SONGS SUNG BLUE: Charlie and Matt and Mark and Bill!

FRIDAY, MAY 12, 2023

How quickly they forget: "Time passes slowly up here in the mountains," the famous songwriter once claimed.

Down here, on the plains outside Troy, events now tend to move at lightning speed.

Since we started this week's report, a federal jury in New York City found that Donald J. Trump had sexually abused E. Jean Carroll, and also that he had defamed her. 

The very next night, that very same Donald J. Trump starred on TV for more than hour! Here's part of what happened there:

GOLDMACHER ET AL (5/12/23): In little over an hour, Donald J. Trump suggested the United States should default on its debts for the first time in history, injected doubt over the country’s commitment to defending Ukraine from Russia’s invasion, dangled pardons for most of the Capitol rioters convicted of crimes, and refused to say he would abide by the results of the next presidential election.

The second-term vision Mr. Trump sketched out at a CNN town-hall event on Wednesday would represent a sharp departure from core American values...

For the record, Donald J. Trump isn't required to hold any particular position regarding Russia's brutal war on Ukraine. 

Will he "abide by the results of the next election?" It seems to us that his statements concerning that particular matter were a bit more nuanced than this New York Times account suggests.

On the other hand, Trump engaged in endless ridiculous conduct as CNN's "town hall" proceeded. Is it time for these corporate news orgs to stop manufacturing events of this type? Is it time to let the two parties stage such events, then simply report on what happens?

All in all, the blinding stupidity of Wednesday's "town hall" was its defining characteristic. 

On the one hand, reactions from the audience help us see what can happen as part of the "democratization of media"—when millions of citizens get their "information" from blindingly partisan "news sources." 

Then too, there was the spectacular dumbness—and the occasional ugliness—of Donald Trump's various statements and claims. This shows how hard it's going to be for news orgs to cover his coming campaign. 

Trump's crazy and occasionally ugly claims are going to continue. As they do, millions of people will continue to believe that his factual statements are accurate, and that his larger claims are true.

All in all, this is the public discourse we've chosen. As we've noted in the past, we don't see an easy way out of this profit-driven, Babel-adjacent mess.

Back on Monday, before that verdict and before that town hall, we had decided to start a discussion of what we'd call "songs sung blue." By Tuesday, we'd begun to focus on the phenomenon widely described, though only by experts, as Creative Paraphrase Drift.

As best we can tell, the paraphrase in question started last Thursday, over at Vanity Fair. As we noted yesterday, the paraphrase started like this:

Trump Doubled Down on the Right to Sexually Assault People...in Insane Deposition

As you’ve no doubt heard by now, Donald Trump is currently on trial for rape, and so far the civil case has not appeared to be going in his favor. Of course, no one knows which way jurors may be leaning—but presumably, taped testimony they heard today did not paint him in a great light, as it featured the ex-president doubling down on his claim that if you’re “a star,” it’s fine to sexually assault people—and then insulting E. Jean Carroll’s attorney’s looks.

Videotaped excerpts from Trump's deposition had been played in court that day. According to that paraphrase, Trump had made a remarkable statement on that videotape:

According to that paraphrase, Trump had said it's OK—even fine—to sexually assault someone as long as you're a star!  In that way, he had "doubled down" on what he said, in 2005, on the Access Hollywood tape.

Trump makes strange statements all the time—but had he really said that? If so, you'd think that everyone would have reported the fact that he made this remarkable statement—but over the course of the next several days, pretty much nobody did.

The New York Times didn't report that Trump had made that remarkable statement. Neither did the Washington Post or the Associated Press.

Thursday night, on CNN, Anderson Cooper didn't report that Trump had made that remarkable statement. On Friday, the mystery deepened.

On Friday, videotape of Trump's deposition became available for public viewing and use. Certain excerpts were widely discussed—but once again, on Friday night's program, Anderson Cooper didn't report that Donald J. Trump had made the remarkable statement first described by an entertaining writer over at Vanity Fair.

That's pretty much where matters stood by the end of last week. That said, the paraphrase seemed to have spread to one major "cable news" show. 

The paraphrase seemed to have spread to MSNBC's Deadline: White House. On Friday afternoon's show, Nicolle Wallace began the 5 o'clock hour by playing tape from the deposition, then by offering this:

WALLACE (5/5/23): Hi, everyone. It is 5 o'clock in New York. This is the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, who thinks, as of today, that he is a star and that stars can do that.

It's part of the newly released deposition of the disgraced, twice-impeached, once-indicted ex-president, doubling down, under oath, and now in front of the entire country and world, on comments he first made, as far as we know, on the Access Hollywood tape about where you can grab women.

To watch the full segment, start here.

Wallace was doubling down on the claim that Trump had doubled down on Access Hollywood. As she spoke with four of her "favorite reporters and friends," the nature of the group accusation became abundantly clear.

As is the norm in "cable news," Wallace's friends all agreed with what their host had said. Below, you see the transcript of Wallace calling the roll. Then, you see the series of assessments offered by her favorite friends:

WALLACE: The twice impeached, disgraced, indicted ex-president, on video and under oath, is where we begin the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. 

Legal analyst and MSNBC host Katie Chang is here. Also joining us, Maya Wiley, former assistant U.S. attorney, now the president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Charlie Sykes is back, he's the editor at the Bulwark, and New York Times investigative reporter Susanne Craig is here.

[...]

WALLACE: It is an admission that the act of grabbing a woman between the legs is something that he believes today that—that deposition was in October, so he believed in October that it was something he could do, because stars could do that and when asked under oath, "Are you a star," he said yeah. It's an incredible admission of conduct he believes he can carry out today.

