TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2022
Haberman has no idea: Over the weekend, we watched Jonathan Alter conduct an hour-long interview with the New York Times' Maggie Haberman.
Haberman was discussing her new book, Confidence Man. The interview, which took place last week, aired on C-Span's Book TV.
At one point, a fascinating question arose. It all began with an clumsily-worded question by Alter, who is of course very articulate. In the face of Alter's mumble-mouthed question, we were struck by what Haberman ended up saying:
ALTER (10/13/22): Do you ever get the sense that [Trump] is untethered from reality? Or do you think it's all connected to his alternative universe in some way that you can kind of track how it makes a certain amount of sense in his own—
HABERMAN: Aren't those the same thing? I mean, if he's untethered to reality and he's also and he's also—that's sort of like the same thing to me.
ALTER: Well, he's craving his own reality, I guess.
HABERMAN: But you're saying, is he doing it knowingly? And he's just trying to bring you along?
ALTER: Yes. Or is it all instinctive?
[...]
HABERMAN: He is trying to create this reality and get you to buy into it more often than not. Now, I think, then sometimes he ends up really believing what he is saying. So I couldn't tell you if he really believes what he is saying about the election or not. I have no idea. I have no idea if it matters...
Alter wanted to know if Donald J. Trump is "untethered from reality." By the time the brief exchange was done, Haberman had tightened his language a bit.
By the time the exchange was done, Haberman had translated the question as follows:
Does Donald J. Trump really believe that he won the 2020 election?
Haberman assumed that's what Alter was asking. Here's the answer she gave:
I couldn't tell you if he really believes what he is saying about the election or not. I have no idea.
Haberman has covered Trump for years. She's his favorite journalistic whipping-person. She has interviewed him various times.
Even after all these years, Haberman says she doesn't know if Trump really believes his crazily unfounded claim. Even now, after all these years, she says she has "no idea."
Our view would go like this:
If Trump really believes his unfounded claim, that suggests that he's "untethered from reality" in what may be a clinical way.
(For what it's worth, we often get the sense that he actually does believe his various crazy claims.)
We'd like to see carefully-chosen medical specialists discuss this ongoing question. Is it possible that Donald J. Trump is "delusional" (untethered from reality) in some definable clinical sense?
We'd like to see specialists offer their impressions. That said, our journalists have agreed that this question must never be discussed, except in euphemistic terms.
Who, the fuck, is Donald Trump?
ReplyDeleteThe corrupt grifter that knows he lost the election - he made it clear himself when he said that he could not believe that he lost to Biden, that it was humiliating to lose to Biden. He said this shortly after the election, there is no question that he knew he lost.
DeleteIt does not matter whether Trump is mentally deranged or not, right wingers will vote for Trump whether he is mentally deranged, or raped some women, or assaulted some other women, or changed his value on abortion, or went bankrupt so many times, or cheated on taxes, or hates Black people, or bears a striking resemblance to the Pillsbury Dough Boy....
And non right wingers will never vote for Trump, so it just does not matter.
It does matter in one important way, which is we all have a duty to prevent Trump from becoming president again, because his corrupt nature is damaging to our country.
All that aside, Somerby wants to question whether we can ever use the word lie, but is perfectly happy mind reading right wingers and bolstering their stances by proclaiming, without evidence, that all the nonsense they spew, they actually believe in. When you apply a principle conditionally, only when it benefits you, you have lost all credibility, which is what has happened to Somerby.
It is highly unlikely right wingers believe their own nonsense; they do not care about society, they do not have an ideology, all they care about is dominance, and they will go along with any nonsense that gives them a sense of dominance.
The hate they spew, along with all their nonsense, that is real, that is a feeling they clearly are experiencing.
These are wounded people, suffering. There is not much we can do to help them with their suffering, they are trapped in a cage made of suffering; what we can do is recognize the root of that suffering and break the chain of generational abuse that creates these right wing tragic suffering monsters.
Ahh, the failed real estate grifter from Queens with all the bankruptcies, the Republican Party sold themselves out to because they love his bigotry. Now i know who Bob meant.
DeleteHe probably believes what most intelligent people believe, which is that the result is unknown because of unprecedented irregularities in voting methods.
ReplyDeleteExactly how many lawsuits related to such claims about the 2020 election did Trump win?
Delete
ReplyDelete"Does Donald J. Trump believe that he won?"
