THE WALLS: The Berlin Wall came tumbling down!

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2023

New walls have gone up Over Here: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

The famous statement was made by President Reagan in June of 1987. He was speaking at the foot of the Berlin Wall, which separated East Berlin from West. 

During the years of the Cold War, it had been designed to keep East Berliners from escaping into the West. The leading authority on this particular barrier thumbnails the matter as shown

The Berlin Wall was a guarded concrete barrier that encircled West Berlin of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) from 1961 to 1989, separating it from East Berlin and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Construction of the Berlin Wall was commenced by the government of the GDR on 13 August 1961. It included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, accompanied by a wide area (later known as the "death strip") that contained anti-vehicle trenches, beds of nails and other defenses. The primary intention for the Wall's construction was to prevent East German citizens from fleeing to the West.

The Soviet Bloc propaganda portrayed the Wall as protecting its population from "fascist elements conspiring to prevent the will of the people" from building a communist state in the GDR. The authorities officially referred to the Berlin Wall as the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart...

According to that leading authority, "The evening of 9 November 1989 is known as the night the Wall came down."

The Berlin Wall was a physical barrier. Due to the so-called "democratization of media," a type of metaphorical wall currently separates our own nation's various population groups and political tribes.

Within the medium known as "cable news," our own blue tribe is currently serviced by MSNBC. The red tribe turns to the Fox News Channel, where they're typically offered bright red accounts of the day's alleged news.

In yesterday's report, we showed you how the newly released Durham Report has been reported in the New York Times in the past few days. On Tuesday morning, in the Times' initial news report, readers were told that Durham's report "revealed little substantial new information."

According to the Times reporting, the Durham Report "failed to produce the kinds of blockbuster revelations accusing the bureau of politically motivated misconduct that former President Donald J. Trump and his allies suggested Mr. Durham would uncover."

That's what it said in the Times! On Monday night, on the other side of a very large wall, red tribe viewers heard a vastly different account of what the Durham Report had shown.

Jesse Watters was speaking on the other side of a very large wall. As we showed you yesterday, he  offered this account of that same Durham Report at the start of his 7 P.M. Fox News program, Jesse Watters Primetime:

WATTERS (6/15/23): Fox News Alert! It only took four years, but the Durham Report has finally dropped, and he found out whatever everyone already knew.

The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was a giant hoax started by Democrats. 

The FBI knew it was a hoax. The CIA knew it was a hoax, and Barack Obama knew it was a hoax.

Everybody knew it was a hoax the whole time, but they acted like it was real. 

The CIA knew Hillary started the Russia collusion story, and then went in and told Barack Obama all about it, that she was trying to link Trump with Russia to distract from her email scandal.

Over at Fox, at 7 P.M., that's the way the news report started. At this point, Watters daringly went where the rubber meets the road:

WATTERS (continuing directly): But this is the best part—the pee tape...

The best part was the pee tape, Fox News viewers were told. It was soon described as "the pee-pee tape" as the news report continued.

Long story short! Red tribe denizens watching Watters heard an account of the Durham Report which bore little resemblance to the accounts which had appeared in the New York Times. 

In fairness, it wasn't Watters alone. At 7:08 P.M., the rising cable news star introduced a major political figure to comment on Durham's report.

Watters threw to Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Their exchange began as shown:

WATTERS: Turn it over to Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, he's a member of the Judiciary Committee. So what are we going to do now? Are we going to do another report, Senator?

HAWLEY: There needs to be a lot more than reports, Jesse, People need to be prosecuted for this, the Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton herself...There needs to be consequences for her and also for the FBI.

As of 7:08 P.M., it was time to lock her up! As we ponder life behind walls, let us say this about that:

In fact, John Durham had called for no new prosecutions in his long-awaited report. 

In the New York Times and on MSNBC, that fact was cited as one of the signs that his lengthy investigation had failed to find evidence of the serious crimes Donald J. Trump had endlessly alleged.