CRAIG: ...I think today we're seeing, with the release of this tape, you're seeing in his own words in fact that he feels that it is the right of a star to do that, that they've been doing it forever and that everybody knows that they can just take what they want in this context.

 It was "an incredible admission," Wallace said. Plainly, Susanne Craig agreed—but so did everyone else:

WALLACE: I don't know that there is a confession on tape as stark as Trump saying that he today, as he stands trial in this civil case, for sexual assault, believes that today he could still carry out the act of grabbing women between the legs. Are you aware of any such confession?

PHANG: ,,,From a legal perspective, you can't get any more clear. He says that he was allowed to do it because he thought that he was a star...And when he's under oath on a videotaped deposition setting,,..the jury could still see and hear very palpably the lack of contrition and the embracing by a defendant who has been accused of civil rape and defamation that he thinks it is OK, that it is given to him because he is some sort of a deity because he has stardom in his pocket.

[...]

WILEY: We have to start thinking about [rape] as violence and recognizing it's an abuse of power. And that is part of the point about the Access Hollywood tape, and Donald Trump doubling down on it is, "I got the power, I'm the star, I can do what I want."

[...]

SYKES: I have to say it is remarkable to imagine anyone looking at that man in that video, listen to him essentially smirkingly say, "Yeah, I'm a star and I'm able to grab women any time I want" and throwing out these insults and thinking "Yeah, that man should be president, much less a role model."

All the favorites agreed with the host, as is the norm in tribal cable. Along the way, Trump's admission had become a confession—and it's obvious what was being said.

What was being said was the very thing that had been said the day before at Vanity Fair:

Donald J. Trump had "doubled down" on his Access Hollywood comments. He had once again said that, because he's a star, he has the right to grab women in the manner he had described in 2005.

What an amazing thing for Donald J. Trump to have said! Also amazing is the fact that the New York Times and the Washington Post hadn't reported his statement!

Meanwhile, Anderson Cooper didn't report the statement on Thursday or Friday nights! By Monday night, though, he was on script. By then, the phenomenon known as Creative Paraphrase Drift had washed ashore at his CNN program.

Tomorrow, we'll show you what Cooper said on Monday night. We'll also show you, once again, what Trump is actually shown actually saying in the actual videotaped excerpt.

Eventually, the paraphrase drifted and spread quite far. In our view, the paraphrase is, in fact, significantly creative. 

We don't think it's a reasonable account of what Trump actually said. For now, one more confession:

When we watched that bit of tape, we didn't think that Donald J. Trump was doubling down on the idea that he can do whatever he wants. 

Instead, we thought of Matt and Charlie and Mark, but also of Bill and Roger. We also thought of Harvey Weinstein, and perhaps of Bill Cosby. 

Inevitably, we thought of the time-honored "casting couch."

We thought of the way our mainstream journalists rushed to pretend that they hadn't known what Matt and Charlie had been doing.  We thought about the extremely sickly feminism and sexual politics on display within our mainstream press corps over the past thirty years. 

We thought about how phony these people seem to be.

We thought about the war they conducted for twenty-five years—the war which ended up sending Donald J. Trump to the White House. That war didn't start with Emailgate. It had started long before, with a large and largely ignored amount of misogyny-adjacent behavior.

Blue residents, please listen up! Powerful men have been doing that sort of thing for something like a million years. 

"How quickly these horrible hirelings forget," we skillfully said to the analysts.

Tomorrow: Is that really what Donald Trump said? And why should anyone care?


128 comments:

  1. So it turns out Trump is a wise anthropologist, merely stating truths about powerful, famous men vis-a-vis their relationships with women, acknowledging the misogyny that has always existed. He himself, of course, would never start kissing women, or move on them like bitches, or grab their you-know-what himself…he was just using colorful language to drive the point home.

    Now, why Trump decided to share this keen insight only with Billy Bush when he didn’t know he was being recorded is a mystery, but Trump works in mysterious ways.

    (Is this all Somerby is ever going to write about anymore?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob is a HUGE Kaitlan Collins fan. Yeah, this Kaitlan Collins:

      https://twitter.com/majorityfm/status/1656807815317471233

      Delete
    2. Bob also forgets all about the statement Trump made when the access Hollywood Tape became public, where he apologized, admitted he had said terrible things but that he never acted in a way that was consistent with those statements. This was quite important with saving his campaign. By the deposition he had forgotten all about that, but so had everybody else.

      Delete
  2. All of these posts, and Somerby has still not even begun to make a coherent case as to why Trump was not describing his own behavior on that Access Hollywood tape.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump has already been held liable, based on all of the evidence presented. Why does the right wing think that they can prove him innocent by claiming (1) he wasn't talking about his behavior, (2) he didn't actually believe what he said but was joshing, (3) he had consent because Carroll "let him" up until she kneed him in the groin.

      Somerby is joining a collective Trump follower denial. I see no reason to rehash this court victory when the issue has already been decided by a unanimous jury. It doesn't matter what Somerby thinks or what any other Trump fan thinks. The courts have decided.

      Delete
    2. Another distressing aspect of all this is that the right wing is trying to undermine faith in the justice system by claiming politicization whenever a Republican is charged, prosecuted, or held liable. You see it with Trump, even look at Elise Stefanik’s reaction to Santos being charged. And Somerby has been right there with them, claiming over and over that liberals just want to put The Others in jail.

      Delete
    3. Trump said what he said. It’s on tape. Do they agree to let “you” do it without saying they agree? Is Trump speaking from his experience grabbing women’s p**ys? Is that how he knows so much?

      Delete
    4. 4:27,
      People don't understand Trump's sense of humor. Half the country still thinks he was serious about Hillary being corrupt.

      Delete
    5. For 4:27 it’s all a big joke, and Trump is innocent, and we should be blaming the victim.