Oh, puhleeze, dear Bob.
Everyone with a functioning brain is aware of your tribe's undeniable pre-election trickery and credible allegations of well-organized fraud. Most people believe it affected the outcome. ("A total of 56% of respondents are convinced "it's likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election," Rasmussen Reports said. That included 41% who said it was "very likely."")
...and how do you know that he didn't win? From the letter signed by 51 former 'intelligence' officials? Proclamation of your tribe's infallible Pope? Or did you perform lobotomy on yourself at the request of your tribal priesthood?
What would losing an election even look like at this point?
DeleteAnd then there’s this, which Somerby will never factor in:
ReplyDelete‘What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to audio of the meeting obtained by Mother Jones. “He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”’
Leaked Audio: Before Election Day, Bannon Said Trump Planned to Falsely Claim Victory
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/07/leaked-audio-steve-bannon-trump-2020-election-declare-victory/
"Does Donald J. Trump believe that he won?"
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter what he believes. What matters is what is true in reality.
Well, someone has to steal the election and this lady has no hesitation and no blowback with coming out every election cycle and pointing her finger.
ReplyDeleteGet your money out.
https://twitter.com/indivisibleteam/status/1583496354734538756?s=42&t=gEDL-Ymd74tw-a6HDscr4g
It is incredibly difficult to actually steal an election due to the dispersion of election vote tallying across precincts nationwide. Meanwhile, the instances of actual voting irregularities have generally been committed by Republicans. That makes the claims on the right empty and politically motivated. Those claims constitute an effort to steal an election that was not won, especially when Republicans claim they are going to attempt to steal the election no matter what the outcome (as Steve Bannon did).
DeleteHillary is not saying she is going to "steal" the election. She says she is trying to keep the election fair by opposing those on the right who HAVE demonstrably already tried to steal one election and are putting themselves in place to try to steal another.
Hillary Clinton has the right to work to try to keep elections fair. The you construe this message as an attempt to steal shows your bad faith, lying, attempt to distort the truth yourself. But we already know what you are. You are scum.
"It is incredibly difficult to actually steal an election due to the dispersion of election vote tallying across precincts nationwide."
DeleteNo, actually it's not difficult, considering corrupt single-party governments in big cities.
Delete“Hillary is not saying she is going to "steal" the election.”
Anonymouse3:17pm, thank you. Without your brilliant input I would have thought this vid was about Hillary confessing to a crime.
(George Lucas couldn’t make Anonymices up…)
“actually it's not difficult, considering corrupt single-party governments in big cities.”
DeleteStatewide elections, such as the 2020 presidential election, are certified at the state level, not at the city level. Even an idiot knows that.
Currently, there are 23 states where Republicans have trifecta control. (For our Republican victims/friends: That means single party control.)
Are they just as susceptible to corruption as citywide elections?
The Republican governor of Arizona was among the officials there who certified Biden’s win. The Republican officials in Georgia certified Biden’s win. Guess they’re in on it.
The midterms are going to be a bloodbath for Democrats who have all of a sudden changed course to talk about the economy realizing they are going to get killed. People hate them. Hispanics are gone. Blacks are next.
Delete@4:24 -- wishful thinking. Why do these trolls come to a liberal blog to lie about Democratic prospects?
Delete4:24,
DeleteAre you forgetting all the economically anxious---and not at all bigoted--Republican voters, who love the 50-year low unemployment rate Biden was able to deliver.? Because all none of those voters might put Dems over the top.
"Statewide elections, such as the 2020 presidential election, are certified at the state level, not at the city level. Even an idiot knows that."
DeleteYes. And then they are certified on the federal level.
And your point is?
"Currently, there are 23 states where Republicans have trifecta control. (For our Republican victims/friends: That means single party control.)
No. Not like some city councils with no antagonistic opposition whatsoever. Like Cuba, you know?
For example: Minneapolis, as we remember from a couple of years ago.
"The Republican officials in Georgia certified Biden’s win. Guess they’re in on it."
Republican officials in Georgia certified the numbers delivered to them by counties. If some counties in Georgia had cooked-up numbers, Republican officials in Georgia certified them along with all the other numbers. Because Republican officials in Georgia didn't know the numbers were cooked up. Life is imperfect. Shit happens.
