"This whole [discourse] is out of order!"

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2023

Also, though, Mary Trump: We don't think we've ever seen the 1979 film, With Justice For All.  Al Pacino is often said to have made this statement as part of that courtroom drama:

"This whole court is out of order!"

Apparently, that's a misstatement of what the Pacino character says. According to an array of sources, the actual line goes like this:

"You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order!"

All in all, the same idea.

It has occurred to us, in the past few days, that our whole national discourse is [badly] out of order. The sheer inanity of "cable news" discourse has taken things well beyond the pale—and no, it isn't just that way on Fox.

We started building this site in the fall of 1997 because we thought, even then, that the howlers were arriving on a daily basis. But in the last few days and nights, our gong-show discourse has moved beyond the realm of mere howlers into the world of gonzo incompetence and general semi-insanity.

Our guess would be that this results from the "viewpoint segregation" of cable news, in which our tribunes are almost never forced to defend, refine or re-analyze anything they've ever said. Years inside such echo chambers reduce the intellectual skills of participants—and quite a few of those pundit skill levels were quite thin coming in.

"This is the discourse we have chosen," we thoughtfully said this very morning—and that isn't just the doing of our journalists, such as they frequently are. 

The failure of academics to notice and challenge this culture is one of the gong-shows of the age. Even the experts with whom we consult can't account for this failure to serve, though this failure was already pronounced by the time we started this site.

Last night, we were happy to observe a brief break in this state of affairs. We refer to Mary Trump's appearance on The Last Word.

We've long stated the obvious here—you can't conduct a serious discussion of Donald J. Trump without input from (carefully selected) medical / psychological / psychiatric specialists. 

Because she's Donald Trump's niece, Mary Trump wouldn't be the perfect choice to serve in this role. That said, she does have training as a clinical psychologist, and on rare occasions she's allowed to say such things as this:

MARY TRUMP (3/21/23): Well Lawrence, first of all, it's great to be with you. And you are talking about these quotes from people near Donald who allegedly spend a lot of time with him. There is always such a disconnect between what they claim and what I know can't possibly be true.

So I think, first of all, the emotion of sadness is not in Donald's arsenal. What he is feeling, to the extent that he is feeling anything, is self-pity. And that makes sense.

He's also feeling grievance, but he feels aggrieved every time he walks into the Mar-a-Lago dining hall and his paid patrons don't pay him sufficient homage, right? So none of this is new, and he has such a limited range...

[...]

Again, I try to avoid any diagnostic labels. But this is somebody who has such serious psychological problems, he has such serious psychopathologies, that the range of emotion that is available to most relatively stable people is not available to him.

I think Donald's emotional makeup consists mostly of anger and the self-pity I spoke about earlier, and deep, deep fear. And a lot of that is in the service of making sure he never feels humiliated.

Lawrence changed the focus of the discussion for his second segment with Mary Trump. But in the material offered above, you see one of the rare attempts to offer an adult appraisal of this badly disordered person's badly disordered behavior.

As we've noted again and again, the mainstream press corps isn't going to take part in this type of discussion. In truth, it may be just as well. Our TV stars aren't mature enough, or smart enough, to conduct a discussion of this type, and the introduction of frameworks like this would instantly be abused across the partisan spectrum.

Simply put, our floundering nation lacks the capacity (the range) to conduct a serious discussion of Trump. We simply aren't up to the task. We enjoy "the jugglers and the clowns," and we listen to almost nobody else.

One or two final points:

In her first, best-selling book, Mary Trump explicitly identified her grandfather (Donald Trump's father) as a "sociopath." She didn't say the same thing about her uncle, but as she listed his various psychopathologies, we'd be inclined to say that she made it clear she was saying something quite similar.

As we noted in real time, our journalists ran from those assessments much as Dracula flees the cross. They simply refuse to engage with such topics. Within our blue tribe as well as in theirs, we're children in a childish land, and that isn't going to change.

We've recommended pity for Donald J. Trump, and we continue to do so. That said, pity for someone afflicted this way isn't within the range of emotion available to us as a people or as a tribe. The range of emotion available to us doesn't let us go to any such place, even as we work to keep Trump out of office.

