THE PROBLEM: We want to hear what we want to hear!


Brian scratches an itch:
It was Socrates who first noticed the problem:

We people want to hear what we want to hear! Beyond that, we tend to get mad when we hear something different.

Socrates noticed this tendency when he toured the countryside looking for the wisest person in Greece. We sometimes notice this same reaction when we make fairly obvious statements about the current state of our failing "national discourse."

Did Ukrainian officials "meddle in," or "interfere in," the 2016 election? Based on what we know, we wouldn't be strongly inclined to say that they did.

(Fiona Hill said that Ukrainian officials engaged in "ill-advised" conduct. Other statements by Hill have been sanctified. These comments have been disappeared.)

At any rate, if you say that Ukrainian officials did meddle, you aren't necessarily saying that they stole the DNC's emails and distributed them to the world. Unless you're watching Brian Williams, or unless you're shopping anywhere else our own tribe's dogmas are sold.

Once again, here are two possible statements:
1) Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 election.

2) It was Ukraine, not Russia, which actually hacked the DNC emails.
As almost anyone can see, those are two different statements. Just because someone is saying #1, that doesn't mean that he's saying #2!

You'd think that point would be easy to grasp. But we humans have long been "human, all too human!"

At any rate, liberal media types have been conflating those two statements for the past several weeks. As an offshoot of this group behavior, consider what Brian Williams did with respect to recent weird behavior by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA).

Last weekend, Kennedy went on Fox News Sunday and made a surprising statement. Here's the exchange in question:
CHRIS WALLACE (11/24/19): Who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign computers, their emails? Was it Russia or Ukraine?

KENNEDY: I don’t know. Nor do you. Nor do any of us.

WALLACE: Let me just interrupt to say, the entire intelligence community says it was Russia.

KENNEDY: Right. But it could also be Ukraine. I’m not saying I know one way or the other.
So spoke Kennedy. It was a fairly surprising statement. Here's why:

President Trump still seems to claim that it was Ukraine, not his beloved Russia, which stole the DNC emails. This doesn't seem to make any sense, since Trump also seems to claim that Ukraine was trying to defeat him in the election, and the distribution of the stolen emails was plainly a strike against Clinton's chances.

Trump's claim doesn't seem to make sense. Then again, this is Donald J. Trump, who may be some form of "mentally ill" or may be cognitively impaired.

(Regarding possible cognitive impairment, did you see his recent bizarre performance with respect to the women's suffrage centennial? His performance made zero sense.)

In our view, Trump may be dissembling when he makes these claims about Ukraine. It's also possible that he's just crazy.

Donald J. Trump may be crazy; most U.S. senators aren't. That's why it was a bit surprising to see Kennedy go so far out on a limb regarding the stolen emails.

Having said that, sure enough! The very next night, Kennedy appeared on CNN to retract his surprising statement. Speaking with Chris Cuomo, he said that he'd been wrong, oh so wrong, when he made his surprising statement:
CUOMO (11/25/19): I want to hear it from you. Do you really believe that it wasn't Russia?

KENNEDY: I did that interview yesterday with, with Chris Wallace. Damn good reporter. I was answering one of his questions. And he interjected a statement, and asked me to react to it.

What I heard Chris say was, he made the statement that only Russia had tried to interfere in the election. And I answered the question.

That's not what he said. I went back and looked at the transcript. He said only Russia tried to hack the DNC computer.

Now, Chris is right. I was wrong. The only evidence I have, and I think it's overwhelming, is that it was Russia who tried to hack the DNC computer. I see no—

CUOMO: That's what the consensus is.

KENNEDY: Yes. I've seen no indication that Ukraine tried to do it.
"I was wrong," Kennedy said. He also said that he misunderstood the question Wallace asked.

Did Kennedy actually misunderstand the original question from Wallace? The claim seems a bit hard to believe, but such claims are also hard to assess.

At any rate, and for whatever reason, Kennedy went on CNN the very next night and took back what he said. He said the evidence was "overwhelming" that it was Russia, not Ukraine, who stole the DNC emails.

He said he's seen no indication—and that would mean none—that Ukraine did it. In spite of Trump's ridiculous claims, that's what the senator said.

Why did Kennedy make his original statement to Wallace? We have no way of knowing. But very few people other than Trump have been saying that Ukraine stole the emails—unless you rely on standard "liberal" pundits and reporters, who have been busily confusing such matters, and creating conflations, for the past several weeks.

