TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2023
...that it will be challenged on cable: Friend, do you have a chance to be a cable news guest?
If so, understand this:
As long as you stick to preferred Storyline, nothing you say will make so little sense that it will ever be questioned or challenged.
Below, we'll offer an example from last evening's Last Word. First, though, another rare event:
Yesterday afternoon, an elementary point of fact was reported on Deadline: White House! This basic fact was reported by legal analyst Katie Phang.
Phang is a personal friend of E. Jean Carroll, but so what? The channel is still using her as a commentator concerning the Carroll lawsuit and trial.
(Full disclosure: For all we know, Phang may be personal friends with "Robby" Kaplan too!)
Yesterday, Phang may have won the all-time Overheated Commentary Award in support of the lawsuit brought by her personal friend. But along the way, she actually explained a very basic factual point.
PHANG (5/8/23): This has to be a unanimous verdict. It has to be unanimous.
Normally, in a New York State civil trial, it would be—I know this is going to sound bizarre—five-sixths of the jury would have to come back on the same verdict. But in this instance, we're in federal court, and in this particular instance, in this case, it has to be unanimous.
We inquired about this extremely basic factual question last week. Even though this is a civil trial, Phang says the decision by the nine-member jury will have to be unanimous.
We'd never seen anyone report this fact one way or another. It rarely occurs to the modern journalist to present any actual facts. Especially on cable news, it's point of view all the way down.
Yesterday, Phang's overheated defense of her friend reached world-class levels. But along the way, she managed to report and explain a basic point of fact.
Now, let's return to last evening's Last Word, where Lawrence consulted with former federal prosecutor Faith Gay.
Asked to comment on yesterday's closing statements by the attorneys, Gay offered this at one point:
MAY (5/8/23): Mr. Tacopina, for Trump, I think got way out over his skis, because he said explicitly, in a sort of a breathtaking manner, that E. Jean Carroll was better off, was better off for her violent encounter with Trump.
He said her life was sexier, more fun, more high publicity, she was hoping for money, and I think there's going to be at least one or two women on that jury, Lawrence, who will find that argument very offensive.
As everyone knows, Tacopina has an impossible client and a very difficult case. That said, did he really say, "in a sort of breathtaking manner," that Carroll "was better off for her violent encounter with Trump?"
We don't know what Tacopina did say. But we find it hard to believe that he actually said that.
As everyone knows, Tacopina's position is that no such violent encounter ever occurred. For that reason, it's hard to believe that he said that Carroll is better off because of the violent encounter.
Lawrence didn't bat an eye, or seek clarification, when Gay offered that analysis. His guest was saying that Tacopina screwed up, and that is preferred Storyline.
It was "close enough for cable news work!" Remember this if you go on cable:
As long as you stick to preferred Storyline, pretty much everything is!
In real life (non-cable news narrative), inflation is caused by a lack of anti-trust/ anti-monopoly regulation and enforcement.
ReplyDeleteWhich can't be the cable news narrative, because their bottom line would be affected if we do something about it.
Delete2:34 no doubt, I would also note that essentially all inflation is profiteering.
DeleteThe second amendment is evil.
ReplyDeleteLet’s us note on conflict of interest: Bob has never noted any problem with the relationship between Trump and Fox. He has treated Sean as a figure of fairness and integrity.
ReplyDelete"Phang is a personal friend of E. Jean Carroll, but so what? The channel is still using her as a commentator concerning the Carroll lawsuit and trial.
ReplyDelete(Full disclosure: For all we know, Phang may be personal friends with "Robby" Kaplan too!)"
E. Jean Carroll is herself a media figure. The idea that anyone she knows must recuse themselves is ridiculous. If she were E. Jean Carroll's sister-in-law, I might find this objection plausible.
Somerby has never bothered to investigate who Trump is pals with. Perhaps because Trump has no real friends.
GUILTY: sorry Bob, it’s a bad day for violence against Women.