      It’s funny when a mafioso says “that’s a nice arm you got there, be a shame if you broke it, in an accident or something.” Haha so funny. After all they’re just expressing genuine concern for your health and safety. Nothing more implied.

      Apparently for hitmen, people just let hitmen murder them.

      Apparently for nazis, Jews let nazis gas them.

      Apparently for for slavers, slaves let slavers own them.

      4:27 your excessive literalism indicates you are on the autism spectrum, as such you find normal communication confusing, and your comprehension of normal communication is incoherent and irrelevant.

      Delete
    6. "For 4:27 it’s all a big joke, and Trump is innocent, and we should be blaming the victim."

      Who ever is saying that?

      I have no idea whether he's innocent or not because the jury's verdict gives me no confidence in the evidence.

      When this trial started I totally believed Carroll. I WANTED Trump to get nailed on this.

      But the more I heard her talk and say things like "I'm just a girl from Indiana who was trained not to talk about such things," and yet she had been writing for 20 years a hard-hitting advice column about sex and dating -- and that I had a grandmother from Indiana born in 1906 who was never trained about anything like this at all -- the more I came to the conclusion that she was full of crap. Or, possibly disordered herself.

      Or maybe just attention-seeking? Or that she allowed this to happen at Bergdorf's and that it quickly got out of hand-- which really is the most plausible explanation for it all if Trump was indeed on the site.

      You know, just because Trump lies all the time doesn't mean that everybody else is always telling the truth about him -- or the whole story.

      Delete
    7. "4:27 your excessive literalism indicates you are on the autism spectrum, as such you find normal communication confusing, and your comprehension of normal communication is incoherent and irrelevant."

      Jesus, go fuck yourself.

      Delete
    8. " Do they agree to let “you” do it without saying they agree?"

      I for one have known a lot of women who agree to let you do it without "saying" they agree!

      And then they agree to do it again!

      Delete
    9. And non-verbal affirmative consent is fine and it is mentioned in the law. It doesn’t have to be spoken. But it does have to occur. Absence of consent is rape, even if it happens twice.

      Delete
    10. @5:45 no one believes your bullshit

      look how these rape apologists have oozed out of the woodwork with this verdict!

      Delete
    11. E Jean Carroll must have a pleasing personality to be “credible” or some idiot will set aside the evidence and let Trump off the hook.

      Delete
    12. 5:45 Directly after asking who is saying that, you launch into a blame-the-victim tirade.

      You failed to address your repeated fallacy of ignoring concepts like implied and implicit coercion.

      You failed to address your fallacy of excessive literalism, other than to spew an ad hominem.

      Your inability to comprehend normal communication, and your inability to communicate coherently, does make your claims irrelevant, and does suggest you are on the autism spectrum.

      Your constant blaming the victim, and excusing the perpetrator strongly suggests you have engaged in some kind of sexual coercion yourself, that likely led to abuse or assault, you need to get help.

      Delete
    13. https://herlawyer.com/sexual-coercion-crime/

      5:45 Directly after asking who is saying that, you launch into a blame-the-victim tirade.

      You fail to address your fallacy of ignoring implied and implicit coercion.

      You fail to address your fallacy of excessive literalism, other than to hatefully spew an ad hominem.

      Your inability to comprehend normal communication, and your inability to communicate coherently, makes your claims irrelevant, and does suggest you are on the autism spectrum.

      Your repeated blaming the victim and excusing the perpetrator stance strongly suggests that you yourself have engaged in sexual coercion, perhaps that led to sexual abuse or assault; you need help.

      Delete
    14. 4:51,
      Hillary being corrupt is the joke line.
      You can't make that joke about Clarence Thomas, because everyone already knows his deep, deep history of corruption.

      Delete
  3. "For the record, Donald J. Trump isn't required to hold any particular position regarding Russia's brutal war on Ukraine. "

    And he isn't required to be a candidate for president either. If he is running for president, he needs to tell voters where he stands on this important issue.

    In the past, Trump has advocated keeping the US out of foreign wars. Now he seems to have changed his position about that and is supporting Russia. Who is surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bobby here seems to be a bit obsessed by Trump, Trump, Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’s responding to the news.

      Most of you people here seem to be obsessed with Bob Bob Bob.

      Delete
    2. There was no news except Trump news? Amazing.

      Delete
    3. 4:29 you are unaware that YOU are expressing an obsession, the same one all Somerby fanboys express - all 6 of them.

      Delete
    4. "4:29 you are unaware that YOU are expressing an obsession, the same one all Somerby fanboys express - all 6 of them."

      Are you guys getting paid or something to keep trolling Bob Somerby?

      I hope so -- or else you're pretty disordered. You might too want to read him over a couple of times in order to get him right.

      Delete
    5. 5:59 your inability to correctly comprehend what Somerby is trying to convey, makes your comments irrelevant.

      Delete
    6. @7:18 Somerby goes to extremes to avoid anyone knowing what he actually thinks or what he means by anything he wrotes. Someone who claims to understand Somerby or know what he thinks or means, is being played for a fool.

      Delete
    7. Bob's refusal to call the Right "fascists" is the tell.

      Delete
    8. 10:53 agree, which is why I wrote “trying to convey”.

      Delete
  5. “Will he "abide by the results of the next election?" It seems to us that his statements concerning that particular matter were a bit more nuanced than this New York Times account suggests.”

    Trump is nothing if not nuanced. Very nuanced for a dumb, deranged, ridiculous man in fact.

    Like, it’s “nuanced” to be coy about whether you’ll accept the results of an election, just like he was nuanced in the way he accepted the last one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree.

      Nuance has its place but it is not a particularly useful concept, the way it is usually deployed.

      Nuance, more often than not, is used to muddy the waters, manufacture ignorance.