On Tuesday night, Brian Williams went to heroic lengths to confuse this matter. It feels so good when the other team's conduct it made to seem even worse than it is! And that's the service Brian provided with respect to Kennedy's statements.

Given its standard slacker approach, MSNBC still hasn't produced a transcript of Williams' Tuesday night program. If a transcript finally appears, you'll be able to peruse it here.

For today, transcript missing, we'll only tell you this:

Williams played the videotape of Kennedy's statement to Wallace, then suggested that Kennedy had deliberately been spreading Russian disinformation.

He never played the videotape of Kennedy's statement to Cuomo. But he proceeded to characterize it like this:
WILLIAMS (11/26/19): He made his first comments on Fox News with Chris Wallace, attempted the cleanup last night on CNN with Chris Cuomo—a cleanup which still left the strong whiff of, "It was probably Ukraine."
For the tape of Brian saying that, you can just click here.

At any rate, really? Kennedy's statement to Cuomo "left the strong whiff of, 'It was probably Ukraine?' "

For ourselves, we'd call that rank propaganda. But Williams has played the game this way for a very long time, dating all the way back to the time when he was pool boy to GE's Jack Welch, his original corporate owner.

Why did Kennedy do what he did? We can't tell you that.

We can tell you what he actually said, and Williams could have played the actual videotape of his statement! But Brian didn't do that.

Instead, he offered a very strange account of what Kennedy said to Cuomo. Brian has played the game this way for a very long time now.

At present, Brian is paid a lot of money to bring such pleasure to liberal viewers. Back in the day, under different ownership, he worked to send George W. Bush to the White House, staging nightly nervous breakdowns about Candidate Gore's deeply troubling wardrobe and his weird psychiatric state.

This is the way these "boy toys" play. Despite all the pleasure which gets dispensed, we don't think that conduct of this type serves progressive interests.

Socrates said there'd be programs like this. It was one of the things he got right!


  1. "President Trump still seems to claim that it was Ukraine, not his beloved Russia, which stole the DNC emails."

    Citation needed, dear Bob.

    Your crazy obsession with "...may be some form of "mentally ill"" is getting the better of you, I'm afraid. Perhaps you need to go get your head examined, dear Bob?

    1. Bwahahahaha!!!!!

      A Trumptard demanding proof and citations from anyone is the funniest fucking thing you can ever run into. Always worth a laugh.

    2. So, do you have a citation, Hillary?

    3. On 11/26, AP reported:

      "As recently as last week, Trump was repeating claims about Ukrainian interference during an interview with Fox & Friends. "A lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine," Trump said in a rambling interview that lasted nearly an hour."

    4. That's you citation for "it was Ukraine [...] which stole the DNC emails", dembot?

      I'm not asking you to get your head examined, dembot, because, unlike Bob, you're a standard-issue dembot. For you, this behavior is expected.

    5. So as to avoid any possible spin or misinterpretation by the MSM, you can listen to the President in his own words on Fox & Friends, 11/22/2019. Go to and advance to timestamp 5:45.

  2. I don't see a problem with saying "I don't know" to a statement that is consensus of our spy agencies. These agencies have been wrong about many things, going back to the consensus regarding Saddam's supposed WMDs. Russia may well have stolen and disseminated Hillary's e-mails, but AFAIK there is no definitive proof.

    1. When you say "I don't know" to something that has been affirmed by 18 intelligence agencies, who have collected info and evaluated it in the context of everything they know about Russia, you imply that there is no way to know about this particular fact, no evidence that a reasonable person might evaluate, or that the case against Russia is so muddled that a reasonable person cannot sort it out, so we have to give Russia the benefit of the doubt.

      This is not case. There is plenty of evidence and trained intelligence people have evaluated it and they agree. If they were a jury, they would convict. Insisting on a standard of proof that is so strict that it is unachievable regardless of circumstances amount to just saying "la la la, I can't hear you" and insisting on believing that Russia is innocent.

      There is definitive proof. It was not shared with you because (1) you don't have standing, (2) it may be classified, (3) you have the Mueller report that summarizes it, if you will read it.

      Russia did steal Podesta and the DNC's email (not Hillary's -- her security was much better) and they gave it to Wikileaks, who coordinated the release of that info with Trump's campaign (via Roger Stone).