At any rate, this whole (pseudo) discourse is out of order! Our own blue tribe is increasingly foolish. Our tribe is unable to see this.

From her original book: In her first, best-selling book, Mary Trump offered this overview of her famous, disordered uncle:

MARY TRUMP (pages 12-13): None of the Trump siblings emerged unscathed from my grandfather's sociopathy and my grandmother's illnesses, both physical and psychological, but my uncle Donald and my father, Freddy, suffered more than the rest. In order to get a complete picture of Donald, his psychopathologies, and the meaning of his dysfunctional behavior, we need a thorough family history.

In the last three years, I’ve watched as countless pundits, armchair psychologists and journalists have kept missing the mark, using phrases such as "malignant narcissism" and "narcissistic personality disorder" in an attempt to make sense of Donald’s often bizarre and self-defeating behavior. I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist—he meets all nine criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—but the label only gets us so far.

[...]

[Clinical] experiences showed me time and again that diagnosis doesn't exist in a vacuum. Does Donald have other symptoms we aren't aware of? Are there other disorders that might have as much or more explanatory power? Maybe. A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe forms is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

The fact is, Donald’s pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for. 

According to Mary Trump, her uncle didn't "emerge unscathed" from her grandfather's sociopathy. Neither did her father, who died at age 42.

Years later, the wider meaning of those remarks remains unexplored, undiscussed. This whole discourse is out of order! As a people, we simply aren't up to the task of conducting mature public discourse.

Tucker Carlson isn't up to that task. As we clown (and call names) from within our blue tents, could the same thing be true about us?


92 comments:

  1. That Trump is a mental case is hardly a novel concept, limited to
    the work of Mary Trump. This has
    been pointed out dozens of times to
    Bob, but he hears what he wants to
    hear and cannot even keep his classic movie quotes straight.
    Mary Trump does not suggest,
    EVER, that the solution is to ignore
    his crimes or bad behavior.
    Bob urges compassion, but has
    zero for Trump’s victims, like the
    Georgia election workers. These
    people just don’t seem to count to
    Bob. The greater damage to the
    Country by ignoring the coup attempt? Bob says let it burn.
    Trump’s freakish condition
    Is old news. The egotism of his
    protectors, like Bob, is what we
    will have to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  2. tl;dr
    "The sheer inanity of "cable news" discourse has taken things well beyond the pale..."

    Meh. We feel that the "cable news" institution (industry?) does exactly what it's suppose to do: ranting and raving and exciting the (mostly) idiots who like to watch this sort of shows. Fortunately, there's only a small number of (mostly) idiots who choose to watch them.

    "Simply put, our floundering nation lacks the capacity (the range) to conduct a serious discussion of Trump."

    Oh, dear. What the hell does it even mean? Okay, what it means, we're pretty sure, is that what you need is a serious discussion of TDS.

    ...more to the point, as a card-carrying member of a brain-dead liberal tribe, why don't you worry about discussions related to your own tribe, and its role in creating this "out of order" environment? Seriously, dear...

    ReplyDelete
  3. "in which our tribunes are almost never"

    Somerby repeats this old trope that cable news hosts are somehow blue tribe tribunes. They are not.

    First, what is a tribune? Somerby uses that word frequently, always inappropriately.

    tribune definition: "a popular leader; a champion of the people"

    Cable news hosts are hired by cable news stations. Their job is to inform and entertain, to read the news and be personable, not to be any sort of champion or leader of the people. The word tribune applied to such people is never correct. These are talking heads, not actors on the political stage, and that includes Rachel Maddow.

    Why does Somerby equate cable news hosts with popular leaders? So that by lazily criticizing the news, he can destroy faith in the actual leadership on the left. And by undermining faith in the press, journalists, those talking heads on cable news shows, he can also soften left wing acceptance of the things said on such shows, the information that right wingers like Somerby would rather liberals and other viewers didn't know. He hopes to encourage his readers here to reject what they hear on cable news, so that they will be more malleable in their opinions when hearing right wing messages. That's all this is about.