It doesn't matter if I'm liberal or conservative. The Democrats are going to get smashed. Read the papers. Look at the headlines. They're desperately switching away from abortion at the last minute because they know they're going to get completely killed. It's not me saying it. The Democrats are saying it themselves. The voters care about the economy, so they're voting Republican. It's on the front page of every paper.
DeleteIn other words, Dimbot "Mao" has no evidence the election was stolen. Similar to what Giuliani said of himself, "Mao" has lots of theories; all he lacks is the evidence.
DeleteDon't feel bad. The leadership of the Democratic party has been so atrocious for so long. Maybe the beat down there about to get will help change the leadership at the top.
DeleteBut some of you jackass posters are about to really see how much people hate Democrats. How much they hate you
If outcomes of elections show how much the losing side is hated, I guess we saw in 2020 how much people hate you.
DeleteI voted for Biden. I'm just telling you what's going to happen in the midterms. Democrats are going to get fucking killed. And they deserve it. But I will still vote for them.
DeletePeople despise Democrats in a very deep way. Somerby has tried to describe why for years. Right now they have a payback coming their way that is going to be just absolutely brutal. That said, they do have my vote.
DeleteLook at the commenters here who supposedly represent true Democrats. Who bust Somerby's balls for not staying in line and call Trump voters bigots. At some point Democrats have to pay a price for acting like that. We certainly did in 2016 and boy, here it comes again big time.
DeleteNo one cares what Comey will say this time.
DeleteAll this conservative trash talk reeks of desperation.
Delete"how much they hate YOU" vs. "WE certainly did in 2016." Schizophrenic much? Your analysis is grossly oversimplified. There are countless contributing factors to the Dems' likely loss. One is Dems' usual low turnout in midterm elections. It's also historically the norm for the president's party to lose the midterm. Gerrymandering. Right-wing propaganda. An uninformed and misinformed electorate that has a bunch of misconceptions about the political world -- for example, that there's any good reason to think the Republicans are better stewards of the economy. Etc., etc., etc.
Delete7:15 who are voting for this cycle?
Delete@7:15 none of your business
DeleteI voted for Trump and would again. I do not hate Democrats and I do not feel that they hate me.
DeleteI think we all on both sides understand our respective positions.
Whether I win or the Democrats win does not hinge on hate, the commenter at 6:56 is either making a joke or very confused.
I believe this country was founded as a safe space for White and Christian people, this is how I want my country to be. I understand other people see things differently. Us White Christians believe we are being replaced, and we want our country to go back to it's original intent.
When Trump lost, it was a crushing blow, but remember my side has a lot of power and weapons still; we now own the Supreme Court, we run many of the states so we are able to re shape districts and adjust voting rights. While the demographics do not look good for us in the long term, we can push back against socialist ideals, we can effectively eliminate what the other side gained with the New Deal and Civil Rights, for the time being.
My kids are a mix of red and blue, but my grandkids, love them to death, they all sound like pinko commies. I am older, I do not need to see a complete reversal of our country back to it's natural state of a White and Christian nation, but it would be nice to stem the leftist tide at least until I pass.
It is certainly true that slavery was not a safe space for black people.
DeleteDid the indians agree to let you use their land for your safe space? How about Mexico?
DeleteAnd don’t forget all those guns among your weapons.
DeleteHillary is pathetically reading a teleprompter in the tweet video. She does a horrible job. So sad she is all we have.
DeleteShe isn’t running for anything.
Delete6:30,
DeleteWhy would I read the newspaper to confirm Democrats are going to get slaughtered in the midterms?
The other whole point to TDH (other than the Right-wing rat-fucking) is to show how unreliable the media is.
"Look at the commenters here who supposedly represent true Democrats. Who bust Somerby's balls for not staying in line and call Trump voters bigots."
DeleteThose TDH commenters are easy to spot. They're the ones making good faith arguments.
Is it possible Trump is delusional? Yes.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also possible that he is lying.
Preferring the former (as Somerby seems to) does not cause it to remain anything more than a possibility.
What is the advantage of believing one over the other? What course of action would Somerby recommend, other than pity, if the former happens to be true? If the latter? There is at least some evidence that the latter might be true.
What Cecelia means is that it is a moral outrage that Democrats, including their former presidential candidate, have the gall to ask for money to help get their candidates elected. Republicans, with the aid of the Supreme Court no doubt, will pass the appropriate legislation to correct this.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the white working class has its bank accounts drained by endless Trump grifts. The upside is that, while they are poorer for enabling the lavish lifestyle of a billionaire who really ought not need their cash, they feel richer.