      There is a difference between deliberately manufacturing info to justify an attack on Iraq and making a mistake evaluating info. See:

    2. @david
      Kennedy, in his retraction, said “The only evidence I have, and I think it's overwhelming, is that it was Russia who tried to hack the DNC computer.“ Bob quoted that part.

      His first “I don’t know” was, shall we say, ill-advised.

    3. "I don't see a problem with saying "I don't know" to a statement that is consensus of our spy agencies."

      Meh. The most natural reaction a theory actively promoted by the spooks is that it's definitely a lie. That's what they do.

    4. And the natural reaction for a Trumptard is to believe every lie that comes out of Trump’s mouth.

    5. I'm happy we agree about the spooks, dear dembot.

    6. But we can all agree that Ukraine did interfere in the election. Right? Anyone still calling that GOP fantasy or whatever?

    7. @1:36
      I’m with Bob:
      “Did Ukrainian officials "meddle in," or "interfere in," the 2016 election? Based on what we know, we wouldn't be strongly inclined to say that they did.”

  3. "On Tuesday night, Brian Williams went to heroic lengths to confuse this matter."

    It seems to me that Somerby has gone to heroic lengths to confuse this matter by inventing two possibilities, splitting the conspiracy theory about Ukraine's meddling into two distinct possibilities and then claiming that Kennedy may have intended the first instead of the second, all the while saying he doesn't know what Kennedy actually believes.

    Is it actually "meddling" for an individual in a foreign country to write an op-ed or state an opinion about affairs in the USA, as quite a few officials did, according to Fiona Hill? Of course not. But when Somerby says that Hill's remarks were disappeared, he makes it seem like there is some wrong doing that she has attested to, that is being hidden because it may support Trump's gonzo theory about Ukraine, and thereby also support his beliefs about the Bidens and his belief that Russia did nothing wrong.

    Williams may not have wanted to confuse matters by bringing up Kennedy's attempt to walk back his earlier statement. It is this incessant wading through the weeds that Somerby wishes everyone to engage in, that confuses matters for those who do not closely follow politics. In fact, it matters everything seem so complicated that there is no way to untangle things, and that is when people become most vulnerable to propaganda that plays on emotions using slogans and memes. The kind of disinformation Russia propagates to this day via social media.

    Somerby is only helping the conservatives and Russia when he writes these hair-splitting, I-don't-know-and-cannot-know garbage posts about tiny points, all while chastizing liberals using cable hosts as surrogates.

  4. We can see where the GOP is getting their information about “Ukraine meddling”:

    “In a briefing for senators this fall that closely aligned with witness testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, senators were told that the Russian disinformation operation focused on a handful of Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Trump's candidacy -- efforts that were significantly less organized than the multi-faceted election interference push ordered by Vladimir Putin, one US official said.”

    In other words, the very notion that Ukraine was “meddling” or “interfering” in the election and the mechanics of this so-called meddling are talking points of Russian disinformation.

    It’s one thing to point out what certain Ukrainians did, but as soon as it is labeled “Ukrainian meddling or interference”, it becomes part of a disinformation campaign. In the case of the GOP, it is being used to muddy the waters and exonerate Trump.

    1. What do you want to call it then? Your statement isn't logical.

    2. The left has lost their minds.

    3. The phrasing, as Somerby used to like to point out, is important. When you have a few disjointed actions by random Ukrainians, it is improper to call it “interference by (the country of) Ukraine”. That phrasing suggests coordinated, top-down interference directed by the government of Ukraine. That is not what happened here.

      When a US citizen writes an op-Ed denouncing a candidate in a foreign election, we don’t say that was “US interference” in a foreign election.

      Words matter.

    4. "are talking points of Russian disinformation"

      "Russian disinformation" has the advantage of being a much more accurate reflection of reality than goebbelsian liberal media.

    5. A Ukrainian court has called it interference.

      What word would you like to call it? Meddling? What are the official words one can use without being suspected of being a Russian agent, Ms. Orwell?

      The left has lost their minds.

    6. What are the official words we can call that interference?

      Has the DNC handed down the official list of words from the mountaintop?

      You know, at some point calling everyone who disagrees with you a Russian asset is going to lose its potency.

      You people in Russia. You don't understand how daft it is. How totally you have been fooled. Russia has no power. Their GDP is less than South Korea's! You assign all this false power to them because they can serve as a boogeyman on which to focus, taking the focus off your party's on shortcomings.

