Supplemental: It’s very good being Christina B!


Why certain things go unmentioned:
In this morning’s Washington Post, Sally Jenkins does something that’s rarely done.

Jenkins gets it right!

Jenkins does the unthinkable. In the course of her new column, she mentions the comical problems the NFL had when officials tried to measure the air pressure of those Patriots’ footballs.

We told you that no one would do this. Jenkins proved us wrong:
JENKINS (5/13/15): DeflateGate would be more of a ‘Gate’ if the league had proven that the balls were in fact deflated. But it hasn’t. That’s what is so peculiar about this entire deal. The Ted Wells report commissioned by the league is perfectly clear on this point: No one is sure which of two gauges were used to check the pressurization of the balls. The gauges gave significantly different readings; one read much higher than the other and showed the balls were legally inflated. The referee in charge of checking the footballs, Walt Anderson, is pretty sure he used this gauge. Yet the NFL disregarded this critical point—and the testimony of their own official. Nevertheless the NFL decided the “preponderance of the evidence” showed Brady and the Patriots manipulated the game balls. That’s how eager they are to find wrongdoing.
Jenkins barely scratches the surface of the foolishness involved in this matter. Still, we were glad to see her go there.

In that passage, Jenkins seems to be saying that the Patriots’ footballs may have been under-inflated the whole darn time. Under the circumstances, there’s no way to be sure that the footballs were ever inflated to 12.5 psi.

Who knows? Maybe the Patriots deliberately set the air pressure low and the referee couldn’t tell, due to his dueling pair of gauges. In a subsequent paragraph, Jenkins notes that Aaron Rodgers said he does the same darn thing, except in the other direction:
JENKINS: Did Brady attempt to influence how much air was in the ball? Sure. Every quarterback in the league is princess-and-the-pea sensitive to the texture and grip of the ball in his hand, and asks equipment managers to inflate them to his preference. If you dock Brady four games, then you have to dock Aaron Rodgers, too. Rodgers admitted to CBS analyst Phil Simms last season that he “pushes the limit” on how much air is in the ball. Rodgers has large hands and likes an extremely hard ball. He told Simms that he tells his equipment guys to “even go over what they allow you to do and see if the officials take the air out of it.” Simms reported this on national television, and no one called it a ‘Gate’...

The remarkable thing is the code of silence which has obtained concerning the NFL’s bungled attempts to take those air pressure readings.

The NFL’s bungled data collection was wonderfully comical. You’d think a lot of pundits would be having a lot of fun with it.

That said, we’ve seen no one but Jenkins who has even mentioned this wonderfully comical matter. In part, it looks like the fix is in. The NFL has been defined as the good guy in this new consensus scandal, and no one wants to embarrass them.

This takes us back to Christina Bellantoni’s horrible outing on Sunday’s MediaBuzz program. For background, see this morning’s report.

How odd! Bellantoni never mentioned Peter Schweizer’s journalistic shortcomings during a ten-minute segment about his book, Clinton Cash. Neither did Michael Tomasky, a leading liberal pundit.

Viewers didn’t hear a word about Schweizer’s sketchy behavior. How could such a relevant matter go wholly unremarked?

Just a guess—it’s good being Christina Bellantoni! In recent googling, we were struck by the globe-trotting she performed in connection with her recent wedding. Let’s just say that several continents were involved, aside from the one we live on.

The Bellantonis of this world are looking ahead to good lives. We’ll guess that few are willing to blow it by coloring outside the lines.

Bellantoni was absolutely horrible on MediaBuzz. For our money, Tomasky was little better, a point we’ll discuss tomorrow.

Schweizer wasn’t criticized or challenged on the program. Neither was the New York Times, the gentleman’s business partner. Meanwhile, the Times’ clownish error about that luxurious jet plane ride is going unmentioned all through the press, in much the same way that no one is citing the NFL’s problems with its air pressure gauges.

The Bellantonis have played the game this way for a good many years. Because their manners are so good, it may be hard for liberals to see what they’re actually doing.


  1. "Just a guess—it’s good being Christina Bellantoni! In recent googling, we were struck by the globe-trotting she performed in connection with her recent wedding."

    Just a guess---its terrible being Bob Somerby! In recent googling we were struck by his seeming lack of wedding partners, friends, or even mere mentions by other writers on the internet. In fact the only person who mentioned him at all in a positive way in recent memory is Michelle Goldberg. As we all know, one media critic notes she performs like a the blind squirrel who has found one nut.