Sheesh.
DeleteNo, I meant something really esoteric, subtle, and abstract, like why in the hell does she get to come out every two years and threaten democracy by casting aspersions on all the estates of government?
Hillary has as much right to participate as you or anyone else.
DeleteNo, when other people use rhetoric like she used, they’re accused of being a crackpot and of destroying the country.
DeleteUnlike Trump, Hillary served her country with honor.
DeleteNo, Anonymouse 7:12pm, unlike Trump, Hillary can get away with that rhetoric because she is a liberal Democrat.
Delete“Get away with”, as if the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to her because she’s Hillary!
Delete“Hillary can get away with that rhetoric because she is a liberal Democrat.”
DeleteCecelia claims to have been a long time reader if this blog. Yet she still says shit like this.
She still has a Twitter account, no corporations have dumped her as speaker or honorary board member, and the MSM is not in a tizzy and accusing her of undermining democracy and abetting foreign enemies.
DeleteShe’s being treated as though she has a 1st Amendment right.
Must be nice.
“ undermining democracy and abetting foreign enemies.”
DeleteThat’s because she isn’t doing that, dummy.
mh, the blogger is called a paid stooge for Putin here on his blog. He’s told that he’s undermining freedom of the press by exercising his 1st Amendment right via rigorous criticism of the media.
DeleteYeah, I’ve read you for years and you say shit like this.
mh, oh, that’s a fact, she is not undermining democracy by alleging that there’s a plot to steal the 2024.
DeleteUnfortunately, other people don’t get that reasonable approach.
Other people abuse their twitter accounts. Hillary follows the rules. You worked overtime to read things into her tweet that she didn’t say. Trump advocated violence for fuck’s sake.
DeleteThere IS a plot to steal 2024. It’s right out in the open. I have never claimed Somerby was a paid stooge of Putin, you piece of shit. Why would I consistently post as mh? You can look back at my comment history to verify that, you piece of shit. Somerby pointed out the idiocy of the Hillary email and Uranium One stories, which proves that the msm was not rooting for Hillary, you piece of shit.
DeleteI am sick of the intrusion of these trolls who only comment to disrupt discussion here. No one wants to discuss Hillary, who is way off topic.
DeleteMao is obviously paid by Russia, so why not Cecelia and Somerby?
DeleteDon't forget this classic:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793250312119263233?s=20
Fuck off Cecelia.
Deletemh, I said that Somerby is called a Putin hire and that he undermines democracy by calling out the free press, and that he’s a stealth conservative who is trying to help Republicans win.
DeleteWhy? Because he says Trump supporters are deluded, rather than calling them evil and that his tribe is unlikable.
That’s all it takes for your tag team daily Insult and accusation fest.
You may not have said all of the things I’ve referenced, but you certainly “say shit like this”.
not mh, why not Hillary?
DeleteShe actually hired Russians to dig up dirt on her campaign opponent.
The Steele dossier was originally commissioned by a Republican as oppo research during the primaries. The DNC, not Hillary, took it over.
DeleteAnonymouse8:50pm, are you actually under the impression that Trump is the only person that Twitter has ever banned?
DeleteAnonymouse 9:47pm, imagine what Clinton would have said if Trump had used a private home server for official business.
DeleteDid I say that? No. Others have broken the rules too. I would never say that Trump is the only piece of shit kicked off twitter. Pretending to misunderstand people is another version of spreading the shit here. We are on to you Cecelia (piece of shit).
DeleteHillary tweeted a story that was false "Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank." on Oct 31, 2016.
DeleteThis was after her aides had discussed "swiftboating" Trump.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-emails-allegedly-show-clinton-campaign-consultant-swift/story?id=43027902
And the story itself was given to the media and FBI with three "white papers" and data files allegedly containing evidence supporting the existence of this purported secret communications channel by a lawyer who was working for the Clinton campaign and BILLED the Clinton campaign for the time he spent compiling the story and taking it to journalists and the FBI.
So don't tell me Hillary doesn't follow the rules and play fair.
10:01 PM
DeleteThat is false. It was fully paid for and originated with the Clinton Campaign.
It was originally reported the way you describe but that turned out to be false.
