she's nowhere near as left wing as people make her out to be hayes though, it's a shame because he really does know better but he was never gonna make cable news money at the nation
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Giggy posted:What did Matthews do? My bad. I meant Brian Williams BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:they're both democratic establishment hacks by dint of being on msnbc in primetime, but in maddow's case by her own admission she's nowhere near as left wing as people make her out to be Maddow has gotten pretty loving crazy with Russia conspiracy poo poo since Trump won. Hayes seems like an okay guy on Twitter but it’s extremely obvious that MSNBC tells him what to and what not to say sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:Maddow has gotten pretty loving crazy with Russia conspiracy poo poo since Trump won. In what way? I find his deference to more conservative guests to be his achilles heel, but I haven't noticed him adopting particularly bad takes of his own. And Maddow goes full bore on anything she feels she broke. She led with Chris Christie Bridgegate poo poo for like a solid two years straight, because she felt she owned the story. Russia's kinda been her beat. If you've read her book you know American foreign policy and domestic graft/corruption are her beats, so it makes pretty good sense that Russia stuff is gonna be prominent on her show. She mostly just focuses on highlighting undersold stuff or recapping the big picture to show how things tie together, rather than wholesale conspiracy-mongering like Mensch/Abramson do. If you have fatigue it's understandable, but I don't see it as a failing on her part to keep focus on news she feels she broke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
It's still conspiracy nonsense grasping at straws 9 times out of 10. Also, who can forget the big rear end scoop of Donald Trump's tax returns from 2003! Wow! Such journalism!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Phone posted:It's still conspiracy nonsense grasping at straws 9 times out of 10. Also, who can forget the big rear end scoop of Donald Trump's tax returns from 2003! Wow! Such journalism! And she more than anyone brings up that it was an overhyped dud. When's the last time you've seen Sean Hannity rizz himself for all the times he's botched a lead?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
I still can't get over how Maddow over hyped (on twitter, a few hours before it aired) a bad scoop once and apparently its the defining moment of her journalistic career. What's conspiratorial about Maddow's stuff? The thing with Maddow is that she's an EXHAUSTIVE researcher. Which is why she digs so deep into stories when they get her attention. Bridgegate. Flint. Now Russia. I haven't watched every episode of Maddow. I catch her 2 or 3 times a week (and despite a heavy focus not every episode is about Russia). I can't say she hasn't grasped at straws or made leaps. But I've never actually seen anyone who lobs that criticism at her back it up. I've seen a lot of instances where she dug deep into something that broke later and turned out to be true. I've seen her deliberately leap to a conclusion and point it out as a leap. But I've never seen the kind of "conspiracy obsession" that I hear her accused of from people like both Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald. And like I said, I never really see anyone actually making the case just dismissing her with a handwave. Which don't get me wrong, part of the reason I don't watch nightly anymore is because I just don't want to hear about Russia THAT much. But I always get to that point where Maddow where she cares more about a subject than I do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
Pointing out hypocrisy is a completely worthless tool. It's not ultimately impressive that Maddow has infinitely more self-reflection than Sean Hannity. A dog looking at itself in the mirror has more self-reflection than Hannity. E: Russia is a red herring. If you want to go pin all of your hopes and dreams that russian russians did a russia in russia with noted russian vladimir putin at the helm of the biggest russia russia has ever seen, go for it. It's not groundbreaking news that stateless oligarchs are a bunch of assholes, but I'm sure that a few 100k in facebook ads really was the undoing of the facsimile of American democracy. Phone fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
all cable news is garbage, it's a rotten format that is terrible for actual news radio is far better for people telling the news at you because the overheads are much lower so they dont need to crank so hard to remain profitable. or you just straight up beg for money
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
Hannity loves the bunny ranch https://twitter.com/ALT_uscis/status/986256163011428357
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:all cable news is garbage, it's a rotten format that is terrible for actual news If you're watching cable news to learn the news for more than an hour or less you're probably wasting your time. I think Hayes does a good job of the classic "spend an hour with me and I'll give you the day's news in US politics". Cooper's good at that CNN is generally more "breaking news" obsessed to cover stories from earlier in the day. Maddow is one of the few places on cable news I think you can consistently "learn" something, but its entirely possible it won't be something you care to learn. Its why I think its weird that she's so commonly the target of this argument. If you're looking to better understand the world through primetime cable news you're probably making some bad choices. There's endless news sources, podcasts, radio, magazines, books, videos, etc out there at your finger tips that would do a better job. I don't think any of us would disagree with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