    Cable news hosts are a conduit for news. They do not participate in making news, the way popular leaders and champions of the people do. Our judgment should focus on whether they are telling the truth, not whether they smile the right way, refer to others as dear friends, or sound "angry" on a particular show. None of that matters. What matters is whether consumers are being told the truth on such shows. No one is perfect, of course, but the left gets the truth right a lot more often than the right on Fox News. And that is all that matters, except to political operatives such as Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that cable news hosts like Maddow are portraying themselves as exactly that, "popular leaders" who are doing you the service of interpreting events through their own highly-qualified, highly-rated, highly-paid brains, distilling out the important essence of the day's news stories and telling you what to feel about them. Rachel Maddow is on TV speaking truth to power! She's fighting for us! You can't get any tribunier than that.

      Delete
    2. She can say that but no one on the left thinks of her that way.

      Delete
  4. "The failure of academics to notice and challenge this culture is one of the gong-shows of the age."

    Here is another of Somerby's tropes. He thinks that academics are supposed to be tribunes, leaders and champions of the people, apparently. But that is not what academics do. They create new knowledge and transmit what they know to students. Period. They are not elected to any office. They do not lead crusades. They do not work to change society (except in their spare time if it is their personal interest, as all people regardless of occupation are entitled to do). Their job is to do research and to teach. That's it. Sometimes they extend that teaching role to appearances on TV in order to inform the general public about their specific area of expertise. That is considered public service, not activism.

    Why does Somerby keep saying that academics have failed us in their jobs? He likes to undermine the faith people hold in the expertise of those who know things in specific areas. If academics have failed to transform society by removing ineffective journalists (how exactly would they do that?), then maybe they don't know their fields of expertise either? Somerby would like to encourage his readers to set aside what experts say, so that they will more readily believe propaganda and disinformation coming from the right wing. It is that simple. Truth has a liberal slant, because liberals are more willing to accept reality. That means that right-wingers must attack the sources of knowledge if they are to prevail politically and win adherents. Otherwise, educated and informed people would summarily reject right-wing assertions as being factually untrue, wrong, misguided and ineffective, which is what they most are. Somerby doesn't want any educated people telling the public what is true and what is false. So he attacks public faith in academia.

    That is obviously bad for people, because the distance between a person's beliefs and their effectiveness in the world can be measured by their level of education. Far more people on the right have died of covid, because those on the left believed experts who told them to wear masks and get vaccinated. Other examples abound.

    Somerby does no one any favors when he tries to convince his readers that academics are useless spongers who didn't rescue us from whatever troubles we have in our lives, as if they were superheroes wearing gowns instead of capes, charged with challenging culture, not discovering truth, aiding science and industry by teaching how the world works, and guiding the young as they prepare for careers and meaningful lives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "you can't conduct a serious discussion of Donald J. Trump without input from (carefully selected) medical / psychological / psychiatric specialists. "

    Why does Somerby always refer to those specialists as "carefully selected?" Does he only want to hear from the ones like Mary Trump, who will agree about Trump's illness? It is true that some doctors encouraged patients to take Ivermectin (which was ineffective against covid) and thus are as batty as Trump himself. It is also true that some psychologists won't consider Trump to be mentally ill at all, because personality disorders are not mental illness per se. Trump is a narcissistic sociopath, not someone with an actual illness that can be treated, such as depression or schizophrenia. Mary Trump knows that too and she is definitely not telling anyone to pity Trump.

    Somerby has always preferred calling Trump crazy (a word that psychiatrists do not use) instead of incompetent. But what Trump really is is unfit for the presidency. That has been true since he first announced his campaign. It is part of the reason why the Russians encouraged him to run (via flattery and funding). Somerby doesn't examine Trump's stupidity, his lack of education, his tendency to take business shortcuts by engaging in criminal acts, his lack of empathy for others besides himself, his lack of physical fitness and laziness, his inability to read, his refusal to do the work of the presidency, and his lack of any vision about what might be good for the country and his people. His motives are to acquire power and get his own way in everything. Those are not proper motives for a president and they never were. But that has nothing to do with mental illness. It may be that Somerby's carefully selected psychiatrist boils down to only Mary Trump -- and she has her own personal motives, related to Trump's mistreatment of her father and his consequent suicide. No serious specialist would consider Mary Trump an unbiased observer of Donald Trump.