      History will show you. I know you're just a news consumer. One of the fooled. I know you're not the one doing the fooling.

    7. 12:34: Yes, we can all see where the GOP is getting their information.

      Trump's Campaign Was Talking About The Conspiracy Theory That Ukraine Was Involved In The DNC Hack Back In 2016

      In an April 2018 interview with Mueller’s office, Rick Gates — who had served as Trump’s deputy campaign chair in 2016 and was the longtime right-hand man of former campaign chair Paul Manafort — told investigators that sometime after the campaign learned in June 2016 that WikiLeaks had the hacked DNC emails, Manafort had said that the hack was “likely carried by the Ukrainians, not the Russians,” according to FBI notes.

      The idea that Ukraine, and not Russia, was involved in stealing emails from the DNC that were released by WikiLeaks in 2016 has long percolated in conservative circles and been pushed by Russian news outlets. ...

      “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

      Trump’s mention of “CrowdStrike” was a likely reference to the private security company that the DNC hired to investigate the hack. Trump asked Zelensky for the “favor” of looking into the “whole situation with Ukraine” — in essence asking him to help investigate the origins of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

      You cannot look at Donald J Chickenshit's reference to Crowdstrike in isolation. That is the whole point of trump constantly promoting the idea of this fictitious Ukrainian owner of Crowdstrike bringing the mythical server to the Ukraine.

      According to the FBI’s memo of Gates’ April 2018 interview, Gates told Mueller’s office that the idea that Ukraine was involved was a theory pushed by Konstantin Kilimnik, another longtime associate of Manafort; Kilimnik is a dual citizen of Russia and Ukraine, according to the Washington Post. Kilimnik also suggested that the DNC hack could have been carried out by Russian operatives in Ukraine, Gates said.

      Manafort and Kilimnik weren’t the only ones pushing the idea that Russia didn’t do it. According to Gates, Michael Flynn, a senior adviser to Trump’s campaign and Trump’s first, short-lived national security adviser, was “adamant” that the Russians weren’t involved. Flynn was skeptical the US Intelligence Community was capable of figuring out who had carried out the attack and suggested he could tap into his own intelligence sources to get the emails, Gates said.

      Flynn, Manafort, and Kilimnik all faced criminal charges out of Mueller’s investigation.

      This idea that Ukraine hacked the DNC didn't come out of nowhere.

      When trump sucked Putin's cock on the world stage in Helsinki,


      TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the democratic national committee? I’ve been wondering that. ... Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others and said they think it’s Russia.

      I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server. But I have confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They’re missing. Where are they? … So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that president Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.

      The treasonous president keeps defending Russia and bringing up the server. I wonder why.

    8. So many words, dear Hillary, but where's that server?

    9. 2:11: Wasn't that right around the time the Ukraine stopped cooperating with Mueller? Why yes, yes it was.

      The nation’s chief prosecutor had halted cooperation with special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation and had essentially shut down four Ukrainian criminal inquiries related to Mueller’s work. Ukrainian lawmakers said their government took these steps out of fear of upsetting Trump and jeopardizing a deal that would supply Ukraine Javelin anti-tank missiles for its ongoing conflict with Russia, which occupied portions of the country. In response to that story, several US senators, wondering if the investigations had been sidelined as an act of Trump-Ukraine collusion, requested information from the Ukrainian prosecutor. He did not cooperate and blew off their request. This is the same prosecutor who now happens to be in the middle of the latest scandal.

      And Ukrainian officials also let a key potential witness for Mueller—a Russian Ukrainian business partner of Manafort named Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI concluded was associated with Russian intelligence—leave Ukraine before Mueller’s investigators could question him. The reason for all this was obvious: “In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials,” a member of Ukraine’s parliament told the Times. “We shouldn’t spoil relations with the administration.”

      Give my regards to Vlad.

    10. "Give my regards to Vlad"

      It should be easier for you to do, dear Hillary: Vlad lives under your own bed.

    11. Mao, you poor dittohead dumbfuck, the server is in Kiev you moron. If Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, wasn't such an incompetent bumbling jackass ignorant bastard he would have found it already. Haha!

