A couple of days ago when it was announced that Joe diGenova, (best-known as a commentator on "Fox News" far more than being an attorney) would be joining the Trump legal team, I was discussing the hiring with a friend. He was concerned about how problematic the lawyer would be from diGenova's reputation as conspiratorialist, tearing into Robert Mueller and the FBI investigation. What I said is that I thought this was an absolutely great hire by Trump for helping cause division in the country and for diehard Trump acolytes who'd love seeing an aggressive attacker on behalf of the president. And I added that I thought it was an even more spectacular hire for those who hated Trump and wanted to see him not only impeached but thrown in prison. Short version: the second reason matters. The first does not. This investigation is not about what the Trump supporters think about the case. Indeed, it's not about what anyone in the general public thinks. This is a legal case for federal court, where the Special Counsel for the FBI is investigating Russian efforts to manipulate the 2016 election, for which five people have already plead guilty and 19 additional indictments have been issued -- so far. And not only will voluminous mounds of evidence be involved, including sworn testimony by those involved, emails and audio tapes, and federal judges and juries deciding on all this evidence, but it will serve as the basis for the House of Representatives deliberating to decide whether or not to impeach the president of the United States, and if so, for the U.S. Senate to debate whether to convict him. It will not be decided by poll numbers. (Which is actually a good thing for Trump devotees, given his 39% approval.) No matter how much Joe diGenova and the Trump team of lawyers want to pound the table, weep crocodile tears and try to rile up "Fox News" viewers about a supposed fake Witch Hunt conspiracy, the reality is -- and reality in every sense of the word -- that this is not a "secret Deep State" cabal put together by rogue intelligence officers to bring down the president. It actually is an actual investigation into actual Russian involvement to actually disrupt our election, and the Special Counsel was actually and really-truly authorized by Trump's own State Department. So, while the new Trump team of lawyers mount their TV campaign to outrage the already outraged base, Robert Mueller's team has been methodically preparing for court for the past year. Add to that the pesky reality of how the Trump team of lawyers doesn't have all that much experience in impeachment cases, which is why they're actually there in the first place, and its new hire doesn't seem to have even practiced law for a while, but just been a TV commentator baying at the moon since the days of Bill Clinton 20 years ago, and when he did practice law his foundation was as a prosecutor, and now the former-lead attorney for the defense has been let go, all of which doesn't seem to be the best strategy for defending the White House. Especially given that the Special Counsel leading the opposition is the former Director of the FBI, and his team was put together of international experts whose career works has put members of the Mob in prison. It was a treat to see GOP consultant Rick Wilson address all this yesterday, as well, saying all of that and saying it oh-so-much better. He was on CNN and was as blunt and scathing as one could be about all this "strategy." When one of the other panelists pointed out how aggressive diGenova would be on TV, Wilson -- someone who I don't always agree with but find smart and objective -- put it all in proper and very Rick Wilsonian perspective. “Well, the problem for the whole theory of a reality TV set of lawyers is that Robert Mueller has a team of pipe-swinging, knee-breaking actual prosecutors and they’re going to chew these guys up and spit them out,” Wilson responded. “They’re going to take a Joe diGenova, who hasn’t practiced law for quite some time I understand, and they’re going to gut them — they’re going to roll them over and spank them.” But that was only the starting point, as he was just warming up, and then leaving the rest of the panel in almost awestruck admiration -- and that's not my perception, it's largely what host Don Lemon said at the end. Here's the video. It's short, but if you only want to see Rick Wilson, jump to the 2:00 mark.