      Imagine a god, having the trait of omniscience, would have no need for nuance.

      Delete
  6. "As they do, millions of people will continue to believe that his factual statements are accurate, and that his larger claims are true."

    This statement is incorrect. If Trump makes a factual statement, it is by definition accurate. If it is a misstatement, not accurate, then it is not a factual statement. By calling one of Trump's statements "factual," Somerby implies that Trump occasionally tells the truth. That cannot be assumed and is highly unlikely. There was no reason for Somerby to add the word "factual" above. Trump doesn't deal in facts. He makes shit up; even psuedo-factual things he says are wrong (pseudo means fake).

    pseudo definition: "not genuine; spurious or sham"

    There is no such thing as an inaccurate fact. If it is a fact, it is by definition accurate. If it is inaccurate, it is by definition not a fact.

    fact definition: "a thing that is known or proved to be true"

    Trump does not deal in truth but Somerby tries to create the impression that he does say accurate things by misusing the word fact. That makes Somerby as bad as the others on the right who carry water for Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. A factual statement is a statement about facts, such as "It's raining." As distinct from an opinion, such as "Rain is unpleasant but necessary." A factual statement can be true or false.

      Delete
    2. Not according to the dictionary.

      "a thing that is known or proved to be true"

      Otherwise you find yourself calling things like "Santa Claus lives at the North Pole" a factual statement.

      You might be thinking about other things, such as a logical proposition, which can be true or false. A fact is necessarily true, as is a factual statement.

      Delete
  7. He says his name is "Donald Trump", but he's a notorious joker, so you never know.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If only Trump would go the way of Charlie and Matt and Mark and Bill. And Harvey.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You don't have to rely solely on that Access Hollywood Tape and deposition to know how Trump thinks about women, what he thinks he can do. Here are some excerpts from Trump's appearances on the Howard Stern show:

    https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/trump-on-howard-stern/index.html#:~:text=Asked%20if%20he%20ever%20slept,scandal%20broke%20in%20the%20news.

    If you still believe he wasn't talking about himself after reading this, then you are dumb dumb dumb. Fortunately the jury could understand what Trump was saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You believe interviews with Howard are never cut-ups?

      Then you must believe too that Howard has a very very very tiny penis.

      Delete
    2. I happen to know he does.

      Delete
    3. Trump has no sense of humor, especially about himself and his prowess.

      Delete
    4. 4:31 Howard Stern actually measured his penis during an episode of his radio show and confirmed that it was on the small side.

      The way Stern’s show works is that the hosts are the jokesters and the guest celebrities are encouraged to play it straight and dish gossip or reveal personal information, usually sexual in nature. One of the ways Stern encourages this of his guests, is that he is very open and honest about his own proclivities, perversions, and idiosyncrasies - usually of a sexual nature.

      Delete
    5. You think he is being honest and telling the truth? I sure don't.

      Delete
    6. About his dick? Bwahahaha ok 12 yo.

      Your inability to comprehend normal communication and social cues is noted.

      Delete
  10. Somerby quotes Wallace: "...on comments he first made, as far as we know, on the Access Hollywood tape about where you can grab women."

    Trump actually said that they let you do anything -- so this isn't just limitied to p***y grabbing. Apparently, the p***y-grabbing is just part of Trump's personal M.O. Carroll said it hurt. She, in fact, didn't "let him" do it, she fought back and ultimately pushed him off of her by kneeing him. Does that sound like consent to Somerby? Maybe it does. Why else would he be raising these arguments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Need to give Trump a little credit here. At least he pops a Tic Tak in his mouth before he assaults the woman.

      Delete
    2. Trump is a germophobe. Maybe he is worrying about what the woman's mouth will taste like to him? I doubt he is showing any consideration for her.

      Delete
    3. You really think he was being serious there?

      Where are all the many other rape and touching- assault charges if he indeed has a predilection towards this behavior?

      There’s like three quite recent accusations. And only one rape one — which the jury didn’t buy, btw.

      Delete
    4. 4:34: have you ever heard the saying “ in every joke there’s a grain of truth?“

      Delete
    5. Trump best joke was the one about him being a successful businessman. If you know his history of failure in the business world, you know he had his tongue firmly in his cheek.

      Delete
    6. You don’t get to abuse someone and then say “just kidding, can’ you take a job”?

      Delete
    7. 4:34 if one person accuses you of sexual assault, that’s pretty bad; Trump has 26 such accusers, some of them underage.

      Trump is a monster.

      It’s disturbing you find this all so amusing.

      Delete
    8. 6:36,
      Once you realize 4:34 is a Right-winger, and doesn't care about sexual abuse, but instead loves Trump's bigotry, it starts to make sense.

      Delete
  11. "Wallace's friends all agreed with what their host had said. "

    Is this really surprising given that the jury's decision was unanimous too? Somerby is trying to manufacture some gray area, but there is none in this case. Trump was found liable because the preponderance of the evidence supported that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They all agree that Trump was saying what she says he’s saying — and which is not accurate.

      You’d think at least SOMEONE would be a little skeptical about that tape, no?

      Delete
    2. Did Soros get to the jury, or was it Sino-Italian space lasers operating via the Covid shot?

      Delete
    3. "Is this really surprising given that the jury's decision was unanimous too? "

      It wasn't unanimous for rape and yet there was PLENTY of evidence that Trump was guilty of rape. There was just as much evidence for rape as anything else.

      This tells me both that the jury was confused and that they didn't find the evidence to be totally reliable. So why did they find any of it reliable?

      Delete
    4. There was a Trump supporter on the jury. I suspect the lesser charge was a compromise. But the sexual abuse charge was unanimous. It is also something he should be deeply ashamed of and it should disqualify him from running. Other Republicans should explain that to him. It is abnormal that he is persisting lke this.

