Is anyone going to watch the Lev Parnas interview with Rachel Maddow tonight?

[SimplyMe]

I think Lawrence is the Hannity of MSNBC. He blows everything Trump does out of proportion. Joe Scarborough would be a close second. Rachel is normally very even handed, fact based and detail oriented. She's great with interviews and gets good ones because she's fair, yet tough and challenging, without being obnoxious or belittling her guests. She has a calm demeanor that I like after an overload of claims that the sky is falling elsewhere. If she is alarmed, there is good reason to be.

I love how she has reporters on from other media to discuss their breaking stories and praises their work and reporting. Within the past year or so, she is editorializing a bit more, but usually she keeps her personal opinions out of her broadcasts and doesn't ask leading questions. I like Lawrence, but his distaste for Trump makes him hard to watch sometimes. I don't like Trump, but I want facts and logic, not Trump hit pieces and bashing Trump for the sake of bashing Trump.

Rachel rarely reports on Trump tweets, or every single thing he says for attention, unless it's really relevant. She reports on what he actually does, and the effects. I like Joy Reid also for the subjects she covers and guests she has, but she asks leading questions more than I like and can be a bit short with her guests when they don't answer the way she likes to support whatever narrative she trying to spin

MSNBC has a lot of good anchors. After Maddow, Ali Velshi, Stephanie Ruhle, Nicolle Wallace and Ari Melber are my favorites in no particular order.

Thanks -- mostly I just knew Alex Jones was a really poor comparison. I tend not to watch the talking heads on TV. As a general rule I just want the news, without commentary -- and if I do want commentary I want a variety of sources with both sides represented.

I actually don't think Hannity is the worst at Fox, though he does seem to be the biggest Trump defender. I think the worst is currently Tucker Carlson, with two of his more outlandish comments this last year, that White Supremacy is "not a real problem" and that the metric system is tyranny.

 

[DavidPT]

He sucked up to Trump every day before the election

Either I didn't have MSNBC at that time, or maybe it's because I had zero interest in politics altogether, thus never tuned into MSNBC at the time, since it wasn't until after Trump was elected that I even began showing an interest in politics. So until you said this here, I guess I was totally unaware he was pro Trump at one time. I would have never guessed it.

 

[Bobber]

They are not acting in good faith. They are simply obstructing and stalling to cover up. You can bet your last dollar, if ANY of those folks had information beneficial to Trump, he'd be tweeting their quotes day and night.

I don't think you can declare there's obstruction unless it is defined as such by the Highest Court of the Land. And even then it's not obstruction unless the party involved still holds back after they've rendered their verdict.

 

[wing2000]

I don't think you can declare there's obstruction unless it is defined as such by the Highest Court of the Land. And even then it's not obstruction unless the party involved still holds back after they've rendered their verdict.

The Constitution is clear: The House has the sole power to impeach. Every President until now has recognized the power of an impeachment investigation. Nixon had specific objections, but even he recognized the White House was obligated to cooperate.

Trump rejects that authority.

I don't need a court to tell me that he is obstructing the authority of Congress.

 

[stevil]

I don't need a court to tell me that he is obstructing the authority of Congress.

Impeachment is a political process not a legal one.
The courts are there to resolve legal issues, not political issues.

 

[Kentonio]

Impeachment is a political process not a legal one.
The courts are there to resolve legal issues, not political issues.

Except it’s not actually that simple is it. The US has created a situation where there is apparently no legal mechanism to charge a sitting president with crimes. The only mechanism available is impeachment. So if impeachment is allowed to be talked down as a purely political process, then the president really is being handed basically a total immunity. Yes congress is political, but impeachment has to be more than just political theatre.

 

[stevil]

Except it’s not actually that simple is it. The US has created a situation where there is apparently no legal mechanism to charge a sitting president with crimes. The only mechanism available is impeachment. So if impeachment is allowed to be talked down as a purely political process, then the president really is being handed basically a total immunity. Yes congress is political, but impeachment has to be more than just political theatre.

I'd don't like the USA system. I like the system in my country better.
But I am fascinated to see the USA system operate.
I'm open to it being a "good" system. But I am very doubtful.

If your house and your senate are controlled by the opposition, they can impeach and throw out your President and Vice President and can block attempts to appoint another vice. Therefore the speaker of the house would gain control, which would mean the opposition party take over.
Republicans could have done that in Obama's last two years, but they didn't. It would have given them control for two years, but likely "the people" would have voted against them in the 2016 election if that were the case.

Impeachment happens publicly, and ultimately the people get to decide at the next elections if they thing congress behaved appropriately or not.
The next election becomes judgement day, on the impeachment process rather than an election on campaign promises and policies etc.

Ultimately "the people" become the last line of defence with regards to your continuing democracy and constitution.
Once the people get so polarised that they care more about party affiliation than about democracy and constitution, then you are screwed.

 

[Kentonio]

I'd don't like the USA system. I like the system in my country better.
But I am fascinated to see the USA system operate.
I'm open to it being a "good" system. But I am very doubtful.

If your house and your senate are controlled by the opposition, they can impeach and throw out your President and Vice President and can block attempts to appoint another vice. Therefore the speaker of the house would gain control, which would mean the opposition party take over.
Republicans could have done that in Obama's last two years, but they didn't. It would have given them control for two years, but likely "the people" would have voted against them in the 2016 election if that were the case.

Impeachment happens publicly, and ultimately the people get to decide at the next elections if they thing congress behaved appropriately or not.
The next election becomes judgement day, on the impeachment process rather than an election on campaign promises and policies etc.

Ultimately "the people" become the last line of defence with regards to your continuing democracy and constitution.
Once the people get so polarised that they care more about party affiliation than about democracy and constitution, then you are screwed.

Well I’m not personally, because I’m not American, but yes I agree with the point.

 

[SimplyMe]

I'd don't like the USA system. I like the system in my country better.
But I am fascinated to see the USA system operate.
I'm open to it being a "good" system. But I am very doubtful.

If your house and your senate are controlled by the opposition, they can impeach and throw out your President and Vice President and can block attempts to appoint another vice. Therefore the speaker of the house would gain control, which would mean the opposition party take over.
Republicans could have done that in Obama's last two years, but they didn't. It would have given them control for two years, but likely "the people" would have voted against them in the 2016 election if that were the case.

Impeachment happens publicly, and ultimately the people get to decide at the next elections if they thing congress behaved appropriately or not.
The next election becomes judgement day, on the impeachment process rather than an election on campaign promises and policies etc.

Ultimately "the people" become the last line of defence with regards to your continuing democracy and constitution.
Once the people get so polarised that they care more about party affiliation than about democracy and constitution, then you are screwed.

Not that simple. Republicans couldn't have removed Obama because it requires a 2/3rds votes of all Senators to remove a President. It would be vary rare for one party to control 67 Senate seats, the last time it occurred is 1964. It would be much rarer for one party to control 67 Senate seats but have a President of the other party; I don't believe it has happened in American history.

 

[stevil]

Not that simple. Republicans couldn't have removed Obama because it requires a 2/3rds votes of all Senators to remove a President. It would be vary rare for one party to control 67 Senate seats, the last time it occurred is 1964. It would be much rarer for one party to control 67 Senate seats but have a President of the other party; I don't believe it has happened in American history.

OK, thanks for clarifying.