    12. Did your imaginary friend Vlad mind-controlled your into spelling 'Kyiv' in the horribly evil manner as 'Kiev', Hillary? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    13. mm (dolt/fag)

      A Ukrainian court rulsd that Ukrainians unlawfully interfered in the 2016 election. It didn't have anything to do with the emails. But it was in favor of Clinton and against Trump. Both sides of this game play dirty. That said, as you know from reading the Mueller report, there is no evidence of cooperation or coordination with Russia and the Trump campaign with regard to the stolen emails. I think that was on page 66.

      Have a nice day cumguzzler.

    14. 3:00, or should I say "loyal trump taint licker" -

      Who hired Manafort in the first place?

    15. What's his name hired him in the first place. It's on public record. I hate Trump. But Ukraine officials meddled, interfere in the 2016 election.

    16. Anyone on the left who thinks the Republican Party isn't a criminal enterprise has lost their minds.

      Fixed it for you.

    17. That's true too. It's like the theme of this post. Two independent things can be true separately. As Bob says, you would think that point would be easy to grasp. But for you TV addicted simpletons who still cherish blogs that have not been relevant since 2008, any sour truths directed at Democrats is automatically pigeon-holed as some sort of advocacy for Republicans. You've been completely brainwashed. I guess you were probably dumb to begin with. So yes, the Republicans are a dangerous criminal enterprise and I'm sorry to let you know sweet little baby girl, precious little thing, the left has lost their f****** minds. They have resorted to all out McCarthism with zero basis in truth or even plausibility. They've wasted years on Russia gate which turned out to be a total goose egg. They accuse others of not reading the Mueller report when they cannot even read it themselves. They've completely lost the plot. Both are true. You didn't fix anything for anyone. You're pathetic victim of corporate propaganda which you think would also be easy to grasp but apparently is not.

    18. What's his name hired him in the first place. It's on public record. I hate Trump. But Ukraine officials meddled, interfere in the 2016 election.

      That's funny, Ukrainian officials forced Donald J Chickenshit to hire a well known toxic and corrupt campaign chairman with well documented ties to corrupt autocrats? I guess by your definition, Kushner, Lewandowski, Steve Bannon and the Mercer family meddled in the 2016 election also?

      The Republican National Committee’s official platform — the governing policy document for four years — had sudden changes that seemed to benefit Manafort’s pro-Russian Ukrainian clients. Manafort’s international business dealings were driving headlines. Internal fighting inside Trump Tower left Kushner and others unhappy with the distraction. Lewandowski started showing up at rallies and the two were speaking by phone on a regular basis. The meltdown was simmering, and soon Trump had seen enough. He wanted a change and, at the behest of the ultra-rich Mercer family, set in motion an overhaul of the campaign. Media executive Steve Bannon would join the campaign to run day-to-day operations and Kellyanne Conway would become the manager. Manafort was gone on Aug. 19, 2016.

    19. mm - you're incoherent here.

    20. 9:03: OK, what don't you understand? The argument that "Ukraine officials meddled, interfere[d] in the 2016 election." is premised on the fact that In 2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. The so called "black ledger". This, the theory goes, lead to the removal of Manafort as Trump's campaign chairman. However, my point is that internal operatives in the trump campaign itself had more to do with Manafort getting fired than this act by Ukraine prosecutors. And further that Manafort's manifest corrupt business with corrupt Ukrainian "Russia-aligned former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, his party and the oligarchs behind it." was public knowledge long before that and if you want to blame anyone for Manafort getting kicked off the campaign, start with Kushner, Bannon, Lewandowski and the Mercer family.

      Let me know if you're still confused.

    21. 10:06 is partly correct.
      The bigotry of white voters put Trump in the White House.
      Where 10:06 has it wrong, is he think it's Democrats who are denying this, and blaming it on Russia. It's actually the Right-wing, corporate-owned media (i.e. the propaganda arm of corporations), who are lying pushing the Russia angle.

    22. The Russia hoax is nowhere near the most ridiculous excuse the media has used to sweep the bigotry of white voters under the rug. That would be the foolish "economic anxiousness" they first tried to sell. The media pushed that lie for 6 months, but even the American public wasn't stupid enough to fall for that idiocy.

    23. mm - are you saying Ukraine officials (Artem Sytnyk, director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko) didn't meddle? I don't understand.

      It's hard to understand your neurotic incoherent blather. I'm sure there's something there. Just settle down and relax.for a minute and try to write something simple and clear.

      It would help if you weren't a chronic masturbator. That wreaks havoc on your nervous system and leads to your pathetic displays of petulence and incoherence for which you are known so well.