ReplyDeleteThe verdict came back in 3 hrs. Trump was found guilty of sexual assault and asked to pay $2 million in damages.
ReplyDeleteYay yay yay yay -- there is still justice and rule of law, even for stars. Note that Weinstein, Cosby and Epstein were also convicted, once brought to trial. Given the difficulty of convicting rich, powerful men, so that only the most egregious abusers are tried, we should be glad Trump was so stupid and expect that there are more like him out there.
$5 million total
DeleteThe quick verdict strongly supports
Deletethat the MSNBC coverage was pretty
much on the money.
The fact that Trump wasn't found guilty of rape presents a big logical problem to the MSNBC crowd and others.
DeleteThe jury didn't believe her on the rape accusation -- but that was her case! And it was the same evidence.
They didn't believe E. Jean Carroll about the rape. With the exact same evidence for both. In fact, she tearfully INSISTED that she had been raped.
Go figure, all you Bob haters here. Explain that one, guys, without sounding silly.
In fact, as a follow up, MSNBC is now trying to mischievously reframe this as "the Donald Trump sexual abuse case," which is totally hilarious. All month they've been calling it a rape case!
DeleteSo sleazy and dishonest they are. Bob's totally right about MSNBC.
Trump raped Carroll and he has raped other women. It is unclear what you are celebrating.
DeleteActually Defamation was really the key. It just establish once again Trump is a liar ( though also a pig, which we knew too) and you can’t really deny he’s a creep. Just like the right wing guys blowing smoke for him now😀
Delete7:09 MSNBC is corporate media with a neoliberal point of view, no one on the left is deluded by this, and furthermore, Somerby is merely weaponizing this fact in order to falsely bash progressives/leftists with run of the mill Republican talking points.
DeleteHaving said that, perusing MSNBC’s coverage demonstrates that they generally referenced the case as a sexual misconduct or sexual assault circumstance.
The judge gave the jury 3 options - rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching - and they reasonably chose the middle, indicating they believed some kind of non consensual assault took place, but that there was a lack of physical evidence, making it hard to make a rape determination.
Your comment is stupid beyond belief.
"MAY (5/8/23): Mr. Tacopina, for Trump, I think got way out over his skis, because he said explicitly, in a sort of a breathtaking manner, that E. Jean Carroll was better off, was better off for her violent encounter with Trump.
ReplyDeleteHe said her life was sexier, more fun, more high publicity, she was hoping for money, and I think there's going to be at least one or two women on that jury, Lawrence, who will find that argument very offensive."
Ya think?
There were 6 men and 3 women on the jury, including at least two conservatives who consume right wing media (and thus presumably are Trump supporters).
How come the jury refused to find Trump guilty of rape?
DeleteThere's no good answer for that but that they did not believe Carroll about her story. So why believe her at all?
Difficult question, eh? No wonder it's not getting asked tonight.
Trump didn’t confess to rape, but he did confess to sexual abuse (grabbibg by he p***y). The jurors weren’t sure about the rape so they split the difference.
DeleteThis is not a victory for Trump.
It isn’t that they didn’t believe but that her inability to remember the date prevented Trump from finding an alibi. If they thought Trump was innocent the verdict would have taken much longer to reach because jurors might have argued on his behalf. This 3-hour verdict suggests a lot of agreement among the jurors.
DeleteTrump didn’t confess to rape, but he did confess to sexual abuse (grabbibg by he p***y). The jurors weren’t sure about the rape so they split the difference.
DeleteThis is not a victory for Trump."
It's not as much of a victory for her either. The evidence was the same -- her claim -- and yet they didn't believe there was enough on the rape accusation. But how then was there enough for battery? It was her claim that she'd been raped!
Why one and not the other? If they weren't sure about rape --which was the whole story at BGs -- how were they at all sure about battery?
Why believe her on one and not the other? She was only partly believable?
The verdict makes no sense. Either she's believable or she's not believable, and what she said happened or it didn't happen.
He admitted it. He. thinks ehen you’re a star you get to abuse others.