0 Comments
I've posted several songs from a 1976 TV musical version of "Pinocchio" that starred Sandy Duncan, along with Danny Kaye as Gepetto. It doesn't have a memorable score, but the songs by Billy Barnes are tuneful and work fine within the show. This is a nice, haunting ballad that a lonely Peter sings (and which Sandy Duncan does an excellent job with), "If I Could Start Again." I have a sort of fun, odd bonus video. Billy Barnes, who wrote the score, was a successful music director for TV shows in the 1960s and into the 1970s. He also wrote special material and his name was most-familiar to for a series of "Billy Barnes Revue" albums he released. So, it was with a double-take that I noticed his name in the cast of an episode of Mad About You. He played a small role as a goofy piano player, Mr. Edlin, who was so amusing for his over-the-top mugging smile (and always going into playing a honky tonk versio of "One of Those Songs") that they used him in three episodes altogether (sometimes as an organist). If you watched the show, I suspect you'd recognize him. But as a reminder, I was able to track down one of those episodes -- when Paul Reiser directors a seniors production of The Pirates of Penzance -- the first one that the character appeared in, as the rehearsal pianist. This should jump to the right scene that he appears in throughout, but if not just go to the 4:00 mark. Breaking news just in (9 AM Los Angeles time) --
Trump lawyer John Dowd has resigned. Yes, this is the same John Dowd who twice has made public claims about the president and then had to fall on his sword and personally take the blame for them. But still...I thought Trump said only last week that his legal team was great and he was "very happy" with it and then slammed the New York Times and its reporter Maggie Haberman for lying. Yet the thing is...wait, just the other day he hired a new lawyer and now today loses one. So, what gives?? Was Trump not telling the truth when he tweeted that? Was he the one who was lying? Is that possible??? O heavens. As I type this, in the background Rep. Eric Swallwell (D-CA) on the House Judiciary Committee is saying, "President Trump could have Clarence Darrow as his lawyer, and it doesn't change what a flawed and exposed client he is." O heavens. Lately, I've been seeing a lot of use of the phrase, "A good guy with a gun." I don't know if this was one of those flumberjumming terms coined by Trump, or if it was put out into the world by the NRA, or if just popped up over time by osmosis. It's supposed to relate to when someone on the spot of a shooting has their own gun and heroically shoots the gunman. It's been used a lot these past few days because of the actions by Blaine Gaskill, the security guard at the Maryland high school who shot the intruder who had entered the school.
To be incredibly clear -- I think the actions of Mr. Gaskill were terrific, and he deserves the praise he has gotten. He is a trained guard, was on the spot, and did his job impressively. So, hat's off to him. What's another matter entirely are the public extrapolations that have come from it. For starters, just at its most basic, it is worlds different for a trained security guard to be armed and vigilantly protect a school as his specific, focused job, than for a teacher working in a classroom to have a gun. Not the same things. Not even close. But beyond that, the whole "A good guy with a gun" conjures up false macho fantasy of hired gunslingers wandering the streets of Dodge City keeping the womenfolk and little ones safe from marauders. As someone wrote to me, "If that shooter at Virginia Tech had been confronted by a good guy with a gun, lives would’ve been saved." As fist-pumping noble as that sounds to some, we have no idea if it's even remotely true. It might be. But it might have made the situation horrifyingly worse. That's because "If only" is not how life works. We can fantasize "If only" about most everything in our lives, and some things might have changed for the better, and some things might have caused the Law of Unintended Consequences. We simply don't know. That's why "A good guy with a gun" is meaningless with all the school mass shootings. Much as we might wish for it, because anything seems better than the reality of what happened, the truth is that "A good guy with a gun" in Parkland, Florida, might have missed and killed even more innocent kids. But take the thought to the next step -- the next, logical step. Because I've yet to hear any gun advocate argue that there should (or even possibly could ) be just one, official "Good guy with a gun" available on-the-the-spot when any mass shooting breaks out. So, what if there were more? Because that's the next logical step in the argument. And more guns is not inherently better and safer. It might be -- but it might be far more disastrous. Just having merely two "good guys" with guns inside the school, or in any enclosed space where there's a shooter, or anywhere a shooting takes place would likely have created cross-fire and worsened the situation significantly. And what if it was four "Good guys" with guns -- there's no reason to think it wouldn't be, as long as we're allowing ourselves to imagine two (or even just that one "Good guy with a gun") or seven, or 10 "Good guys" with guns -- all shooting back-and-forth at wherever they see gunfire, thinking maybe that's the gunman, spraying bullets all over, hitting innocent children, taking out innocent bystanders, killing themselves. Because not only is that a possible result, but I would suggest the likely one. "If only there was a good guy with a gun" is an absolutely great fantasy. And sometimes there is a trained security guard like Blaine Gaskill on the spot, focused on doing his job that he's trained for, and the situation is not as deadly as it could have been. But the reality is that when we allow for "A good guy with a gun" as the policy, which means armed people all over with guns at the ready to begin firing, one thing we have tragically learned over time is that the more guns there are shooting, the more chance there is for far more bullets to to find targets, whether intended or otherwise. (Side note: despite gun advocates pointing to the "Good guy with a gun" who shot the gunman at the Texas church -- what gets overlooked is that he was not inside the church, but rather shot the killer outside when he was leaving, after the killing spree. In a perfect world, perhaps the situation would have been better if that "Good guy with a gun" had been inside. But life is not perfect, which is why maybe it would have been worse if there there been more shooting in that small, enclosed space, most-especially if half the parishioners had guns and were shooting everywhere.) And none of this even takes into consideration what if the "Good guy with a gun" isn't really all that good. But instead of our western hero Shane majestically patrolling the land and protecting the farmers from cattle rustlers, what if that guy with the gun is actually a nervous wreak. Or tightly-wound with an hair-trigger finger. Or exhausted, operating on four hours of sleep. Or had three beers for lunch. Or...what if a dozen of these guys with guns were a mixture of all that?! And all those scared, tired, slightly-tipsy, jittery, angry, high, agitated, fully inebriated people with guns -- let alone with semi-automatic pistols -- began firing at anything that moved. Or at anything, period. Yeah, sure, right, "A good guy with a gun" is all we need to make gun violence go away. That's the answer. The reality is that there is only one thing we know for absolute certain that creates less gun violence, and that is no guns. That won't happen in the United States as far as the eye can see. But the point is that while it may not be a realistic solution, it's the only honest answer. And "more guns" is not. As is my wont, I was browsing the YouTube thing and came across a video that reminded me of an article I had written seven years ago for the Huffington Post. May 25th, for those of you keeping notes. It was somewhat of an offbeat piece. The background is that on a recent episode of Aaron Sorkin's show, Studio 60 on the Sunset Trip (about the people who put on a weekly live TV variety show, somewhat like Saturday Night Live), he brought in Allison Janney to guest star -- as the fake show's guest host that week. What made this noteworthy is that a regular on the this series was Timothy Busfield, who played the show's director. And for fans of The West Wing, this meant a re-teaming of Sorkin, Janney and Busfield -- the latter two who had just a joyously fun rapport in their dance-around-the-edges, would-be-but-never-quite romance. And the treat of the episode is that their wonderful rapport was still intact, and Sorkin played it for all it was worth. Even putting in a The West Wing reference -- which wasn't a stretch, since Allison Janney played a character named...Allison Janney. I wish I could embed the full episode. It was a total treat, more of a comedy than usual, since it was about everything going wrong. But the good news is that I did find a 10-minute video that cut together much of Allison Janney's scenes -- which means that it includes much of the scenes with her and Timothy Busfield together. And that's the whole point here. The video doesn't do the episode justice -- or even do their scenes together justice, since you lose a bit of context. But you get a pretty good idea -- and with my original article below, you should have a better idea still. Just know this: in the episode, the prop department has gone on strike, and the question that Janney is concerned about during final dress rehearsal is whether the people with cue cards are part of the prop department. Busfield has kept assuring her before airtime that the cue cards are fine -- all to keep her calm. But the reality is...well, here's the article and then the video -- Hollywood’s New ‘It’ Couple in a Perfect World May 25, 2011 Admittedly, this is a bit different. With the inauguration of the Huffington Post’s new design, however, it seems appropriate. A mere piffle to be sure, but some things far under the radar are too good to be allowed to pass without notice. Last Thursday, NBC brought back Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, no doubt for its last hurrah. But whatever the reason, it was worthwhile because it gave the audience a chance to see one more re-teaming of what’s becoming a remarkable TV couple — Allison