      Try a little harder bud.

    24. ...this reminds me of a very interesting moment in the recording of Sytnyk's famous conversation:

      "While Hillary, she is -- how shall I put it? She belongs to the cohort of politicians who comprise the hegemony in the US. Both in the US and the entire world, right? For us, it's ... sort of ... better. For Americans ... what Trump is doing is better for them."

      How ironic: 'meddling' for the psycho-witch and making dembots squirm...

    25. I'll go on record as saying nothing at TDH reminds Mao of an interesting moment. Mao is just making up shit again to see if he can get a rise out of the commenters here.

      It's funny, because it's true.

    26. The left has lost their minds. Not the peons here, they are just pawns, useful idiots who need a binary narrative basically straight down the line.

      Eg it never occurs to them that a bad economy fuels racism, that economic hardship makes people more racially biased. They see it as one or the other, which is just the way it was reported to them. They can't see any other way beyond the way it Is explained to them by their masters.

      But the Masters themselves are losing their grip on power, the center is falling out and they are behaving insanely! They have lost their minds.

      The rank-and-file like a peons here, well, they I don't think they really ever had minds to begin with.

    27. So you see nothing racist about people struggling financially, and blaming it on blackie?
      The bankers and Wall street execs who crashed the world's economy through an epidemic of fraud were overwhelmingly white men.

      Their is no excuse too ridiculous for whitey to make excusing his bigotry.

    28. 'Peon' and 'useful idiot' are two different things. Peons are laborers, unskilled plantation workers. This is what the dembots here are.

      'Useful idiots' are the intelligentsia. Academics. Their drivel is more or less the same, but superficially slightly less moronic. They are not commenting here.

    29. Russia, if you're listening, make white voters punish Democrats for enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also, do it retroactively.

    30. "So you see nothing racist about people struggling financially, and blaming it on blackie?"

      No, I don't.

    31. See that gas-lighting bigotry deniers? 12:32 copped to the bigotry, and he didn't even break a bone doing it.

    32. 12:57,
      Better to kick down, than to make the establishment the least bit uncomfortable. Who are you, Mao?

    33. I don't see nothing racist about people struggling financially, and blaming it on blackie.

    34. Also, nothing racist about not wanting Universal Healthcare because it might benefit a minority.

    35. I don't mean to diminish the racism that has pervaded our country since Attucks and Clarke or the implicit racism of our economy. Just pointing out economic hardship and racism are two sides of the same coin - and a better premise from which you can approach and win the next election as opposed to your current, misguided and more simple one.

    36. Sounds like the dembot management is panicking that their "blackie" will vote for the Donald.

      That's lovely.

    37. Blacks hate how rich white liberals try to fight their battles for them. It is true that white liberals are to the left of black Democrats on every key racial issue! These people are totally out of touch. They have lost their minds yes, but what they've really lost is their balls.

    38. Anonymous Ignoramus @2:07P asks,

      A Ukrainian court has called it interference…. What word would you like to call it? Meddling?

      No, I’d call it ruling suspended and then reversed on appeal.

      Anonymous Ignoramus @3:00P states,

      A Ukrainian court rulsd [sic] that Ukrainians unlawfully interfered in the 2016 election.

      Now null and void. Oopsie.

      Anonymous Ignoramus @12:03P admits,

      mm - are you saying Ukraine officials (Artem Sytnyk, director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko) didn't meddle? I don't understand.

      It’s not mm; it’s the 6th District Court of Appeal in Ukraine. Sytnyk and Leshchenko’s release of the information about Manafort was deemed illegal by the lower court because it’s illegal in Ukraine to release evidence before a trial. But there’s no trial of Manafort contemplated by Ukrainian authorities, and apparently there’s an exception for evidence of public importance.

      Anonymous Ignoramus @2:11P asks,

      What are the official words we can call that interference?

      There’s no official list. You can call anything you like interference and claim that it actually is interference, Mr. Dumpty. But don’t expect rational people and the Ukrainian appeals court to agree with you.

    39. No, I’d call it ruling suspended and then reversed on appeal.

      Source please.

    40. The appellate court said there wasn't enough evidence.

      It's all fun and games there, but there's really no doubt in anyone's mind that Soros-paid politicians and bureaucrats there played for the psycho-witch's team and brought Manafort down.