Delete7:57, when you just watch Fox you don’t get the story. It makes you stupid. Watch some quality coverage of the trial and the answers to your Questions are easily found.
Delete"7:57, when you just watch Fox you don’t get the story. It makes you stupid. Watch some quality coverage of the trial and the answers to your Questions are easily found."
DeleteI never watch Fox. And I'm left wing. I hate Trump.
But logic is logic. The jury unanimously said that there wasn't enough evidence for a rape conviction because her statements were not believed to be sufficiently credible. That's the only conclusion you can come to. And the burden of proof in a civil case is actually pretty low.
This is a big problem for all of those who are so sure that Trump raped her. The Access Hollywood video is also a problem because it actually exonerates Trump -- he says that women accept and even welcome these advances from "big stars."
"Let" means accepts, which means consent. And if women consent, it's not assault.
There's no other way to interpret what he says in that video, nor the clear inadequacy of today's verdict. I suspect that in the next couple of days that's going to become very clear to people, especially the odd and inconsistent verdict, and I'm looking forward to Bob's words on the subject.
"AnonymousMay 9, 2023 at 8:02 PM
DeleteHe admitted it. He. thinks ehen you’re a star you get to abuse others."
That's not what Trump said. He said that when you're a star they accept it -- they even in effect welcome it. They allow it.
If it's allowed, it's not assault. They "let" you do it.
2:05, curious, what do you think a young woman should do when a fat ass narcissistic abomination like Donald J Chickenshit starts slobbering all over her and grabbing her privates? Just go limp until he's satisfied?
Delete"His guest was saying that Tacopina screwed up, and that is preferred Storyline. "
ReplyDeleteTrump has been having difficulty hiring lawyers because he has a reputation for stiffing them.
It is storyline that Tacopina screwed up because his defense has ignored or contradicted the wisdom among defense attorneys on how to defend a rape case. It isn't the cable news hosts making this up, but the many attorneys who have commented on Tacopina's tactics.
Much of the speculation is that Tacopina tried to do the right thing but couldn't get his client to cooperate. That may also be behind his get tough cross-examination of Carroll. Trump demanded it. This was a wag the dog defense because Trump is too stupid to listen to advice from his experts.
"Nothing can make so little sense..."
ReplyDeleteSays the man who has made a career out of complaining about Einstein made simple books.
Just because Somerby doesn't get it, doesn't make anyone else wrong.
"I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE - A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!" Trump said.
ReplyDeleteSo he assaulted a stranger. That doesn't make sexual assault OK.
He must be truly frightened, now that he has seen that a jury will convict him.
Republicans should support statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
ReplyDelete“Hi,this is Bob.
ReplyDeleteFor the FIRST time I realize what I must do.
I must go out to the woods. Deep and dark
woods. Using simple tools I must build an
alter, and with the small can of paint I
brought along I will write “Trump” on
alter. For six hours a day, after braving
the elements, dark and deep, I will
bow before the Alter. I never thought
I would make such a commitment, but
for the first time now I know it is my
duty. For the first time!!
Damn you Nicole Wallace, for
forcing me to take this action!!
Defund the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeletePoor, poor Donald. Poor, poor Bob.
ReplyDeleteAs I indicated in my comments over the past few days, I felt it likely that the jury would interpret Trump’s deposition the way Nicolle Wallace did. (And most of the rest of us, as well.)
Perhaps Bob should have served as Trump’s lawyer to lead the jury away from their interpretation.
It was always clear why Carroll’s attorney was asking those questions.
Carrol said when the fat pig was on top of her She could not tell if he was using his finger or penis. But keep dreaming of your appeal. Since Trump made no attempt to make a case, it’s hard to claim he was abused.
Delete"It isn’t that they disbelieved her. In the absence of stronger evidence, they split the difference by choosing secual abuse. It looks like a compromise. Trump confessed yo the secual abuse, so no evidence problem."