    So, why does Somerby insist that we must pity Trump and consider him ill, when he has been legally sane throughout and knowingly committed all of the acts of his presidency? Does Somerby hope to convince the left that Trump does not deserve accountability, or does Somerby really believe that this is a valid excuse for the wrongs Trump has committed? If so, Somerby knows less than the average person about psychology, psychiatry and medical illness that cause mental symptoms. In fact, Somerby is so deficient in his knowledge about mind and behavior that he is the last person who should be diagnosing Trump in his daily blog, because he knows less than nothing about Trump's mental problems.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Years later, the wider meaning of those remarks remains unexplored, undiscussed. This whole discourse is out of order!"

    Somerby complains because no one has analyzed Trump's psyche, despite the fact that he won't sit still for the tests necessary to do so. But if we did have a full understanding of Trump's psyche, would it change anything at all? No. There is no description of Trump's mental functioning that would excuse his crimes or lessen his destructive impact on our country, change the course of his presidency, lighten the loan on those Trump has harmed. An explanation would change nothing at all, especially if it were advanced as an excuse, as Somerby keeps doing.

    Smart observers use flattery to coerce Trump into doing what they want him to do. Others have used threats, mostly related to something Trump cares about, such as how the public will view him. In Melania's case, she threatens him with leaving. Trump's legal staff got him to change his behavior by threatening to quit en masse. But short of that, Trump surrounds himself with those willing to do what he wants. Trump admires strength and feels fear, so he will kowtow to Putin (who is a stand-in for his daddy), but he gets rid of those who do not obey him. So, what good is "understanding" Trump's problems if they do not enable anyone to change Trump's behavior for the better? This is a grown man who throws daily temper tantrums and throws food against the wall when opposed. How is any discussion of his so-called problems going to change anything about Trump's presidency or his lingering danger to our nation through his willingness to aim his violent followers at his personal targets?

    What a huge waste of time and energy Somerby's suggestion is. Somerby, had he read any actual history, should know the dangers of appeasing petty tyrants who throw egotistical tantrums and hunger for world dominance. Trump's idol, Hitler, showed us what happens when you give in to the demands of such a person. Somerby would be better off studying the lead up to WWII instead of re-reading Mary Trump's peevish complaints about what The Donald did to her daddy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notice that it is the discourse at fault when the media doesn't want to discuss whatever Somerby thinks it must. Somerby may not recognize Trump's egotism because he shares it himself. That would be natural for someone who tried teaching (because of its build-in stage and naive audience) but abandoned it because the kids weren't cherishing him sufficiently, to take up standup (but won't listen to hecklers or critics). As manager of a comedy club, the aspiring comedians had to kowtow to Somerby or they wouldn't work, so he had a natural source of fawning admiration even when offstage. Somerby may believe that is Trump's due, as much as his own, and blame the rest of the world for not recognizing and treating his brilliance as respectfully as Trump's admiring sycophants do. It isn't far-fetched to suggest that Somerby may see himself in Trump and resent the disrespect of the left, who sees clearly exactly who and what Trump is -- and Somerby too.

      Delete
    2. It would be just like a narcissist to take pleasure in how complicated their mental problems were, requiring a lot of psychiatric attention because they are so damned complex and fascinating to the psychiatric profession. That is ego speaking. It is how they played Hannibal Lector in the film. Mary Trump lays it on pretty thick.

      Delete
  7. First of all the name of the movie is …And Justice For All. Second it takes place and it was filmed in Baltimore and you never seen it? Wow. The movie itself is not half bad and the Baltimore scenery is a nice time capsule (not like the made up The Shape of Water and Avalon, more like Diner).

    ReplyDelete
  8. "As we clown (and call names) from within our blue tents, could the same thing be true about us?"