There hasn't been useful cable news outside of real emergency situations since CNN canned the original CNN Headline News channel's format. What had been a useful video version of major market radio 24/7 news like KYW 1060 instead became yet another useless talking head showpiece.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
Phone posted:E: Russia is a red herring. If you want to go pin all of your hopes and dreams that russian russians did a russia in russia with noted russian vladimir putin at the helm of the biggest russia russia has ever seen, go for it. It's not groundbreaking news that stateless oligarchs are a bunch of assholes, but I'm sure that a few 100k in facebook ads really was the undoing of the facsimile of American democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Pander posted:In what way? If you follow Hayes on Twitter he espouses and endorses views much more left-wing than anything you could get away with saying on TV. I know, because he doesn't say them on TV.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I still can't get over how Maddow over hyped (on twitter, a few hours before it aired) a bad scoop once and apparently its the defining moment of her journalistic career. lol Don't be naive. She's been happily regurgitating talking points from cozy IC leakers ever since Trump won due to a deep mutual hatred of Orange Hitler, and guess what—it's working for her ratings! She's simply prioritizing the Fox News business model of ratings before facts, xenophobia, etc. Her hysterical neoconservative views towards Syria and Russia have gotten so bad that even the leftist show Our Cartoon President regularly lampoons her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
The Russia stuff is 100% worthless and will go nowhere and the hashtag resistance should be focusing their efforts on support for actual progressive policies instead of cheerleading the loving FBI but this is hell timeline so 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It basically means, in the course of a legal case, that you're allowed to say "between you and me?" and discuss things pertinent to a case, often in a hypothetical sense, that may or may not be introduced into evidence, but it doesn't allow you admit to, plot or commit a crime and, to large extent, is there to protect the attorney since it's their job to represent you regardless of you guilt or innocence. The Attorney-Client privilege absolutely covers admission of crime. That's like, most of the reason that it was first implemented - so the accused could tell his attorney everything about what they're being accused of. Without providing 100% honesty to your attorney, how could they setup a coherent legal defense? So long as they're not actively trying to still commit crimes with the assistance of the attorney, or be party to a crime being committed, they're protected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:The Russia stuff is 100% worthless and will go nowhere and the hashtag resistance should be focusing their efforts on support for actual progressive policies instead of cheerleading the loving FBI but this is hell timeline so the #theresistance people often aren't actually progressives  It's this, but with Trump: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Her hysterical neoconservative views towards Syria and Russia...  Really? That's the one you're going with? You want anyone to take you seriously when you accuse Rachel Maddow of being "hysterical"? Because I can't hear you over the sound of her doing another ten minute preamble about the 70's political landscape before even touching on today's news.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:The Attorney-Client privilege absolutely covers admission of crime. That's like, most of the reason that it was first implemented - so the accused could tell his attorney everything about what they're being accused of. Without providing 100% honesty to your attorney, how could they setup a coherent legal defense? So long as they're not actively trying to still commit crimes with the assistance of the attorney, or be party to a crime being committed, they're protected. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:The Attorney-Client privilege absolutely covers admission of crime. That's like, most of the reason that it was first implemented - so the accused could tell his attorney everything about what they're being accused of. Without providing 100% honesty to your attorney, how could they setup a coherent legal defense? So long as they're not actively trying to still commit crimes with the assistance of the attorney, or be party to a crime being committed, they're protected. My understanding is that attorney-client privilige protects you if you admit to a crime you have already committed but does not cover crimes you plan on committing if you discuss them with your attorney. "Yeah I killed that guy" is covered, "As soon as I'm done talking to you I'm going to go kill the eyewitness" is not. Can someone who knows anything at all about law confirm/deny?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:28
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Nope. As an officer of the court, you have a duty to the law and to report any confessed crimes. Have you never heard a lawyer lead someone into not confessing, but giving the hypothetical needed to build a defense? No. Source: My personal attorney I keep on retainer not Cohen has told me directly, multiple times, including when I was arrested for armed robbery, that confessing to the crime to her, once retained, is protected information. Basically it helps them by having a 100% understanding of the case and evidence, and also let's them know that you should absolutely NOT be getting on the stand to testify, because you'd get shredded on cross-exam. No attorney can be compelled to go into court like a tattle tale "HE DID IT! HE TOLD ME SO!" Zipperelli. fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:36
|
|
|
Yea. I guess I'm thinking more of the affirmative, where they are really painted into a corner, because they still can't purger themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:38