    1. The Trolls We're Stuck WithMay 13, 2015 at 5:03 PM

      The climbing Bellantoni did shitty journalism?

      Well, Somerby's friendless!!!

    2. Could we have a link to the wedding pics, please?

  2. Does that question interest you?

  3. And Pete Rose was framed too!

  4. Media Matters has a long list of errors in Clinton Cash. I assume Somerby has focused on the plane trip because it was an error introduced by the Times and never corrected, making them nearly as inept as Schweizer, and revealing that their purpose is to smear not report. Liberals may be assuming everyone already knows what the errors are, when the general public may not.

    If the media constantly feel that everything they say must pretend to break new ground, maybe that's why they neglect their duty of informing people. I think that's partly why only Krugman is teaching important facts about SS.

    1. Somerby has focused on only that part of the plane trip Giustra waited to deny until a year after the article was written. If the Times made an error it was based on written responses they got from both Clinton and Giustra. And the error, if there was one, was introduced five days before the Times by Newsweek.
      Funny that neither Clinton nor Giustra corrected Newsweek before the Times did their story, since, having responded to the times in writing, they new there was an article in the works before it appeared.

      Funny how Somerby can convince his readers a story is a smear by leaving out details that don't fit his narrative.

    2. None of that explains why the error corrected in 2009 was repeated.

      The story is a smear because it promotes Clinton Cash, a book full of innuendo and mistakes, a hit piece.

    3. "Somerby has focused on only that part of the plane trip.."

      That's just bullshit. Let's just cut to the chase.

      "In terms of its actual reporting, the New York Times never established that Clinton played any role in the uranium deal at all!"

    4. @ 7:35 said "I assume Somerby has focused on the plane trip because" to which we replied " Somerby has focused on only that part of the plane trip Giustra waited to deny..."

      Our point, mm, which you may wish to refute. is that BOB keeps leaving out things about the trip taken by both men, part of which involved Giustra, at the very least, bringing in part of Clinton's entourage and leaving with Clinton on his plane.

      We suppose it detracts from the literary opening of the Times piece that the two did not arrive together on the same luxurious "fairy tale plane" to use BOB's colorful term, but it doesn't help Clinton's cause to leave out that he got there on the jet of another troublesome billionaire with whom he had to sever lucrative financial ties, leave out that he left on Giustra's jet, leave out that he confirmed joint travelling with Giustra to the New York Times in writing, and finally forget to mention that the same trip process was written up in Newsweek five days before the New York Times published its piece.

      Our response was to the comment made about the plane, not what you chose to pick up from some earlier BOB post. But thanks for giving us yet another chance to mention all these things BOB has disappeared for as long as he has covered this story, none of which can be explained, much less justified by his fans.

      Oh, and we will not forget the fine comment of @ 8:41 who wrote none of this "explains why the error corrected in 2009 was repeated." No error was never called to the Times attention after Newsweek wrote about it in 2008, five days before the Times piece. It was not called to the Times attention ever. A document was allegedly shown to a writer for Forbes with family ties to the Clinton defense team a year later. It was not shown to the Times. That to us does not prove there was an error. If there was an error it makes us wonder if Clinton lets bad stories go uncorrected just like his defender/chosen successor Al Gore did.

    5. Well, the funny thing is KZ, I'm not really interested in what you think was or was not an error.

      You make some points in a pathetic attempt to defend the atrocious article that TDH has been dissecting here.

      Let us see the reporter write a front page article explaining that she just chose to ignore a direct challenge to her facts because it wasn't made until 2009. Let us see the New York Times' Public Editor use your excuses to explain why their reporter chose to disappear facts.

      That will never happen, because the purpose of their front page smear was not to get at the truth, but rather to take down Hillary Clinton with innuendo.

      The Forbes article challenges the entire premise of this regurgitated bullshit story.

      Chief among Giustra’s complaints is the Times‘ claim that he was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan. As the accompanying picture indicates, Giustra had done major mining deals in Kazakhstan as far back as the mid-1990s. And as to uranium specifically, Giustra made a study of the uranium market back in 2004 and knew that the need for nuclear plants in India and China, as well as elsewhere, would boost demand.

    6. KZ, don't you ever say hello?

    7. mm, here are the horrible things the New York times said in portraying Mr. Giustra as a newcomer to URANIUM mining in Kazakhstan, which,
      according to the Forbes writer YOU choose to believe, was his CHIEF complaint,

      "Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic.