DeleteBut why didn't they convict him of rape? It was the same evidence. There's no good reason to go for the lesser charge when the evidence was the exact same. It's flaky and illogical.
Also, as Bob has mentioned here, Trump never admitted to sexual abuse on that video. But you might be right -- the jury is convicting him for statements he made on the video. But that wasn't the case in front of them. She said "rape" and they said no.
I think it was because she didn’t know the date, which prevents Trump from defending himself (as Tacopina said in his closing) but they couldn’t let him off either, because he is so damned guilty.
DeleteTrum admitted p***y grabbibg (sexual abuse) not rape. The evidence isn’t the same.
DeleteRussia, if you're listening, explain how law works to 8:02.
DeleteTrump was so obviously guilty of sexual abuse and defamation, he has to pay $5 Million to Carroll.
DeleteAnd I think Trump is no worse than any other standard-issue Reagan Republican.
some observations: (1)Trump was not found "guilty." It's a civil case, not a criminal one. He was found liable in tort. (2) Unlike a criminal trial, the required standard of proof for a verdict was by the preponderance of the evidence standard - more than 50% likelihood, not beyond a reasonable doubt. This means the verdict in favor of the plaintiff is based on the jury finding it was 50.1% more likely that she was entitled to recovery, than not.(3) Even though Trump has been deposed many times, he seems to have been a terrible witness at his deposition in this case, his lawyers must have horrified. An example of how Trump has gone off the rails. (4) the jury ruled in Trump's favor on the rape claim. Not a total victory for the plaintiff, and seems to undercut part of her story. But she made out all right on the verdict, after all the main thing in a civil case is the monetary recovery. (5) My view is the trend to alter statutes of limitations in sexual assault cases so that actions can be brought based on decades old incidents has its negative side. There are reasons for statutes of limitations. Memories fade, evidence is harder to come up with and it can be unfair to defendants, and it's not clear why these kinds of cases should be treated differently than other types of cases; (6) I don't know what basis Trump can succeed on in an appeal - an appeal has to be based on some error of law; that the jury should not have believed the plaintiff's evidence is not a basis to overturn the verdict. (7) from what I gleaned from the news, the verdict was proper
DeleteTrump was guilty as can be.
DeleteAnd I say this, even though I don't think Trump is half as rotten as Republican voters.
Will Somerby now stop this endless series trying to convince everyone what Trump really meant and how Nicolle Wallace was wrong, which at this point involves questioning the jury’s verdict?
ReplyDeleteHe wouldn’t let go of his Roy Moore defense, and ranted endlessly against the Brock Turner verdict.
His posts about sexual misconduct seem to bring out the same troll(s) who seem to become animated about this particular topic.
Bob said that Judge Roy Moore was never charged with assault by "9 women" or whatever it was, and he was right. And that Moore was not a "pedophile," which has apparently become a favorite slur now among the cartoonish MSNBC crowd.
DeleteAll true.
Not true. The “not a pedophile” claims rests on defining 14 year olds as not children and calling men like Moore hebephiles.
DeleteThe pedophile smear is.not just an occasional overreach of the left; it’s a central issue of the Trump Right. Make no mistake, they are pretty scummy folks.
DeleteThere is also the term ephebephile (lusting after 15-17 year olds). It is also illegal because they cannot give consent. Somerby split that hair to excuse Moore, ignoring the several 14 year olds accusing him.
DeleteTrolls come here and state false info. It is annoying.
DeleteI think there was only one 14 year old and that Moore stopped making out with her when she told him her age. Which still doesn't make him a pedophile, and I'm wondering too why so many people have a need to always misuse this inflammatory label.
DeleteAlso, most of Moore's "dates" were of age. Young, but of age -- and only one or two ever accused him of assault. Which was Bob's point. MSNBC and O'Donnell kept lying about it and exaggerating for effect.
And by doing so too btw they helped to usher Al Franken out of the Senate about a week later -- which they also all CHEERED about. They said it was "purifying" for the Democratic Party.