    Calling someone mentally ill or a malignant narcissistic sociopath is name-calling too, but from Mary Trump. Why is it OK when she does it? Why does Somerby consider that to be actual discussion? Because it uses jargon?

    Obviously, Somerby is not interested in discussion or name-calling. He just wants to malign the press yet another day, pretending that journalists have done something wrong by resisting the temptation to diagnose someone remotely without doing the proper tests. Bandy Lee lost her job for doing that (first she lost her license, then her job because she couldn't practice psychiatry without her license). Somerby thinks journalists should similarly jeopardize their professional ethics to satisfy Somerby's stupid complaint?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or my Bob have the brilliant realization: if Trump is indeed mentally ill, it’s all the more important to keep him away from power at any cost. Bob can’t get there, though, as he does not extent compassion to his victims.

      Delete
  9. Haters gonna hate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Always worth noting, pre Trump,
    Bob considered that kind of armchair
    Psychological analysis the absolute
    Nadir in press core work.
    If you don’t like Bob’s principles,
    he has others to harangue you
    with.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with Bob's comments, and I find them frightening. When a person or an organization or a country is living in a fantasy world and acting in ways that are not effective in the real world, disaster will follow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're judgement is flawed. You recommended we watch Tucker Carlson. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      Don't you realize what they think of you over at Fox NOOZZZZZZ?

      Delete
    2. Huh? I never watch Tucker Carlson.
      D in C

      Delete
    3. Did you not tell us how important it was to watch Tucker because only he was reporting the secret plot by Antifa to riot in cities across the country. I can swear that was you, DinC.

      Delete
  12. Part of the insanity is the both sides repeat unproven accusations as if they were fact. Like Russian collusion. Fools be happy just to state that happened as a fact when it was never proven. So dangerous and crazy. We've all really crossed the line in that way. It's very undisciplined and insane. Bob is right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Russia, if your listening….”
      That was collusion. Once rightfully
      unthinkable for a candidate from one
      of the major parties. Naked. Out front.
      A fact. So your bullshit is your own.
      Sell it someplace else.

      Delete
    2. Not according to the two major investigations into it. It's collusion according to you and the blogs you read. It's not proven or true. That's the point. You crossed the line. You're calling something true for which there is not any proof. Because it feels good. And that's insane. It's insane but it's also very weak. It's intellectually very weak and lazy.

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately, Donald J Chickenshit criminally obstructed the Mueller investigation. You can draw whatever inference you want from that fact.

      Delete
    4. Both sides.
      On the Right, they believe in fascism.
      In the media, they believe there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot.

      Delete
    5. Still you're claiming something is true without having proof. And that's crazy and crossing a line. I know it feels good. But it's very lazy intellectually. It's a problem. I realize you're just a regular person doing the best you can with what you have. It's the best you can do. I get that.

      Delete
    6. Intellectually, you're completely compromised and weak. But so is the whole country. That's the insanity of which Bob speaks. It's not about you and your individual ignorance. You're just following the herd, doing the best you can with the intellectual capacity you have.

      Delete
    7. "Republican voter who isn't a bigot."

      This is a thought terminating cliche which is a typical tactic used in cults to avoid substantive interchanges. You may as well just say "I'm intellectually weak.".

      Delete
    8. But the issue isn't you and your ignorance and weakness.

      Delete
    9. No, I am drawing a completely rational inference from the evidence of criminal obstruction and witness tampering I witnessed with my own eyes.

      Delete
    10. That's cool. It is subjective. Some people claim it is objectively true, which is insane.

      Delete
    11. I know. It seems like there could possibly be a Republican voter who isn't a bigot. It's almost impossible to believe there isn't. Alas, we've asked for proof, and bupkis.

      Delete
    12. There were some before the Reagan revolution.

      Delete
    13. Yeah, I think it's insane to troll progressive blogs constantly berating others for forming a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

      Delete
    14. Concluding that Trump colluded with Russia by communicating with them through his public press conferences is not remotely reasonable. It is blatantly stupid.

      Delete
    15. It's a perfect example of the gonzo incompetence and general semi-insanity described above. It is a few hundred galaxies away from reasonable. It's cultish and completely insane.