      Delete
  12. There is some hyperbole in the Vanity Fair/MSNBC account, but regardless as to if you see it as “doubling down” or not, Trump’s deposition does not square with his comments on the access Hollywood tape the Press and his disgraceful party let him get away with in 2015.,
    Juanita Broaddrick posted the Carroll jury should go to hell where they belong. This degenerate personality was held up by the press as a wounded victim ( and after the election, by MSNBC!) countess times in 2015, and would seem to have been of great help in putting Trump over the top, something Trump’s Court will be making women pay for for decades to come.
    And do you know who had nothing to say about it? Bob $&(@)&;”) SOMERBY!! Please bare that in mind when Bob makes sweeping generalizations about feminism in the last 30,years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Trump’s deposition does not square with his comments on the access Hollywood tape the Press and his disgraceful party let him get away with in 2015."

      "Doubling down" means that he reaffirmed what he said on the Access Hollywood tape. "Does not square" suggests he diverged from what he said previously.

      Trump agreed that he had said that on the tape, then expanded on it, saying that it had been true for stars over millions of years (humans have been around for 190,000), adding the words unfortunately or fortunately. Then Kaplan asked him if he was a star and Trump said yes.

      Male attempts to control women predate 2015, as does feminism, which tries to combat those attempts. Trump is a misogynist asshole. Hillary called him on it. And yes, misogyny is part of our culture. But you are right that Somerby didn't say anything about this at the time. He was too busy attacking Hillary for calling Trump's followers deplorables. Trump is the deplorable in chief.

      Delete
    2. My meaning was it doesn’t square in that he went from a sheepish apology to I did nothing wrong and my attitude was correct.

      Delete
    3. Trump said that women are attracted to big stars and let them be aggressive to them sexually. That was his point.

      Is that never true?

      Delete
    4. Ask Harvey Weinstein his that worked out, 4:38.

      Delete
    5. Ask Harvey Weinstein how that worked out, 4:38.

      Delete
    6. Trump is physically repulsive and ridiculous looking, with a bad personality. No wonder he has to rape women.

      Delete
    7. "Ask Harvey Weinstein his that worked out, 4:38."

      No one ever said all women. And those women who complained are the ones who didn't "let" him do it. Weinstein also didn't know how to take "no" for an answer.

      But I'll bet there were many who did let him -- who did consent. I'd even go so far as to say that his behavior was learned behavior, that he had seen it positively reinforced many times before and that that's why he continued to do it.

      This never happens? It's always assault? It's never consensual? When men are aggressive it's always rebuffed?

      Dream on.

      Delete
    8. The ones who complained are the ones who got raped or assaulted or who were told they’d mever work (a threat to coerce sex). Letting him is not consent. It is still rape or assault if a woman let him.

      Delete
    9. Yes, what you’ve described is always assault, never consensual without affirmative consent. Silence is not consent. When men are encouraged for being aggressive, that encouragement is affirmative consent. Silence is not consent. A woman does not have to rebuff the man. Absence of consent is a rebuff and letting is not consent.

      Are you really this obtuse? Previous rapes don’t excuse current ones. Men’s beliefs about how this should work do not excuse rape. I quoted the New York State Penal Code (where Trump was tried) and it was very clear. If you don’t follow the rules about consent for sexual activity, you are breaking the law, as Trump did by assaulting Carroll.

      Delete
    10. Trump has always been repulsive. Men think it is only about looks but Trump is unappealing because he is a narcissist who cares only about himself. If a man or woman grabbed his dick without consent, he could bring charges. Why didn’t Trump discuss this? Maybe it hasn’t happened the way you think. But I also cannot imagine Trump admitting to being in such a passive situation. Trump might be ashamed of being the object, instead of the one in control. Rape is about dominance, not sex.

      Delete
  13. Somerby says Wallace "called the roll" but in reality she just introduced her guests:

    "Charlie Sykes is back, he's the editor at the Bulwark, and New York Times investigative reporter Susanne Craig is here."

    How is that a bad thing to do? It may even be a contractual obligation, to identify the people who appear on her show.

    This seems like a ridiculous criticism to me, one that displays no knowledge of how TV talk shows work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The amiable gang of pals is standard on these shows. Bob is singling out Wallace here for standard practice.

      Delete
    2. Two simple, honest questions:

      How come no one on MSNBC ever disagrees with anyone else?

      How come no one on MSNBC ever argues a contrary position?

      This is a very big problem for that network. And it's become really annoying to watch. So Bob's right -- it is like a roll call there all the time. Good joke on his part.

      Jeez, even on Newsmax there was a host yesterday who argued to the others in favor of the Carroll jury's position !

      And that's Newsmax!

      Delete
    3. Yes, the right media thrives on conflict and adversarial positions. Limbaugh set up liberal callers to mock and debate. That isn’t necessary to explore a subject. The right peddles adrenaline and outrage. Why does Somerby dislike harmony on the left? Or is he arguing that left media should present right views?

      Delete
    4. Speaking of Newsmax, I saw a photo of Alex Jones the other day, and he wasn't wearing a barrel. What gives?

      Delete
  14. " It was "an incredible admission," Wallace said. Plainly, Susanne Craig agreed—but so did everyone else"

    Somerby feigns shock that so many people would agree with Wallace's interpretation of Trump's statements, but who would agree? I would be shocked that Somerby was raising this objection, if I didn't already know Somerby's own attitudes toward women. Somerby is the guy who said that Chanel Miller shouldn't have drunk so much alcohol at that Frat party (where she was sexually assaulted by Brock Turner) if she didn't want to be attacked. He's also the guy who has repeatedly called Stormy Daniels a grifter and blackmailer, ignoring the facts of her case. And he suggested that Roy Moore's 14-year old victim shouldn't have complained if her mama gave her permission to "date" him (he was 34), since he had such a good job and was a "catch." And he said someone isn't really a pedophile if they are attracted to 14-15 year olds (the word is hebephile) but he didn't say why that is any better for the children involved. And Somerby never wastes a single opportunity here to attack a female (preferably black) journalist, writer, professor or legal expert. Men apparently do nothing to irk him, except for gay men like Lemon and Anderson Cooper.