The one main accuser in fact -- the Gloria Allred client -- was also proven to be a liar later on. She had forged her yearbook or something about Moore.
"There is also the term ephebephile (lusting after 15-17 year olds). It is also illegal because they cannot give consent. Somerby split that hair to excuse Moore, ignoring the several 14 year olds accusing him."
DeleteActually, in quite a few states they can give lawful consent. In NYS it's 17.
Whatever, that doesn't make anyone a "pedophile." So why the constant need to keep using this term?
Why do so many people have such an emotional need to make these sexual things much worse than they are? No one's defending them, but come on. It's really neurotic as hell to be calling everyone a pedophile. And worse, it's a lie.
You use the word pedophile because (1) the public doesn’t know the words hebephile or ephebephile, (2) parents think of their 11-16 year old girls as children, (3) the experts who divide targets of lust into groups are describing subgroups of child abusers for research purposes, not to confuse the public into thinking sex with jailbait is OK (Somerby’s purpose).
DeleteA 34-year old man chasing, stalking, and sexually abusing young girls is a criminal who most people would call a pedophile. There is a special name for those targeting infants too. Are they therefore not pedophiles?
The right calls people pedophiles for political reasons. The left reserves the word for men who commit sexual crimes against children.
Some of those states say the partner must be within 3 years in age of the girl. Moore was in his 30s.
Delete@8:09, you are wrong. Thete was the 14 year old but also a girl whose yearbook he signed who was 15, and another girl who he offereda ride to, who said he tried to rape her (also 15-16). And a 15 year old who he called out of class using his DA credentials so that he could ask her out. She refused, but note the implied power differential. And there were two 14-15 year olds who asked mall security to make him stop following them, because they were scared and thought he was creepy.
DeleteIf you look at the photos of the 17-18 year olds he dated (including his ultimate wife), they look young for their ages. And there is corroboration from his coworkers in the DA’s office that he was interested in young girls, which they considered abnormal.
This is all documented in press reports. If you didn’t hear this on Fox, you should broaden your sources.
At the time, Somerby said that Moore was an eligible bachelor and that such relationships should be if the girl’s mamas approved. Somerby doesn’t understand the problems of underage and coerced early marriages, which is odd for a former teacher.
DeleteLusting after a prepubescent child is quite a different thing from lusting after an adolescent.
Delete"A 34-year old man chasing, stalking, and sexually abusing young girls is a criminal who most people would call a pedophile. There is a special name for those targeting infants too. Are they therefore not pedophiles?"
DeletePedophiles are individuals who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.
THAT is the definition. Nothing else. Anyone who uses that word about teenagers is -- what -- lying for effect?
And just why is that?
"@8:09, you are wrong. Thete was the 14 year old but also a girl whose yearbook he signed who was 15, and another girl who he offereda ride to, who said he tried to rape her (also 15-16). And a 15 year old who he called out of class using his DA credentials so that he could ask her out. She refused, but note the implied power differential. And there were two 14-15 year olds who asked mall security to make him stop following them, because they were scared and thought he was creepy."
DeleteThere were only two women who accused him of inappropriate sexual behavior. One was the 14 year old, and he stopped when she asked him to. The other was the restaurant girl whose credibility was shot when she forged her yearbook.
The others merely questioned his behavior. Some actually said he was OK.
The point is that O'Donnell kept making false claims about the victims and then repeatedly called Moore a pedophile. Then, he actually praised the harsh treatment of Al Franken because he had caught himself in a hypocritical bind over Moore -- which is exactly why Franken was targetted.
You can't trust O'Donnell.
DeleteI watched him once, and heard him talk about Trump, without calling him "self-admitted sexual abuser, Donald Trump". With that kind of half-assed reporting, it's no wonder people who watch the news are confused.
You know, Trump proclaims his innocence…via Twitter, and yet refuses to put himself under oath and testify to that fact in a court of law. Geez, Donald. What a putz.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a giant spiral galaxy.
ReplyDelete