The 20 Top Reasons why Lou Dobbs invited Trump fangirl video-bloggers "Diamond and Silk" on his "Fox Business News"" show to analyze the Mueller Report that no one has seen --
Abbott & Costello are dead. Bert & Ernie were too expensive. Mistakenly thought they were the country music duo Big & Rich. Felt his show needed to liven itself up with comedy bits. No one else would come on. Thought it was April Fools Day. Had to get someone to fill in quickly after discovering "Frick & Frack" is just an expression. Wanted to give a couple of down-on-their-luck actors a break. Thought the classy-sounding names would lend respect to his show. Finally decided to give up any pretense of being taken seriously. The Devil made him do it. Had a '60s flashback and thought they were Huntley & Brinkley. Was going to invite just "Diamond" alone but found out he could get "Silk" for no extra charge. Believed they were product placement and he would get freebies.. Wanted guests on who would make him sound smart. Insists it was a liberal Commie plot. Heard rumors he would be fired, so it was his way to get retribution. The idea came to him in a fever-induced dream. Bradley Cooper & Lady Gaga weren't available. Thought he was ordering wardrobe accessories.
0 Comments
The guest contestant of the "Not My Job" segment of the NPR quiz show, Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me! is Aaron Sorkin, who created The West Wing and The Newsroom, and wrote A Few Good Men The Social Network, Moneyball and Molly's Game, which he also directed, as well as...oh, you know. His conversation with host Peter Sagal is pure Aaron Sorkin -- lots of words, very enthusiastic, and a lot of fun.
I don't have anything of actual substance to add to the news yesterday of Robert Mueller turning in his report and there being no further indictments. All I can add is some of what I said to several friends who needed talking down from ceilings that Trump, Don Jr. and Jared weren't packing up for prison.
The main thing is that Robert Mueller wasn't tasked with indicting people, but doing an investigation and turning in a report. Before drawing any conclusions, it's best to wait for the report. I have zero idea what will be in it, but I do know that "not having any further indictments" does not mean it won't necessarily be a scathing report. After all, we know that there are already six guilty verdicts and 37 indictments, so it isn't that Robert Mueller looked and didn't find anything. We also know that many of the guilty verdicts were about lying to Congress. And most people don't tend to lie under oath unless there's something they feel they have to lie about. Further, the fact that Trump wasn't indicted is meaningless -- because it has always been near certain that Robert Mueller would feel that Justice Department policy is such that he can't indict a sitting president. And for all we know the report says exactly that, explaining why Trump wasn't indicted and would have been otherwise. For that matter, he may be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. Maybe not -- but no one should get ahead of themselves in any direction. There's something else to consider. The word is that there will be no further indictments. But -- importantly -- that doesn't mean that there aren't others (perhaps Don Jr. and Jared Kushner) who have already been indicted, but they are sealed. I don't necessarily think that's the case, but I don't remotely dismiss it as a real and serious possibility. And importantly, Robert Mueller is a stickler for details and rules, and it may be that he felt that issue relating to others -- whether Trump, Don Jr., Jared, perhaps even Ivanka, and more -- didn't fall under his narrow directive, and he passed off their cases to the Southern District of New York. We have no indication at the moment that he did...but we do know for certain that he's done it in other instances. And that's the larger reality. The Mueller investigation has been the centerpiece, in part because it stood alone. But it is no longer alone, and other investigations are just as real, with penalties just as great. They could be the SDNY, the District Attorney of New York City, the Attorney General of New York, the House Intel Committee, the House Justice Committee, the House Oversight Committee, the House Financial Services Committee...or any other number of Congressional investigations -- House or Senate -- or other state investigations that are actively occurring, or may occur in the future. And as much as some friends were moaning in angst that "the Mueller Investigation is the Big One," while that's true there is also another reality. For two years Trump and his circle have been trying to undercut that investigation as being a Witch Hunt and partisan and illegal and a Witch Hunt and unfair and a Witch Hunt. By not indicting Trump, Don Jr., and Jared (assuming that's the case, rather than their being sealed indictments), Mueller has taken that whine away -- he didn't indict any of those three, so it must be fair. Yet there are nine guilty verdicts from it and 37 indictments. (And as I said, for all I know, perhaps some unindicted co-conspirators thrown in for good measure.) So, all those will now have to be looked at from that light. In the meantime, the SDNY investigations, the NYC., and NY state investigations have not been slammed