Janney and Timothy Busfield. The two, of course, first overlapped on The West Wing as press secretary C.J. Cregg, and reporter Danny Concannon who was madly in love with her, but was perpetually rebuffed. Their rapport was always such a gem that it was allowed to flourish, to the point where the hapless Danny was allowed to win his heart’s desire at the end. Janney isn’t a part of Studio 60, though Busfield is a regular, playing the director of the show-within-the-show. But Aaron Sorkin, who created both series, had the good sense to bring the actress in for a guest appearance, and made sure her character interacted with Busfield’s as much and as wonderfully as possible. Whatever anybody thought of Studio 60, this one episode — titled “The Disaster Show” — made the whole series worth it. Okay, NBC might disagree, but they were footing the bill. (For my taste, I thought Studio 60 started out weakly, which killed it, but three or four weeks in, it found its voice and got absolutely terrific. But by then, it had lost its audience and was too late.) But opinions of the full series aside, it was this single teaming of Janney and Busfield on Thursday that leaped out. On the episode, Allison Janney portrayed a character named ... well, ‘Allison Janney.’ She played herself hosting the sketch show — on a night when the people who handle the cue cards go on strike moments before the live show is scheduled to begin. The joy of the episode is that Busfield, as director, spends most of the show lying to Janney to keep her from panicking, and then charmingly apologizing the moment the problem comes to light. Such as when she steps on stage to do her opening monologue on live TV, only to discover to her horror that she has to ad-lib it. Busfield has given her an earpiece so that he can help guide her through the nightmare — but it’s her nightmare, because he appears to be having the time of her life. “Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention,” he coos warmly, with a twinkle, “there are no cue cards.” Throughout the show, the two communicate intimately over the monitor, which is no easy feat for actors, as the studio audience is blissfully unaware of her private hell and thinking she’s talking to them alone. The funniest moment comes at the end, when she’s saying her live “goodnights” after the total disaster ... and then one more disaster occurs. As she desperately struggles on, even stumbling over her own credits, Busfield whispers into her earpiece, “‘The West Wing,’” and she finally screams out exasperated, uncaring that it’s live TV, “I know the name of the show I was on!!!!” The whole episode was a hoot, but the joy was watching two consummate professionals having the time of their lives acting together, even when they usually weren’t in the same room together. As good as they were on “The West Wing,” they were even better here, like a pair of comfortable shoes that just feel perfect. Like a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces fit exactly, and the result is a beautiful picture. A friend referred to them as the new ‘Nick and Nora,’ alluding to the characters William Powell and Myrna Loy played impeccably ages ago in the classic Thin Man movies. The performances that Janney and Busfield give are completely different, but the sensibility is apt: smart, funny, loving and outspoken. What we get are two actors so gorgeously paired that they become something different entirely, something special. Their timing, their glances, their body language all took the clever dialogue of the episode to another level. I don’t know what Aaron Sorkin is going to do next, but it should be sure to have the two of them in it. Actually, some network should be smart enough to team them up in a series. Maybe they work best as a supporting couple, I don’t know — but man, do they ever work great together. Yesterday, I wrote elsewhere that I thought I'd figured out why Trump hasn't said a word about the Austin bombings and deaths. It wasn't just that the first two victims were black, I wrote -- but also, he didn't know the color of the bomber. As a result, he wasn't sure if the person was a terrorist or just someone he could excuse as mentally disturbed.
Well, as you might imagine, a diehard Trump acolyte on social media took offense at this and wrote me a snarky message to show how wrong I was, and sent me the link to an article which proved (!!) I was wrong (no doubt a damn libtard, I'm sure...), because it showed Trump talking about the bombings. "Here are the words he said," she wrote to me, sashaying around as she typed, it seemed. And God love her, because if anything could have not only proven my point, but even more so -- proven the utter emptiness of diehard Trump acolytes who have given up to concept of thought in place of mindless hero worship and don't see reality but instead have created a world of delusion. The article she sent me not only didn't have a quote from Trump...it didn't even have one single reference to Trump! But to a diehard Trump acolyte, that didn't matter. It was about the bombings, and she apparently just filled in all the totally blank spaces. The concept of "Fan fiction" has taken on new meaning... |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|