    You don't want to take advice from Somerby about Trump's liability for sexually abusing women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "but who would agree?" should be "who would disagree?"

      Delete
  15. "When we watched that bit of tape, we didn't think that Donald J. Trump was doubling down on the idea that he can do whatever he wants.

    Instead, we thought of Matt and Charlie and Mark, but also of Bill and Roger. We also thought of Harvey Weinstein, and perhaps of Bill Cosby.

    Inevitably, we thought of the time-honored "casting couch."

    Is Somerby so dense that he doesn't recognize that Trump both hand and used his ability to suggest contestants on The Apprentice (or provide other monetary favors to women). Stormy Daniels admitted that she accepted a dinner meeting in Trump's room to discuss business opportunities because she hoped he might cast her on his show. She said she left the living room of his hotel suite to visit the bathroom and when she came back, he was sitting naked on the bed. She knew immediately what that meant, didn't want to get into a physical confrontation with him (ie. fight or wrestling match) and went along with the sex. That is coercion in two ways: (1) the implied cost of being cast on his show, and (2) the implied threat of being harmed if she refused him. That is how the so-called "casting couch" works. Unsurprisingly, Trump did not fulfill his end of the bargain -- he did not give Stormy an appearance on his show, after she had sex with him.

    Does Trump's claim that it has been around forever have any legitimacy given that laws now require consent and define rape and assault and abuse and forced touching in terms of lack of consent? The New York penal code outlaws sex obtain via coercion, fraud, drugs and alcohol and many other ways that men have obtained force since time began. That is no excuse for what Trump did (or any of the others) and it is right that men who abuse women should lose their jobs.

    Somerby hints that these men are victims, like Trump. The women they abused are the victims. Minimizing this by referring to the casting couch is despicable on Somerby's part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Jordan Peterson addressed this very issue on his podcast last week.

      Delete
    2. Sam Seder discusses Jordan Peterson's ideas about rape, women as property and Peterson's belief that this is all very complicated:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytHLkS_e0lo

      Delete
    3. "The women they abused are the victims. Minimizing this by referring to the casting couch is despicable on Somerby's part."

      Are you saying that women never initiate sexual and physical advances? Or that they never initiate casting couch behaviors?

      You give women way too little credit, my friend. You should have grown up in L.A. in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

      Rarely did a cute or desirable guy ever have to "grab" anything. Women can be quite as sexually aggressive as men.

      And you know what? Men "let" them do it too (!)

      Delete
    4. No one is talking about situations with consent. But if there is coercion or bribery that is not consent, so if those ladies were paid off or manipulated, it is still rape or abuse. Men can certainly say no. Do you suppose Trump will let his chunky cell mates take liberties in prison?

      Delete
    5. Somerby seems to have forgotten what century he is living in. Today, casting is done by panels during public auditions. The casting couch is a memory of 50 years ago. The remaining throwbacks were taken down, systematically, on the right and left, by women’s groups and their attorneys such as Gloria Allred. Rape laws and courts became fairer to women. That’s why Carroll’s struggle for justice and her victory mean so much to all women. Trump can say goodbye to Republican women, except the nutcases, who are too few to give him an election.

      Delete
  16. "Instead, we thought of Matt and Charlie and Mark, but also of Bill and Roger. We also thought of Harvey Weinstein, and perhaps of Bill Cosby."

    Is this nostalgia on Somerby's part? He doesn't say.

    Bill Cosby is not a "perhaps" because he definitely gave his dates drugs that impaired their ability to consent to sex. That is illegal according to the NY Penal Code. It appears to be his habitual approach to getting sex from women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby never spent one millisecond of time debating the merits of the charges against Charlie and Matt and Harvey. He immediately accepted the truth of the allegations, and his take was that liberals are a bunch of hypocrites because they knew Weinstein and the others were sexual predators, but said nothing. Of course, unlike Trump, Charlie and Matt and Bill and Harvey are all either gone or in prison.

      Delete
    2. Much is also made, dubiously, of Bill Clinton’s “connection” to some of those folks, often treated respectfully by the Press. Bob has nothing to say. The goal was always to neutralize any value Clinton might have as an elder statesman. Mission accomplished, Nixon was treated with much more deference.

      Delete
    3. And they play up Bill Clinton's association with Epstein which was minimal compared to Trump's.

      Delete
    4. Cosby also had dozens and dozens of accusers on the same MO.

      Where are all of Trump’s?

      If he really assaults women without consent, where are they all?

      And no, there are not “26.”

      Delete
    5. So he’s assaulted women, but with consent, eh, 4:40? By consent you mean remain silent?

      Delete
    6. There are 25+ accusing Trump. I cited sources listing them. Go find them.

      Delete
    7. "So he’s assaulted women, but with consent, eh, 4:40? By consent you mean remain silent?"

      Carroll didn't consent. So how come he didn't get rape?

      And if there's consent it's neither rape nor assault. That's the point.

      Consent by the way doesn't necessarily mean that you wanted or enjoyed it. Or liked the idea afterwards. It means you allowed it to happen with approval.

      Delete
    8. "There are 25+ accusing Trump. I cited sources listing them. Go find them."

      And only a very small number -- like three, maybe four, including Carroll -- accuse Trump of physical sexual assault.