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Yea. I guess I'm thinking more of the affirmative, where they are really painted into a corner, because they still can't purger themselves. "If a client tells his/her attorney "I am guilty of the charges against me," a lawyer cannot ethically argue that the client is innocent, or allow the client to tell a false story, such that he/she was 10 miles away when the crimes took place. Therefore, an admission of guilt to an attorney may limit what an attorney can ethically do at trial as part of a defense. However, such an admission would have no impact on the defendant's ability to plead not guilty." Long story short, they can't be forced to rat you out, but they also can't put you in a position to tell a lie in court, ie: testimony, however, they can still sit and allow you to plead not guilty, because the onus of finding guilt is on the state/government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
i think some people get confused because attorney-client privilege doesn't cover a client and an attorney committing a crime together so they think it means if an attorney finds out about a crime they gotta rat.Previa_fun posted:The Russia stuff is 100% worthless and will go nowhere and the hashtag resistance should be focusing their efforts on support for actual progressive policies instead of cheerleading the loving FBI but this is hell timeline so yeah i don't think a lot of liberals get that it isn't a trump card. when you bring this up in the trump thread they get pretty steamed. it's not like if ted cruz won without russia's help we'd be in a materially better position (and trump wins without russian interference anyway). republicans would vote for anyone with an R next to their name - the guy is already one of the worst presidents ever and still has an 80+ approval rating with republicans. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:No. The gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:The gently caress? What’s confusing about that
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:51
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:The gently caress? People who commit crime are fairly normal and generally do it for mundane reasons, and don't live in some kind of alternative reality, is apparently a shock to you? "Armed robbery" covers everything from "had a pocket knife and stole a Twinkie" to "robbed a bank with an assault rifle," remember.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:52
|
|
|
most of us don't steal things. but also innocent people are arrested for crimes on the regular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
I've gone into this in detail in the prison thread, but the tl;dr is I did a lot of dumb poo poo at 18 years old and spent 5 years, 2 months and 8 days in state prison for armed robbery. I keep the same attorney on retainer, and plan to until 2020, which is 10 years post-release. This is solely for things like rural areas where their databases may not be updated or errors may occur showing me as currently incarcerated, and I'm arrested because they think I've escaped (it's happened to a buddy of mine, so it has basis in reality, no matter how rare). Inspector Gesicht posted:The gently caress? Use your words. What's so confusing about being arrested for armed robbery that you felt the need to bold it? Zipperelli. fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 10:11
|
|
|
I thought an actual goon was admitting to armed-robbery almost casually in the middle of a post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPRwro-LI24 Inspector Gesicht fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:I thought an actual goon was admitting to armed-robbery almost casually in the middle of a post.  Yeah, I did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:
Technically, you admitted to nothing beyond being arrested.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
I heard Limbaugh yesterday say, "you want to talk about conflict of interest? The judge overseeing Cohen's hearing was almost appointed to the attorney general by BILL CLINTON" I'm starting to think these guys are unhinged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
Glenn Beck's enduring contribution was that getting the names on the chalkboard was more important than why you put them there. Because at the end of the segment BILL CLINTON and JUDGE and COHEN are all on the board, and human caveman brain can't help but associate them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
Glenn Beck's signature has been him being very melodramatic and saying a few strings of words that sound important and scary when spoken together. My personal favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rPqiLLHcxQ&t=253s
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
pop fly to McGillicutty posted:I heard Limbaugh yesterday say, "you want to talk about conflict of interest? The judge overseeing Cohen's hearing was almost appointed to the attorney general by BILL CLINTON" NPR says she was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Google confirms. So this is just a blatant loving lie then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:Hannity might be stupid enough to not know what's real or not but Rush is smart enough to know everything he's saying is a lie. this is why I can listen to limbaugh much easier than hannity. There is a bit of craft to what limbaugh does but hannity is just dumb idiot saying the first stupid thing he can think of. sean hannity is the worst
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 14:27
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:NPR says she was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Google confirms. She was appointed to her position by Reagan. Clinton considered her for AG then backed off of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Zerilan posted:She was appointed to her position by Reagan. Clinton considered her for AG then backed off of it. Ah, Ok. I mis-read that post. Then wtf is he trying to imply though? ALMOST appointed? So?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 15:23
|
|