      Delete
    16. It's also a gift to Trump and his supporters - giving them ammo to accurately criticize progressives as insane and stupid.

      It's not your fault though. You're just doing the best you can with the limited intellect you possess.

      Delete
    17. Funny how everything seems to be a gift to Trump. If he’s indicted, it’s a gift to Trump. If he’s not indicted, it’s a gift to Trump. If you criticize him, it’s a gift to Trump. If you don’t criticize them, it’s a gift to Trump.

      Delete
    18. Yes, the media has been insane repeating robotically how the Trump team is happy that he's going to be indicted. Yes, Trump must be ecstatic that all his lawyers seem to find themselves testifying against him.

      I said sarcastically the other day that Ron DeSantis has instructed his staff to find a way for him to get indicted also, to take away the advantage Trump has.

      Delete
    19. 8:12, that's right Trollboy, it's curious why it is so important to you that everyone has to agree with the dude bros opinion that it was all a Russia Hoax. You and DinC can shake hands.

      Delete
    20. There's no mystery about it at all. It's because it makes progressives look idiotic.

      Delete
    21. Yes, trollboy, magats who worship a lifelong criminal, twice impeached president who attempted a coup megalomaniac think progs are idiotic. Go figure. Thanks for your cOnCErN though.

      Delete
    22. If progressives claim Trump was colluding with Russia by speaking to them through his televised press conferences, then the magats would be right. Because that is idiotic. You're proving my point exactly.

      Delete
    23. "It's also a gift to Trump and his supporters - giving them ammo to accurately criticize progressives as insane and stupid."
      This is super important to Trump and his supporters. They crave real-life situations they can criticize about progressives In fact, my drag queen grooming First Grade CRT teacher says it's the most important thing to Trump supporters.
      Now, pull my other finger.

      Delete
    24. 9:26,
      It doesn't seem like something someone as dedicated to committing crimes, and and sophisticated at breaking the law as Donald Trump, would do.
      Just remember, this is a guy who thinks he won the 2020 Presidential election.

      Delete
    25. 9:46, you know very well there are a lot more pieces of evidence besides Captain Chickenshit saying Russia if you're listening. But keep trolling, trollboy.

      Delete
    26. If there is anyone too smart to commit his crimes in public, it's the guy who bragged to "Access Hollywood" that he's a serial sexual predator.

      Delete
    27. 9:46, yes you're right. This is the long-established rule of criminal law, where if the criminal crimes in broad daylight in front god and country, then it is not a crime. Let's take a look at what Donald J Chickenshit said at that notorious press conference that has you so excited to criticize Dems.

      "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump told a roomful of TV cameras and reporters (including this fact-checker). "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens."

      The Republicans presidential candidate was literally telling a foreign government to criminally hack into his opponent's emails in order to help him smear her. But he did it in broad daylight, so it couldn't possibly be a crime.

      Since then, realizing what a fucking fool he looked like, the clown has been trying to re-write history by claiming it was just a joke. Har-har-hardy fucking har.

      Delete
    28. There is no evidence whatsoever that Donald J Chickenshit would ever try to use a foreign government to help him win an election, except for that time he tried to EXTORT the President of Ukraine into smearing his political opponent, Joe Biden in a phone conversation which appalled our entire national security establishment and led to Chickenshit's first impeachment. I don't know why anyone would be foolish enough to think he was colluding with his buddy Putin to do the same thing.

      Delete
    29. Re: Trump's First Impeachment
      There are literally hundreds of Republicans who believe treason against the United States of America is a crime. Unfortunately, none of them are in the United States Senate.

      Delete
    30. Hey if you can find any proof of collusion, just present it to all of us here and we'll be good.

      So you believe that was a request from Trump to "hack" into emails that Clinton had already deleted from her private server? That doesn't make any sense at all.

      You keep proving my point over and over by making progressives look like complete idiots. You don't even know what you're talking about. This is a problem but I know you're doing the best you can with a little you have.

      https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308

      Delete
    31. 11:09 you keep lying over and over about what the report said. That doesn’t make it true loser.