for two years as Witch Hunts -- let alone slammed at all for unfairness. And while Trump and his gang will certainly try to paint the House committee investigations as partisan, they have not be called "Witch Hunts" and ultimately it is the hard evidence and documentation that comes from them that will speak loudest over time. I have zero doubt that the 30% on the far right will try to smear all the other investigations. But I gave up being concerned about what this unmoving 30% does. The group that matters most are those in the middle -- Independents, moderate Republicans and Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016. And you don't have to sway them all. You only have to shift 3-5% of the electorate to turn a close race into a rout. (Consider: starting with a 51-49 vote by only three points turns it into 54-46.) And that is what is still at profound risk for Trump and the cohorts from ALL these other many investigations -- and that's without us hearing yet what Mueller has to say in his report, which has already produced nine guilty verdicts and 37 indictments. So far. Yes, I would have dearly preferred to see indictments by Mueller for Don Jr,, Jared Kushner, Ivanka, another others -- and Trump himself. But on the assumption that there aren't sealed indictments for them, the actual realty of this all with Mueller was tasked with one thing: to hold an investigation and deliver a report. Indictments are the most-pronounced physical and visceral manifestations of that, but even they are secondary to the report. And to reach conclusions before the report is known is profoundly premature. Because, at the very least, we know for 100% certain that Mueller has found very real crimes already, so that report stands ready for everyone to see how much deeper it may go. And further, as absolutely important as the Mueller Report is, it's the SDNY investigation that likely poses the greatest threat to Trump and his circle. Not to mention all the other investigations. I have absolutely no idea what the Mueller Report holds -- or what any of the great-many other investigations will uncover. I only know this one thing for certain: This is not the end, and anyone who thinks it is, especially those breathing a sigh of relief, is only fooling themselves. Yesterday, I wrote about the show, Lights Out: Nat "King" Cole, which takes place during the final performance of his TV series on NBC. One of the unexpected scenes is when his guest is a very young Billy Preston, who later went on to be a great rock star in the last '60s. It turns out that that was true, if not exactly in the timing, then close -- I have no idea if Preston's appearance was on the final show, but he most definitely was a guest. In fact, here's a clip from that actual TV appearance of 11-year-old Billy Preston with Nat "King" Cole in 1957. And as a bonus, here's a grown-up Billy Preston on Soul Train with probably his biggest hit, "Nothing from Nothing." This is another of those -- "It's not about Trump, we know who he is, this is about the elected officials of the Republican Party who enable him" thing.
As much as I'm pretty much inured to Republican cowardice and complicity, I am nonetheless sickened by their chicken-tripe, total gutless near-silence over Trump repeatedly slamming former-senator, John McCain. Now, to be clear, I wasn't a big admirer of Mr. McCain. I disagreed with his politics, and I thought his making Sarah Palin his vice-presidential running mate -- potentially a heartbeat from the Oval Office -- disgraceful. But I didn't dislike all his politics, and I admired that he was occasionally willing to buck convention and speak his mind, and was in awe of his heroism not just flying in Vietnam, knowing he could be shot out of the air, but refusing to leave his men after having been captured and tortured and being given the opportunity to be sent home for medical treatment. And even when I criticized him, I never even came close to saying (let alone thinking that "I never liked him and never will," as Trump did. Meanwhile, the Republican members of Congress served with John McCain, many for decades. He was at one point the leader of their party as presidential nominee. For the most part, they did all agree with his politics almost all the time. And they knew, as well, that he was a war hero who had been tortured. And most of them are totally silent. And the few who have defended him have only said how much they admired him, not criticized Trump for trashing the man, who is dead and can't answer back. It's pathetic, bordering on reprehensible -- but then, "pathetic, bordering on reprehensible" is pretty much the foundation of today's GOP in Congress. There's so much worse they've done, perhaps starting with enabling the taking of children from their parents and putting babies in cages. But what makes this with McCain so contemptible is that it's so monumentally easy to say something critical, so pathetically easy.to do what's so obviously right -- criticizing someone who keeps smearing a dead war hero. Most craven of all, of course, is Lindsey Graham (R-SC), apparently best friends with John McCain, and the most he could muster is to say how wonderful his best friend was and pretty much enable Trump for trashing his dead best friend repeatedly, saying it's his job to work with the president and so he didn't say