      If Trump really had this as his MO -- just grabbing any woman he wanted to because he's a big star -- there'd be hundreds by now.

      Delete
    9. Hundreds? So he did it that often, 5:07?

      Delete
    10. “Carroll didn't consent. So how come he didn't get rape?”

      You don’t consent to assault either, dimwit.

      Delete
    11. 25+ have accused him of physical assault.

      Delete
    12. @5:07 — we don’t know how often it has happened. Women do not report assaults to avoid other consequences. Carroll didn’t. Trump’s staff knew he was doing it while he was president. See Stephanie Grisham’s article. People protect Trump. But even guys like him get taken down. That’s why this case is important. No one thinks Weinstein’s victims were all found.

      Delete
  17. The second amendment is evil.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There are some women I'd like to grab, and others I'd rather not grab. But in neither case do I actually grab them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Republicans should support statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ulysses reference!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ulysses Grant was a great general.

      Delete
  21. Defund the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Google speaks!

    "No results found for what does "misogyny-adjacent" mean=?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look up the meaning of adjacent first. Then look up misogyny, if you need to.

      Delete
    2. Google hyphen so you can find out what it does.

      Delete
  23. "When we watched that bit of tape, we didn't think that Donald J. Trump was doubling down on the idea that he can do whatever he wants. "

    Trump affirmed the idea in the video that stars can do anything sexually and women let them do it, because they are stars. He stood by his words on the Billy bush video. I don't think that means the same thing as "doubling down" but his reaffirmation of his original words is clear. Perhaps adding that "This has been happening for a million years, unfortunately or fortuntely." Then Kaplan asked Trump if he is a star. Trump said yes, and left it at that. We can all draw our own conclusions from that and the accusations against him.

    No one put those words in Trump's mouth. No one thinks Trump doesn't believe what he said, clearly and without equivocation.

    During the David Frost interviews, there was a point when talking about his abuses of power Nixon says: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Everyone watching understood that Nixon was admitting guilt. There have been several times when Trump has said such things about his own actions. One was when he insisted on his right to keep those classified documents he has been hoarding: "They're mine."

    When Trump said that a star can do anything to women because they let him, reasonable, sane people understood Trump to be confessing.

    It is to be expected that a person committing a crime against women, as Trump has done, would have skewed thinking to justify those actions. Jorden Peterson has them. So does Trump. That's why these attitudes are so shocking to those who heard him say this stuff in the Billy Bush video. You don't expect a presidential candidate to think like a rapist. The danger presented by those who leap to Trump's defense of these remarks is that it suggests that many men think this way about women and consent. It has been reported that rape is more prevalent than the stats show, but it seems to me the nature of these beliefs about women and consent, widely held by right wing men, armed with guns and supporting patriarchy-endorsing white supremacy, mean that women cannot afford to trust Trump or his supporters to treat them with respect for their own agency or the law. I've seen the law denied multiple times just in Somerby's own comment section.

    This is scary to me, as someone female, but it suggests that all women (right and left) need to work hard to keep Trump out of office, to reelect Joe Biden (who obeys the law) and protect our right to live free without the protectorship of some male (spourse, father, brother, guardian) as Peterson suggests is necessary to prevent rape.

    Women can become militant too and we can buy guns if needed to protect our persons from "stars" like Trump. If we want to see gun violence increase, there is that untapped market presented by frightened women who have been abandoned by society to the clutches of entitled men. What other divides exist that haven't already been widened by right wing politics? The within-family divide between men and women. Perhaps marriage has been on the decline because men have become increasingly right wing assholes who want to treat women like property -- as Trump threated E. Jean Carroll.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytHLkS_e0lo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That's why these attitudes are so shocking to those who heard him say this stuff in the Billy Bush video. You don't expect a presidential candidate to think like a rapist."

      If women let you have sex with them then you're not a rapist.

      And no, no amount of clumsy (or sophisticated) sophistry can alter that conclusion.

      Now what Carroll claims Trump did at Bergdorf's is indeed rape. So how come the jury didn't buy it "unanimously" or whatever?

      Delete
    2. Not according to law. Affirmative consent is needed. “Letting” is not consent. Are you guys stupid? I quoted the law yesterday.

      Delete
    3. @4:59 — you keep repeating the same idiocies. There was less evidence in support of rape, or the jury compromised on the lesser charge.

      Delete
  24. "Political journalist Mark Halperin, whose career crumbled in 2017 after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment, has joined No Labels, a D.C.-based bipartisan policy group, Punchbowl News reports."

    This tells you everything you need to know about No-Labels.

    ReplyDelete
  25. All he did was state that fact that women let him grab them. He added that he thinks it's because he is rich and famous and that women are more likely to let rich and famous men grab them and he said that it has been that way for a million years, if you look at it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did E. Jean Carroll let him? She pushed back and kneed him. It is Trump’s fantasy that women let him. He coerces and forces them. Why would anyone take Trump’s claims at face value, any more than when he brags about anything else. He is not a genius, he doesn’t have the best words or know more than his generals. And no, women do not let him do stuff. They are not giving consent so this is legally battery.

      Delete
    2. Why can’t a man do a little pussy-grabbing without consent and without being hauled into court? Such woke bullshit.

      Delete
    3. There is nothing about rich and famous in his deposition or the Billy Bushbideo. You are embroidering what he said.

      Delete
    4. "Did E. Jean Carroll let him? She pushed back and kneed him. It is Trump’s fantasy that women let him."

      You do realize that you're begging the entire question here, don't you?

      You're using the premise that you say Trump admits he assaults women as proof-evidence that he assaults them.

      Hell, with that evidence I could say that Donald Trump assaulted ME one day at Yankee Stadium. Assuming that that's what he's saying in this video, which as Bob notes, it isn't.