      Delete
    32. If there was proof of collusion between Russia and Trump, I would be the happiest guy in the world. Unfortunately, there isn't any and there never was in any. Therefore, I have to man up and be real about it. You on the other hand have chosen to ignore the lack of evidence making yourself in all progressives look like complete fools. Which is really uncool. But I get it, you're just doing the best you can as a follower and dependent thinker.

      Delete
    33. 11:09, yes that is exactly what the moron was doing.

      From the same notorious press conference:

      In the same press conference, Trump said, "By the way, they hacked — they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."

      And when NBC reporter Katy Tur asked whether he was encouraging a foreign country to hack into emails, he said, "Now, if Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I'd love to see them."
      https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/02/donald-trump/donald-trump-rewrites-history-about-his-russia-if-/

      What the fuck do you think he was doing, trollboy?

      Delete
    34. He was calling attention to the deleted emails. It was not a sincere request. If you think it was, it's your business but in doing so you make progressives look really bad. You've proven my point dozens and dozens of times now. Don't forget there were two multi-million dollar investigations into this very matter and neither of them concluded this had any merit to it at all in terms of collusion. But you don't need a multi-million dollar report it's completely obvious. That's why it's idiotic.

      Delete
    35. Sure, he was calling attention to them by asking Russia to get hack them and publish them. Just a country he picked at random. He could have asked Switzerland, but Russia just came to him.

      Delete
    36. It's probably best that you stop digging. Although it would be hard for you to make yourself look more ignorant that you already have.

      Delete
    37. ok troll boy, run along now. Donald J Chickenshit needs some money for his legal woes.

      Delete
    38. 11:33 He was asked about Russia. You're a total amateur.

      Delete
    39. Yes, he was and he took the opportunity to ask a foreign adversary government to commit a crime to help him win an election. And jackasses all over the country thought that was neat.

      Delete
  13. For those who think there was no online social media campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016:

    "The two social media influencers teamed up online years ago.

    Both had large right-wing followings and pseudonyms to hide their real identities. One called himself Ricky Vaughn, after a fictional baseball player portrayed in a movie by Charlie Sheen. The other called himself Microchip.

    In 2016, prosecutors say, they set out to trick supporters of Hillary Clinton into thinking they could vote by text message or social media, discouraging them from the polls.

    “Ricky Vaughn,” whose real name is Douglass Mackey, was charged in 2021 with conspiring to deprive others of their right to vote, and on Wednesday the men met face to face in court for the first time."

    NYTimes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Yeah, liberals really are that dumb.

      ...had Mr. Mackey told them to vote by farting and tap dancing, they would've done exactly that...

      Delete
    2. South Park has only just arrived on Russia TV.

      Delete
  14. Hey 5:21, the investigation did NOT conclude it was not conclusion, the corrupt and stupid Barr did. He would later jump ship when Trump’s treasonous madness got to be too much for him. So, your lies and bullshit are your own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simply cite the portion of the report that proves collision, conspiracy or coordination and we'll be good.

      Delete
    2. Get back to us when Donald J Chickenshit answers questions under oath. You've heard of Paul Manafor, have you?
      *********
      Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false­ statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton .in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen leaded · to
      false statements to about the Moscow ect.


      Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.

      Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign--deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.


      Delete
    3. "The Office could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period."

      "the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it."

      "The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts. "

      Delete
    4. ", the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. "

      Sorry. I wish it had been proven but it wasn't.

      Delete
    5. Because Manafort lied his ass off and then took a presidential pardon? I'm just spitballing.

      Delete
    6. When you come up with proof, let us all know. Until then it's just a subjective claim. Sorry. That's the way it is. That's the way the world works.

      Delete
    7. I don't think you understand what subjective means, trollboy.

      Delete
    8. Oh. Just provide the objective proof then at your earliest convenience.

      Delete
    9. Were you to blind and dumb to observe Donald J Chickenshit obstructing the investigation? Hate makes people do strange things, trollboy.

      No one can figure out how the subject of Russia came up in that press conference. It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

      Delete
    10. Okay. Just provide the proof of collusion when you get your hands on it. Thanks.