      Mr. Giustra made his fortune in mining ventures as a broker on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, raising billions of dollars and developing a loyal following of investors. Just as the mining sector collapsed, Mr. Giustra, a lifelong film buff, founded the Lion’s Gate Entertainment Corporation in 1997. But he sold the studio in 2003 and returned to mining.

      In late 2004, Mr. Giustra began talking to investors, and put together a company that would eventually be called UrAsia Energy Ltd.

      Kazakhstan, which has about one-fifth of the world’s uranium reserves, was the place to be. But with plenty of suitors, Kazatomprom could be picky about its partners.
      The Cameco Corporation, the world’s largest uranium producer, was already a partner of Kazatomprom.....For Cameco, it took five years to “build the right connections” in Kazakhstan....UrAsia did not have that luxury....“Timing was everything,” said Sergey Kurzin, a Russian-born businessman whose London-based company was brought into the deal by UrAsia because of his connections in Kazakhstan. Even with those connections, Mr. Kurzin said, it took four months to arrange a meeting with Kazatomprom.

      In August 2005, records show, the company sent an engineering consultant to Kazakhstan to assess the uranium properties. Less than four weeks later, Mr. Giustra arrived with Mr. Clinton."

      Was there anything Giustra disputes about that? Oh, yes, he disputres arriving WITH Clinton. So the final sentence could, if Forbes is accurate, be rewritten to read:

      "Less than four weeks later, Mr. Giustra arrived and in days with Mr. Clinton in town, accompanied the former President to a State dinner with the President of Kazakhstan."

      But of course, there is more, so it will take another comment.

    8. Hello @ 11:00. We would attempt to locate you, but our sensors are focused on locating mining investment capital. We used to look for minerals on your planet, but extracting the money is easier and a lot less messy.

      You are just in time for Part 2 of our lovely explanation of the excellent work of Frank Giustra, mining money man and major FOB. Here we go:

      Let us presume, mm, the New York Times was more accurate about Mr. Giustra's history of mining experience. They would describe a money man, the broker of investments by others, working from Canada to back others who did the actual management of mining companies.

      Here is how he was described by the Globe and Mail of Canada in 2008.

      "For a quarter-century, he has worked behind the scenes on a string of deals in the world of junior mining finance, finding money for companies hoping to extract gold in Mexico, cobalt in Cameroon, uranium in Kazakhstan, platinum in South Africa or oil in Colombia. In the process, he has made billions for himself and a cadre of loyal associates through a Byzantine system of shell companies, furtive share purchases and elaborate compensation schemes."

      And he had experience in Kazakhstan indeed:

      Under Giustra, Yorkton also devised creative ways to help clients and colleagues win the rights to lucrative mineral deposits overseas. The Soviet Union had just fallen, and many former Soviet states began opening their borders to foreign investors. Giustra had the bright idea of hiring an ex-finance minister from Chile to help these nascent countries draft new mining codes. Among the nations Yorkton worked with was Kazakhstan. "We advised them on what they needed to do to change their mining laws," says Giustra, who met with the Kazakh prime minister, Akezhan Kazhegeldin, in 1995. "We did that in Africa; we did that in South America. It was a great way to look credible. It was a great way to look serious about what our intentions were, in terms of being able to do business in a fair way. It worked really well." It also demonstrated the inherently political nature of nearly all mining deals: Without government support, you're unlikely to get far in the quest for mineral rights. Sending in experts to help draft mining code is just one way to get a leg up."

      Of course, using our own human body part analogies, bringing in an ex-US President to give a rough "thumbs up" comment for the dictator at a state dinner probably does not "piss on the leg" of your business prospects in a country where you are seeking to buy into a partnership in which your business partner is the very government of that country. Whose mining laws you helped revise.

      Thanks again, mm. Any other corrections you want to help us make to the New York Times coverage of Bill and Frank's Excellent Kazakhstan Adventure?

    9. KZ, are you saying now for the record that Becker didn't suggest, imply, insinuate or otherwise allude to the notion that this original deal by Giustra would not have occurred without the intervention of President Clinton, cause that's really the fucking point isn't it jackass?

      Let us go to the more recent Times story,

      3rd paragraph:
      But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
      So tell me jackass, what precisely does this "woman who would like to be" president have to do with the sale of the uranium mine?