      And how do you know that women don't ever "let" him? I'll bet they have!

      Delete
    5. "There is nothing about rich and famous in his deposition or the Billy Bushbideo. You are embroidering what he said."

      Big Star.

      Same thing.

      Delete
    6. I’ll bet they have too, 4:56! But there are some who did not give their consent. That was assault.

      Delete
    7. No, not the same. Most rich & famous people are not stars.

      Delete
    8. Letting someone do something is not legal consent according to NY Penal Code. If Trump moves on someone and they let him, that is assault.

      Delete
    9. "Letting someone do something is not legal consent according to NY Penal Code. If Trump moves on someone and they let him, that is assault."

      Any lawyer or prosecutor will tell you that it's not that easy. If they consent to the action then it's not assault. One of the reasons for this is that if they "let" you do it without objecting then why did they let you do it?

      In the absence of force or coercion, it would be a hard one to prove in court. Grooming and exploitation is not yet a crime in NYS either -- unless you're a teacher.

      There's no need for written permission in NYS, and express verbal permission is a college-rule consent policy.

      So no, that's not the case. And "let" by the way means approval. It means agreement. That's the way any reasonable person interprets the word and that's what counts.

      Delete
    10. "No, not the same. Most rich & famous people are not stars."

      They're talking about Weinstein, who was very definitely a star in Hollywood.

      Trump too is talking about men of fame and money. I mean, come on.

      The way people have to split hairs about Trump's meaning in that video and deposition is getting to be ridiculous.

      Delete
    11. "I’ll bet they have too, 4:56! But there are some who did not give their consent. That was assault."

      Then why did they let them?

      The meaning of Trump's words are clearly that "let" means approval. Agreement.

      Delete
    12. Trump makes a positive assertion, so the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence to demonstrate his claim.

      Trump has provided no such evidence.

      Furthermore, no one has come forward to substantiate his claim, and worse, many have come forward that refute his claim.

      We get that you are lonely and looking for attention; some here think you are on the autism spectrum, others might say you are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect, either way, you need to seek help.

      Delete
    13. ""I’ll bet they have too, 4:56! But there are some who did not give their consent. That was assault."

      Then why did they let them?"

      What do you suppose Trump weighs? Around 350 I'd guess. Most women could not push Trump off their bodies if he were lying there limp. If Trump puts the force of his body into grabbing a woman's arm or other body part, is she going to be able to break his grip? E. Jean Carroll weighs 135 and is 5ft 9in. She was finally able to get Trump's lard body off of her after several minutes, by shoving her knee into his groin. Did she "let him" during those 3 minutes when he was raping her? Many men are stronger than Trump, if not fatter. No one expects a woman to be able to overpower a determined man, so "letting him" is not the criterion for consent.

      You have to be the stupidest troll in existence. I hope some exceptionally strong woman overpowers you someday and then claims that you gave her consent because you couldn't remove her hand from your mouth.

      I know you guys are getting paid for what your doing here, but stupid young men may believe this shit and wind up in jail because of it. This is clearly why sex-ed is needed -- so that idiots will not think that if they let you do it, it isn't rape, when the cops will put you in handcuffs so fast you won't know what is happening to your delicate wrists.

      If you don't believe me, go read the NY Penal Code (which specifies what is legal and what is not -- don't be fooled by the word Penal). It explicitly says that silence is not consent. Letting someone do something sexual is a passive act, not affirmative. It cannot give consent to lie there and do nothing at all, which is what some women (being small) do when assaulted by a much larger, scary and aggressive man.

      Delete
    14. Weinstein and #MeToo happened years after the Access Hollywood tape. When Trump says star on that video, he is not talking about Weinstein because he wasn't yet on anyone's radar. If Trump were female, he might have heard female movie stars talk about Weinstein, but he is male and doesn't listen to women, Weinstein wasn't asking any men to visit his casting couch.

      This is a con that Trump developed on his own.

      Delete
    15. "The way people have to split hairs about Trump's meaning in that video and deposition is getting to be ridiculous."

      Everyone understands what Trump meant. and it is also clear that he was talking about himself doing whatever he wanted, since he was bragging to Billy Bush. No one mentioned Weinstein or anyone else on that tape.

      Delete
    16. You don't convince other people by taking your own ideas (incorrect as they are) and putting the word lawyer in front of them. If a lawyer tells you any of that stuff, you can sue him for malpractice.

      No one here has said anything about requiring written permission. That occurs in a separate paragraph covering "affirmative consent". This is not the code for any university, but it is possible that one or more have adopted parts of this code. The part about silence NOT being consent is in the penal code, not the standards for affirmative consent. Under the section about affirmative consent it also says that written permission is not required, nor is spoken consent. Consent can consist of nonverbal behavior and other actions. If a woman hands you a condom, that is implied consent, for example.

      This is moot because Carroll did not let Trump do anything. She physically resisted him. Even so, he was able to hurt her before she could stop him and get away.

      This is offensively stupid on your part because it sounds like you are arguing that a woman must be physically injured, bruised, have some signs that she really really resisted, before it will be considered a real rape and she will be treated seriously (given justice). That may have been true in the bad old days, but that isn't what today's laws say. Ask any lawer (a real one, that is).

      Delete
  26. We live in a giant spiral galaxy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Right-wingers excusing rape of women is almost too on point.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As bad as bad is on the subject of Poor Donald on the rape stuff ( and you don’t have to agree with Bob on this to be distressed in the way the National Press has handled these matters) perhaps nothing is as bad as his strange clarification that Trump does not HAVE to have a position on the Ukraine.
    No, and he doesn’t have to run for President or destroy the Country either Bob. Christ Almighty….

    ReplyDelete