      Delete
    11. Mueller didn't make any judgment on obstruction one way or the other. As you know from reading the report. So there's no objective proof of that either. Sorry. I know you want it to be true. I get that.

      Delete
    12. Mueller:

      "... this Report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

      Why? Who knows? I guess you expected Donald Trump and Manafort to testify and fess up to colluding. As if finding collusion hand is completely on Trump's testimony which is another titanically ignorant assumption.. But either way, there's no proof of collusion and that's the end of the story and it always will be.

      Have a nice day.

      Delete
    13. No, you're the trollboy moron who expects nothing less than a confession to conclude the obvious fact that Donald J Chickenshit conspired with the Russian government to damage his opponent I guess you never learned how to connect dots.

      Delete
    14. Neither of the official investigations into the matter connected the dots either ... as you have there in pathetic room between porn sessions. And that's the way it is. Sorry.

      Delete
    15. What two investigations, trollboy? You mean the Mueller one that Donald J Chickenshit corruptly obstructed? The one where he fired his AG so as to install his coverup specialist Bill Barr? I don't know why this is so important to you, nobody is even talking about his treason with Russia anymore, except for magat fanboys who love to repeat "russia hoax" while jerking off. We're about a dozen crimes past that with Donald J Chickenshit.

      Delete
    16. Backing up my friend, once again, Mueller did not establish any obstruction. So I'm going to need you to reevaluate your claims to bring them to reality. Sound good?

      Delete
    17. Mueller wrote the whole second volume just dedicated to all the obstruction that the treasonous lying sack of shit trump committed, trollboy. What backing up? This has been true and obvious from the beginning. Only magat fanboys want to pretend they don't know why Mueller did not indict the sitting president.

      Delete
    18. He didn't make a prosecutorial judgment as to whether or not Trump was guilty of obstruction as I quoted before and have repeatedly. You're not doing too good. It's no wonder you want to move on to other topics. You've proven yourself to be such a total ass at this one.

      Delete
    19. Point is it's a losing strategy to assert as fact things that you really don't know are true. Doing so hurts your cause, which is my cause, which is why I'm here to call you out. So get it together man.

      Delete
    20. Go after Trump for things that are true. There are plenty of them as you say. What kind of dingbat would go after things that they can't prove are true? It's bizarre. So please stop

      Delete
    21. 6:40, I am going to stop answering you because it is obvious you have very low mental capacity to discuss in an intelligent manner.

      First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
      constitutional separation ofpowers."1 Given the role ofthe Special Counsel as an attorney in the
      Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
      28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

      Delete
    22. You're not going to communicate anymore because you lost the argument. There's no evidence or proof of collusion.

      Delete
    23. You've done very very poorly today. Very poorly. And you've hurt our party.. You're an embarrassment to progressives. But you're not that smart and you're just doing the best you can with what little you have.

      Delete
    24. It's no wonder you vastly misunderstand bob. You're not smart enough to understand him.

      Delete
    25. Six years and the entire mainstream media has spent morning , noon and night trying to find the Republican voter who isn't a bigot, and they found nothing.
      Let's give them another century, just to be sure.

      Delete
    26. Thought terminating cliches. The last refuge of an intellectually bankrupt jack off loser.

      Delete
    27. 9:09,
      You're stuck in the pre-Regan mindset.

      Delete
    28. "Thought terminating cliches."= "I was unable to think of one either, so I'll stop."

      Delete
    29. Manafort gave insider campaign info to Russia, which used that info to target millions of ads towards voters in the three states that narrowly won Trump the presidency.

      The Mueller Report is two large volumes detailing the evidence of Trump colluding with Russia and then Trump obstructing the investigation.

      The investigation was weak since it was conducted by a right winger with little interest in causing harm to Trump; even so, the report is damning and is a peek into how remarkably corrupt Trump is.

      Denying Trump’s corruption with respect to Russia shares the same immorality as denying the Holocaust, or that vaccines work.

      You can be a crybaby and whine about hoaxes and witch-hunts all you want, but you’re just loudly announcing how you take pride in being a moron.

      Delete