a word of criticism. How easy is it? Yes, I know that all these powerful men and women are afraid of their shadows and of the Trump base hating them for defending a dead war hero who had lead their party and risking a primary challenge. But even if you don't want to dare offend them at risk of your holy spirit, all you need say is, "I think Donald Trump is a great president, one of the finest this country has ever had, making America great and glorious and noble, and his policies are as strong as God Bless America could ever wish for. But John McCain was a war hero who for a time lead the Republican Party, and if he was occasionally a maverick, I can understand why he might sometimes rub some people the wrong way, but I think Our Great President, as noble as he is, went a step too far in saying he 'never' liked him.because -- for all the challenges John McCain could present -- there was too much good for even a critic to never like anything about him. And for those who were close to him, there was much to love." There, that's about as suck-up easy a way to criticize someone you're whiny terrified of who keeps smearing a war hero who served his country for decades, whatever his faults and strength. Mind you, they should have said more. They should have said how sick and pathological and disgraceful it was of Trump at any time, but especially as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces to keep demeaning a dead war hero. But to say pretty much nothing shows once again -- This is not about Trump, we know who he is, this is about the elected officials of the Republican Party who enable him. Make that "the craven elected officials of the Republican Party." Last night, I went to see a new show at the Geffen Playhouse -- Lights Out: Nat "King" Cole, starring Dulé Hill of The West Wing, Psych and now Suits. It's not a musical per se, but a play that incorporates a great deal of music, some in brief snatches, some in full. No original songs, all from the Nat King Cole song book, though I really wouldn't call it a "juke box musical" (which is the common term today for such things), perhaps because the play is the heart of the show, not building a story around the songs. It all takes place on one night, during the final night of his NBC television program. There's a bit of jumping around in time, though, and stretches in Cole's mind as he deals with some of the harsh realities of race and accommodation being continually dumped on him. The show is very enjoyable -- 90 minutes, one act -- and very well done, with some good performances, most notably Hill, who is excellent. I wouldn't call it a great show, however. Part of the issue is dealing with everything on that one night, though that's part of its success, as well, keep the story focused and making the staging clever, all done in the TV studio with the theater audience almost participating as the studio audience, as well. It's co-written by Colman Domingo & Patricia McGregor (who also directed). One shouldn't be surprised by Dulé Hill in the role. He actually has musical training, and appeared on Broadway as 'The Kid' in the musical Bring in 'da Noise, Bring in 'da Funk. He also was on Broadway in two other musicals, the Tony-nominated After Midnight in 2013, and The Tap Dance Kid. In fact, he's an absolutely terrific tap dancer, and they work in a couple of ways to naturally have Nat "King" Cole dance -- sometimes just a few steps, but most notably in a show-stopping fantasy sequence (when he's working out racial demons) where he has a sort of tap dance battle with Sammy Davis Jr, played enthusiastically, entertainingly and occasionally too-much annoyingly by Daniel J. Watts, who's a significant character in the show. The big question you have as the lights go down is Dulé Hill's singing as Nat "King" Cole. Is he even going to attempt it? Even Hill himself had the same questions. In the program, there's a Q&A with him where he says if he had been told that he would be singing, he'd never have taken on the role. He figured at most he might hum a few bars throughout the evening. But they never told him that, and the singing grew during rehearsals. The good news is that he does wonderfully. You don't expect him to sing like Nat "King" Cole -- you don't expect anyone to sing like Nat "King" Cole. But he sings very well, and throws in the Cole vibrato and gives a sense of the tone. It's very effective and helps the show immeasurably. I suspect the company has hopes of taking the show to Broadway. Whether it's substantive enough right now is a question in my mind, though the packed house loved it. And it's had largely a sold-out run here. And for all I know they continue to work on it. I do think if they tour the show throughout the country in venues like the Geffen it does have a good life ahead. I really don't have any footage of scenes from the production, though do have a couple of videos that fit nicely. The first is a short "trailer" of sort for the show with quick clips. And towards the end you'll see a couple jumps to that great tap dance battle. And you'll hear Dulé Hill singing over. And this is Hill in a recording studio, performing Nat "King" Cole's classic "Unforgettable," singing it -- not as Dulé Hill, but in his style of Nat "King" Cole which you get in the show. |
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
|