The money flowed from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to law firm Perkins Coie, to the research company Fusion GPS, and then ultimately to Steele, who got $168,000.
(Anti-Trump Republicans initially funded Fusion GPS’ research during the 2016 GOP primaries, but the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee picked up the tab before Steele got involved.)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning
Anonymouse 10:01pm, nope, she helped fund the dossier. Her campaign and the DNC were fined for falsely labeling the expenditures.
DeleteThe lawyer did other work for Clinton (consulting on her servers), not this story about Russia and the computer in Trump Tower, which did exist. That’s why he was not convicted. You are lying.
DeleteYou don’t get to believe your side’s lies just because you prefer them.
DeleteLike the false story about Trump being connected to the Russian bank, the Steele dossier was completely invented and originated from Hillary Clinton's campaign. Both were sleazy efforts swiftboat Trump based on total falsehoods.
DeleteNot that there's anything wrong with it!
10:19
DeleteI'm a Democrat and a Clinton supporter. It doesn't change the facts of the matter.
The Federal Election Commission has agreed to a fine of over $100,000 against the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign over an investigation into alleged misreporting of spending related to the now-infamous Steele dossier.
DeleteThe FEC fined both organizations after a pair of now years-old complaints — alleged that the party and campaign reported payments to the powerhouse Democratic law firm Perkins Coie as legal expenses, when in actuality some of the money was earmarked for “paying Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump,”.
The Russian server connected to Trump Tower was a false story.
DeleteHillary is a distraction. She is not running for anything. History will show she was right about Trump and Russia. Even now, it is obvious what happened.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:07pm, you only referenced Trump as being who I was alluding to when I said other people do not fare well on Twitter when they venture what HRC has now ventured about the next presidential election.
DeleteThat playing dumb beyond the scope of your inate talent for it.
When you don’t cite a source, you are just posting a paragraph that anyone could have written, unverifiable. It proves nothing.
DeleteNot only that Clinton's campaign manager testified under oath Hillary was asked about the plan and approved it.
DeleteRepeat after me: Hillary personally approved a plan to plant a false Russia claim with a reporter and then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news.
The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true.
Not that there's anything wrong with it!
Anonymouse 10:27, they just hear the 24/7 brouhaha of the media frenzy over this stuff, not the two minute clarification they make when it falls apart. .
DeleteI can give you sources for everything if you wish.
Deletehttps://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-contested-afterlife-of-the-trump-alfa-bank-story
Robby Mook ratted her out.
DeleteYes Cecilia, they are in a news environment where they only hear good things about Democrats and bad things about Trump and Republicans. Whereas the right put themselves in a news environment where they hear the exact opposite.
DeleteSo many Democrats don't realize the Clinton campaign bought and paid for the Steele dossier and were later fined for it and also invented a completely false story tying Trump to Trump and then brought that story to the FBI and the media knowing it was false and then promoted it as if it were true with the whole thing signed off by the very top.
Not that that was illegal or anything.
That's why Somerby vexes and flummoxes them so severely. They never hear any dissenting, unsupportive word against Democrats. The blogs they read would never do it. Their authors travel in a herd dissent is simply not allowed.
DeletePolitics is somewhat their religion.
I believe the accusation against Hillary was made but I do not believe she knowingly authorized planting a false story. That is not how she has ever operated. It IS something the right would claim.
DeleteHillary did not authorize the Steele dossier.
Delete(all that said I voted for Clinton and Biden and would do so again. I do not like Donald Trump.)
Delete"I believe the accusation against Hillary .. I do not believe ...
DeleteThat is because this is a religious issue for you. Like all religious issues, it's one of faith and belief.
"Hillary did not authorize the Steele dossier."
DeleteYes, like all slimy sleazeball politicians she is smart enough most of the time to keep level of plausible deniability between her and her dirty tricks.
Not that there's anything wrong with them.
Mark Meadows blamed Hillary, but the dossier was originally commissioned and funded by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative org, according to Politifact, a fact checker.
DeleteDear sweet Anonymouse10:43pm. She’s a politician and a human being . These traits qualify them all for such antics.
DeleteTake deep breaths. Deep breaths.
10:57
DeleteI would check the date on that PolitiFact. I posted a link earlier that debunks it. The Washington Free Beacon had commissioned Fusion GPS, but not the Steele dossier. The Steele dossier originated with the Clinton campaign. They paid for it and were subsequently fined for lying about it. Sources for all these claims have been included in previous comments.