    41. Dem operative Chalupa reached out to Ukraine in an effort to meddle in the election and help Clinton but was rebuffed. The DNC claimed she was acting on her own.

      Not that there is anything wrong with either scenario.

    42. Anonymous Ignoramus @3:22P requests, "Source please."

      GIYF. It took me about a minute to find the news story about the appeal. I'm usually sympathetic to such requests for sources, but in this case, I think it would do you good to research some of your claims.

    43. 1:17,
      Yes. Calling bigots "bigots" is badi if you want to win elections. I'm not running for election, so I have no need for being "politically correct" about the electorate.

    44. Dem operative Chalupa reached out to Ukraine....

      Everybody from the DNC, to the Urkainian embassy, to the "operative" herself denies this claim. Since there appears to be no evidence to back up the claim, you're left with, "Of course that's something 'they' would deny."

      Of course that doesn't mean the denial is true. Feral trumpers might be telling the truth even though they have no evidence. This falls under the heading of "First Time for Everything."

    45. Mao, our resident Village Troll sez:

      The appellate court said there wasn't enough evidence.

      So, altogether now: “That means there’s no standing Ukrainian court ruling that Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 election to help Clinton.”

      [T]here's really no doubt in anyone's mind that Soros-paid politicians and bureaucrats there … brought Manafort down.

      This is Mao speak for “there’s really no evidence that politicians and bureaucrats there [Ukraine] brought Manafort down.

      Manfort left a clear trail up and down the eastern seaborad of bank fraud, mortgage fraud, lying to investigators, failure to file as a foreign agent, and witness tampering. It didn’t help his case that his business partner, Rick Gates, testified against him. Ukrainians were superfluous to requirements in “bringing Manafort down.”

    46. 6:54,
      Needless to say, the corporate-owned Right-wing media AKA the media, isn't running for election either.

    47. "Just pointing out economic hardship and racism are two sides of the same coin..."

      Free food, housing, education, and healthcare for every man woman, and child will also eradicate racism? What are we waiting for?

    48. 11:51,
      The richest country in the history of mankind can't end the economic hardship of its people, because one of our two tribes (the Right) loves racism more than it's people's welfare.

  5. “Once again, here are two possible statements:
    1) Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 election.

    2) It was Ukraine, not Russia, which actually hacked the DNC emails.”

    Are there really only these two possible statements?

    Asking, because Somerby needs to be careful when he casts the CrowdStrike theory as being equivalent to his second statement.

    Trump’s theory doesn’t unequivocally state that Ukraine hacked the DNC. Instead, he is talking about the “DNC server” and what happened to it and why.

    I’m not suggesting Somerby is deliberately creating a false choice when he phrases it this way, but it has that effect. Trump is suggesting meddling or interference by Ukraine that does not necessarily involve hacking of emails.

    Somerby is helping to muddy the waters by presenting his false choice.

    1. 'I’m not suggesting Somerby is deliberately creating a false choice'

      Of course he is. Someby is a Trumptard.

  6. I am aware of Diogenes going about in the daytime with a lamp claiming he was looking for an honest man. I'm not aware of Socrates also doing that.

    1. OK, Diogenes was looking for an "honest" man. Socrates was looking for a man "wiser" than he was because the oracle had declared him the wisest man in Athens and he didn't believe that was possible. In the end he accepted he was wisest because he knew one thing, that he knew nothing. OK, now back to the arguments.

  7. The video of Trump singing "I'm Your Puppet" while staring into Putin's eyes is the best thing on the internet.
    Is it real? No one knows for sure.

  8. Very worthwhile discussion of possible Ukrainian involvement in 2016 election from independent journalist Sharyl Atkisson

    Her podcast is based on specific media reports and various official records.

    1. TDH readers should review Bob’s multi-parter on Attkisson, starting here:

    2. Thanks for the link, @6:51. Attkisson subsequently left CBS News in 2014 to become an independent reporter.

      "Attkisson, who had been with CBS News for more than two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners, and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt that her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air."

    3. CBS News? I've heard of them. Aren't they yet another private business Right-wingers want the government to have more control over?

    4. 10:32,
      What do you expect from big government loving Righties?

    5. Well, David, the obvious choice would be John Solomon.

      He's one US investigative journo who definitely knows this shit.

    6. "Independent reporter"!!!!!

      Right, Sinclair Broadcast Group insists on scrupulous independence from their entire collection of toy soldiers.