    10. KZ, we were discussing you, not me.

    11. And we said hello.

      And to continue our delightful discussion with mm, we are saying Giustra did have some experience trying to make government regulations more favorable to his kind of business. He had such experience in Kazakhstan, albeit in an effort to extract minerals other than uranium, at which he was still a relative newcomer in 2005, when he negotiated the purchase of mining interests with money he did not have at the time and in which his sole other partner would be the nation which was ruled by a dictator who had been in power many years, including the year in which he helped rewrite that nation's mineral laws.

      Are we saying what Becker may or may not "suggest, imply, insinuate or otherwise allude to" in her article? No.

      We leave suggest, imply, insinuate and otherwise allude to the life forms who blog on your planet. For similar reasons we shy away from terms like "appears" and "seems" as a rough rule of thumb.

      We observe it is reasonable to think that about the time of Bill Clinton's first trip to Kazakhstan after leaving the White House broke and in debt, three MOU's were signed. One of them saved Kazakhstan some money on drugs. The other two made a lot of money for some guy who has a fancy private plane Clinton may have flown in once or twice. Later the guy who made a lot of money gave a lot of money to the foundation that saved Kazakhstan all that money. Clearly money is important in all of this.

      We can only conclude that when this happy coincidence came to light it made an appearance of something which necessitated another MOU involving Mr. Clinton.

      We think we have read about other fine people like Mr. Giustra who help government make regulations that help their fine business and in return donate money to good causes. I believe they are not all Canadians. I think there are two from Kansas named Koch. Say, isn't Kansas where the Wizard of Oz took place? Or seemed to take place? You know, in poor Dorothy's mind? Great fairy tale.

    12. "Clearly money is important in all of this."

      KZ, you really are one insightful genius. you figured that out all by yourself? Money matters to a man running an international business? Who would've thunk it?

      Money makes the world go around. Hey, I think I heard that before.

      Vincent Mancini: Don Lucchesi, you are a man of finance and politics. These things I don't understand.

      Don Lucchesi: You understand guns?

      Vincent Mancini: Yes.

      Don Lucchesi: Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger.

      "Are we saying what Becker may or may not "suggest, imply, insinuate or otherwise allude to" in her article? No."

      God help you, but you really are one forked tongue crooked little sumnabitch. "may or may not" - what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

    13. "No" was the operative word you were seeking.

    14. OK, very good. So we took this little diversionary trip through Giustra's business background and experience in Kazakhstan, proving Giustra had little need for President Clinton or anyone else to intervene to help him with his deal. Man you are one dumb fuck.

      Now, answer the goddamn question:

      Let us go to the more recent Times story,

      3rd paragraph:
      But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
      So tell me jackass, what precisely does this "woman who would like to be" president have to do with the sale of the uranium mine?

    15. We are not positive but our guess would be people might be worried about what her husband is doing in his off time, who he is doing it with, and the implications that might have on decisions made by his co-President. Kind of like they did from 1993-2001.

      The Clintons are still offering the Two for One deal they offered you fine Americans back in 1992 we presume.

    16. We do apologize. We forgot to send this in our name.

      Zarkon, King of Doom (FTCLS)

    17. As expected, your answer is non-responsive. You're just a crooked little troll. I didn't ask you what "people might be worried about". I asked you to justify what this supposed reporter wrote in her front page smear aimed at taking down Hillary Clinton.

  5. "I am so happy to share this wonderful testimony about Dr Brave, my name is Mellisa Jefferson I am 34 years old, I live in Florida united states, I am happily married to Sowers Jefferson with three kids we got married in 2006 I am a banker but due to some certain family conditions I had to quit my job so I could have time for my family my husband works in a construction company not long ago around may 2015 my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very Confused by the way he treat me and the Kids. Later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i Done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce That he hate me and do not want to see Me again in his life, i was mad and also Frustrated do not know what to do,i was Sick for more than 4 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is Incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believed in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Brave for the return of my husband to me, he told me that my husband have Been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then he told me that he have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to Me and the kids, he casted the spell and After 27hours my husband called me and He told me that i should forgive him, he Started to apologize on phone and said That he still loves me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that Dr Brave on him that brought him back to me today, i and my family Are now happy again today. thank you Dr Brave for what you have done for me i would have been nothing Today if not for your great spell. i want You my friends who are passing through All this kind of love problem of getting Back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact him on this email: , web site: . and you will see that your problem will be solved Without any delay or effect cell number +2348072370762 Thanks for reading. ."