This is all such old news!
DeleteBut of course Rachel, Lawyers Guns and Money and No Mister Nice Guy blog aren't going to report one word of these stories.
DeleteThat's why you don't know. You're not allowed to.
But it is your religion. This is the good news. It's based on your faith and your belief. So you can believe whatever you want. Keep consulting the scriptures. They will preach the good word and tell you exactly what you want to hear
DeleteThere is so much bullshit in the above discussion, it would take a week to unravel. No, Hillary didn't hire Russians. Her campaign did what every other presidential campaign does: they paid for opposition research. The company they hired to do this research eventually ended up hiring Steele, and it was Steele who, on his own, decided to contact some Russians he knew from his days doing intelligence work for the British government. There was nothing wrong with any of this. They weren't trying to collude with an enemy foreign government that was known to be interfering in the election, to take a random example.
DeleteRegarding "swiftboating," that brief exchange between two campaign staffers doesn't indicate what they were talking about, or what aspect(s) of "swiftboating" they might have had in mind. One of the key features of "swiftboating" is going after your opponent's perceived strength and turning it into a weakness. In Kerry's case, this was his military service. In Trump's case, it might have been his supposed business acumen. There's simply no way to tell from that brief exchange whether they were up to anything dishonest or unethical.
Regarding the communication between the Trump Tower server and the server of a Russian bank, what was wrong with Clinton drawing attention to it? You're assuming that she knew at the time she tweeted about it that it was a bogus story. I don't think that's been shown. Given all of the other stories about Trump and Russia at the time, a story like that would be a no-brainer for a campaign to draw attention to.
I could go on, but I'll end with this: regarding the "I believe" and "religion" analogy, what nonsense. Presumably, the person's belief is based a ton of information about Clinton, accumulated over decades.
Clinton has been maybe the most intensely covered, followed, scrutinized woman in all of history. So the person's views are based on a ton of information about Clinton and what type of person she is. It's not "faith based." It's fact based.
Cecelia,
DeleteAre we talking about the same Hillary Clinton? The one I mean is the one the media spent 2016 pretending to care that Republicans were pretending to care about her email protocols.
It was huge news, before Trump Administration members did similar for four years while the media looked the other way.
Let's review what is true yet still to this day hidden from the congregants of partisan Democratic news sources and sleazy partisan Democratic blogs:
Delete- The Clinton campaign originated the Steele dossier, it did not originate with a Republican organization.
- The Clinton campaign was fined by the SEC for hiding their payment for the Steele dossier by calling it a legal expense.
- The highest levels of the Clinton campaign discussed enacting a swiftboat of Trump "after the convention" and a Clinton campaign lawyer began assembling data falsely tying Trump to a Russian Bank the week after the convention.
- He billed the Clinton campaign for all his time he spent on it.
- The story the Clinton campaign lawyer assembled originated within the Clinton campaign, the lawyer worked with a tech executive who hoped to be a member of the cabinet to assemble the data that they knew was not conclusive. (We know this from their emails.)
- The Clinton campaign took the story to the FBI and the media, not knowing if it was true, and to the objections of the researchers who were asked to review the data. (We know this from their emails.)
- The FBI immediately rejected the story as false but the Clinton campaign lawyer still encouraged the media to publish it.
- Clinton's campaign manager testified under oath that Hillary knew they were taking the inconclusive story to the press and signed off on it.
- The Clinton campaign and Clinton herself publicized the articles about the alleged connection that they had constructed and signed off on.
Illegal? Probably not. Sleazy and unethical? Definitely.
That's two false stories tying Trump to Russia that originated from within the Clinton campaign in the summer of 2016. Which is interesting when you put other accusations of connections to Russia Clinton has made that turned out to be false.
Not that there's anything wrong with it.
10:32, get back to me when Donald J Chickenshit testifies under oath.
DeleteDon't worry, give Durham another 3 years and I am sure he is going to get to the bottom of this deep state plot to embarrass Donald J Chickenshit.
To be fair though, if Donald J Chickenshit had not sucked Putin's dick in public for so long, we never would have fell for the swift boating of the lying sack of shit treasonous bastard.
To what would he testify? That the false story the Clinton campaign planted and the FBI said was false wasn't? That he has knowledge the Clinton campaign didn't pay for the Steele dossier?
DeleteWe're dealing with facts here, son.
“A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts” — such as the finding that, “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” — “does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”
DeleteYes, there is evidence of facts that he colluded with Russia but the facts did not establish that he did.
DeleteThere may be evidence of facts that someone robbed a bank like they were around the bank at the time it was robbed or drove the same car as the bank robbers, but those facts could be weighed in an investigation which didn't establish that they robbed the bank.
All one has to do is read the Mueller report to see that the collusion hoax was invented and really never made any sense.
I get that you really want it to be true. I did too.
Anybody else see the irony in Hillary Clinton hiring Russians, while most of the Republican Congress is on the Russian payroll? She could have just hired Republican Congresspeople, if she wanted Russia's take.
DeleteNot everyone is as stupid as you are.
DeleteAll one has to do is read the Mueller report to see that Donald J Chickenshit corruptly obstructed the investigation.
DeleteHe was never accused of it
DeleteHe was accused in the Mueller report but he corruptly fired the AG and installed coverup artist Billy Barr who corruptly swept it all under the rug.
DeleteHe wasn't accused of it in the Mueller report. Sorry.
DeleteMueller - "... this Report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."
DeleteHow long are you going to stand on the beach and try to out yell the typhoons?
That doesn't mean that Trump wasn't guilty of crimes. It means Mueller was unwilling to charge him. Mueller was a Republican working for Trump and Barr (who also covered for Trump). What else would you expect?
DeleteAnd yes, Trump was accused in the report. Mueller didn't conclude anything about crimes -- pro or con. But he did provide a blueprint for convicting Trump of obstruction and he presented the evidence for Russian meddling.
**********
DeleteBecause we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult i ssues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confiden ce after a thorough investigation ofthe facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we wou ld so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude t hat the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
*******
Listen, you can continue to play the role of a smirking chimp with your head up Donald J Chickenshit's ass but it ain't changing any minds here, asshole.
That is not an accusation.
DeleteMueller - "... this Report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."
Of course it doesn't change your mind. This is a faith based, religious issue for you. Facts don't matter.
"That doesn't mean that Trump wasn't guilty of crimes. "
DeleteIt doesn't mean he was either.
God, you're so dumb you could be a Lawyers Guns and Money reader.
"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, ..."
DeleteCan't you fucking read, jackass?
Right, Mueller dedicated an entire volume of his report to obstruction acts committed by Donald J Chickenshit, but you want to say he was never accused, when you goddam fucking know good and well they had decided from the beginning that they could not charge a sitting president. Asshole, you are not arguing in good faith.
What was the accusation then?
DeleteGo fuck yourself.
DeleteMueller made no judgement one way or another about obstruction. Sorry.
DeleteIt's frustrating for you I know. Sorry man
DeleteAs a Leftist, I am generally opposed to Hillary Clinton, and Bill, as they are neoliberals - basically they are Republicans minus the corruption and pathology. Having said that, the Steele Dossier got several things right, a few minor things wrong, and the rest is unknown - could be true or false. Hillary is a mess when it comes to policy (although probably decent at governing) but did nothing wrong as far as the Steele Dossier.
DeleteThe moron that smugly asserts that this or that was a hoax and that Hillary was puling all the strings etc, is just that, a moron, and an unconvincing one at that, so basically an incompetent moron - or to clarify, incompetent and a moron.
To be clear, he excels at being a moron.
Here is just one example: Hillary was not fined by the FEC (or the SEC); her campaign agreed to a settlement with the FEC to pay $8k (yes $8k not 100k) whereby the campaign was permitted to say they were innocent of the right wing accusations but wanted to settle instead of incurring more legal fees. To make it even more embarrassing for our smug little friend, it was not over hiding payments:
"The civil penalty appears to relate to highly technical rules about how campaign spending through an intermediary should be reported, and not to delve into issues around the legality (or veracity) of the dossier."
Neoliberals deserve a special place in hell, but so do bad faith operators like our smug little friend, who embellishes to dramatize issues of corruption where none exist, yet studiously avoids the enormous amount of corruption done by Trump and other right wingers that directly harm society.
Idk, moron might be the wrong word - probably "weasel" is more apt.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymous 6:10 uses a lot of clever, weaselly language to try to make it sound like the Clinton campaign did something wrong. I work full time; I can't do the legwork necessary to dissect it all. But here's an example: the use of the word "originate." Unless there's more to the story than I'm aware of, all that happened was that Clinton's campaign hired a company to do opposition research on Trump. Every campaign does this, of course. That company took things from there, eventually hiring a well-respected former British intelligence officer to look into Trump's ties to Russia. No part of this was inappropriate, especially given that Trump and his campaign were up to their eyeballs in suspicious contacts with and statements about the Russian government, a despicable, murderous, utterly corrupt dictatorship and decades-long enemy of the West in general and the U.S. in particular -- which as we know and the Trump campaign knew at the time was engaged in a wide-ranging, aggressive, and illegal effort to interfere in our presidential election. Personally, given everything we know about how Trump operates (his "transactional" nature -- a euphemism if there ever was one), and given everything we know about the Russian government, and given everything we know about the links between the two, I think playing some sleazy political hardball WOULD have been more than warranted and justified -- patriotic even. But that's not what happened. What I described above is what happened.
DeleteRegarding, "The Clinton campaign was fined by the SEC for hiding their payment for the Steele dossier by calling it a legal expense." I would love to dig into this, because I suspect there's some bullshittiness to this as well. Were they really trying to hide payment for opposition research? Why would they do that? There's nothing illegal about opposition research, and the entire world already knew that Steele's report came out of the opposition research the Clinton campaign funded. Why try to "hide" it then? And did they characterize ALL of the opposition research this way or only a portion of it? If they reported some accurately, and therefore some wasn't "hidden," what would be the point of "hiding" only a part of it? Also, obviously Clinton herself wasn't keeping the books. Did she even know that some or all of the payment was being potentially mischaracterized? I don't think that's been shown. I could go on and on about every point made. It's all very vague and slippery and if read quickly gives the overall impression that the Clinton campaign was oozing with sleaze. It also reeks of "both sides"-ism, making it seem like, sure, Trump's campaign was corrupt, but so was Clinton's. But there's just no comparison.
The more interesting question is... would anyone reading
ReplyDeleteBob Somerby twenty years ago believe he would be
pimping this nonsense in this situation?
Bob has let everyone who ever considered his point
of view down, he's let himself down.
A mini version of Steve Bannon’s tactic of “flooding the zone with shit” is being used here in blog comments. I think that makes it necessary to call out both the shit and the shitters. As Somerby has repeatedly urged the media to do. But really, why can’t Somerby weed out his own spam?
ReplyDeleteMaybe if Biden sits down for interviews with a few more mentally unhinged trannies the Democrats can stop the bleeding.
ReplyDeleteWill Tucker let him interview his son?
DeleteIf God hadn't made trannies in his own image, Right-wingers would have to find some other politically under-represented, marginalized group of people to punch down on, so they can feel better about their loser selves.
DeleteGod made schizophrenic and psychopathic murderers too but that doesn't mean we should not try to heal them and prevent their disease from hurting others. Democrats celebrate harmful disease and try to inflict it onto children. Hateful and cruel and also badly in need of healing.
DeleteIf you cannot beat Democrats by discussing politics instead of making up awful stories about them mutilating children, there is something seriously wrong with Republican policies.
DeleteBoston Children’s does in fact provide “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors. After the videos went viral, they quietly updated their website. They changed the age of requirement for a vaginoplasty from 17 to 18 and added “we only perform gender-affirming hysterectomies on patients who are age 18 or older.”
DeleteThe same hospital committed 65 double mastectomies against minors from 2017-2020.
These people hate heterosexuality, families, women, men, maleness and femaleness, white people. Their problem isn't a wrong body it's a deranged mind and cruel and hateful desire shared by the Democrat party to inflict misery on others.
Doctors who perform any of these surgeries on healthy organs on any age should be thrown in prison.
Any country that hates 10:17 more than trannies, can't be all bad.
Delete10:17,
DeleteIf you hadn't cried about your economic anxiousness, Joe Biden and the Democrats might not have wasted their time delivering the lowest unemployment rate in more than 5 decades.
If you wanted Biden and the Democrats to punchdown on children you don't like, you should have said so.
Let that be a lesson in life. If you can't make a good faith argument, people are never going to understand what you really want.
We know his supporters, like Mao, are untethered from reality.
ReplyDelete