Durham had called for no new prosecutions! On Monday night, this fact went unmentioned on Watters Primetime, even as Hawley eventually added this:

HAWLEY: We've got to get justice here. And justice needs to be served.

You can't interfere in a presidential election without consequences, at least you couldn't, you used to not be able to in America. And that's what happened here.

That's what this report shows. That one political party, the Democrats, tried to use the FBI to rig a presidential election and just about got away with it.

[...]

I mean, it's amazing! If there is something like this in American history, I don't know what it is. And that's why I say there needs to be prosecutions, there needs to be accountability, and the FBI had got to be overhauled now, top to bottom.

Hawley was calling for prosecutions. After a four-year probe, Durham hadn't done so, but red tribe viewers weren't told.

Red tribe voters were hearing an account of the Durham Report on the red tribe's cable channel. 

What they were hearing was very different from what had been written in the New York Times. It was very different from what blue tribe viewers were being told on MSNBC programs.

In July 1992, at the Democratic Convention in New York City, future president Bill Clinton quoted a well-known passage from Proverbs:

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." 

Where there is no vision, the people perish! But how about when there are two (or more) grossly contradictory visions? When there are visions which may exclude other visions? What happens to the people then?

Tomorrow, we'll return to what Barack Obama said, this very week, about the danger of "divided media." Also, we'll think about the type of segregation by viewpoint now widely practiced across the "cable news" dial.

Way back in 1989, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down after three decades of service. Here within our own flailing nation, elaborate networks of metaphorical walls are steadily being erected.

These walls are separating the people, thus impeding "the vision thing."

Tomorrow: It's amazing how rarely you hear it


66 comments:

  1. The second amendment is evil.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Josh Hawley is a Right-wing "feelings over facts" guy. Ignore him, and hope he goes away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta love a guy who writes a book about Manhood and is too chickensht to speak the truth.

      Delete
    2. This clown once had delusions he could be a Presidential candidate, even though he has less charisma than the heating instructions on a can of soup.

      Delete
    3. Josh “Horsehead” Hawley won’t ever be president, but he has a legitimate shot at playing Ichabod Crane if they ever make a new version of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

      Delete
    4. Or he could be the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz.

      Delete
  3. And the red tribe couldn't be bothered to do their own research, as opposed to being told what to think by fellow morons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So the “red” and “blue” media are reporting differently about the Durham Report. Stop the presses!

    Somerby hasn’t bothered to see if one side is maybe more accurate and thorough than the other by looking at the content of the report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sum it up nicely.

      Delete
    2. Somerby hasn’t bothered to see if one side is maybe more accurate and thorough than the other by looking at the content of the report."

      Sorry. Not important to his narrative.

      Delete
  5. When one person lies and another tells the truth, that certainly creates divisions! But it’s kind of unfair to blame the division on both people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happens all the time, especially in TDHland.

      Delete
  6. And now the republican pack of baboons, proving daily that they are incapable of governing and should never be given power, are taking it up a notch and moving to expel Rep. Adam Schiff. Taking marching orders from the orange abomination in Mar a lago.

    Congresswoman files resolution to expel Rep. Adam Schiff for pushing 'false narratives' in Durham report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And as the Republicans fail to expel Santos, despite him being charged with actual crimes, is there anyone left in the administration that M Greene hasn’t tried to impeach or threatened to impeach?

      Delete
  7. The right wing is so vile and repugnant, Somerby is hard pressed to come up with any equivalent examples of blue tribe perfidy.

    But he’s still trying.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "our own blue tribe is currently serviced by MSNBC"

    Why say "serviced" instead of served? Because the word serviced has a sexual connotation. Why say something in a neutral way when you could be crude? Because that is how Somerby rolls.

    Is MSNBC servicing the left? I don't think so. Somerby wishes to imply that MSNBC tells us what we want to hear, pandering in preferred narratives. That is nonsense. Further, many of us prefer progressive and more left sources than MSNBC, which is centrist, NOT liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby likes to call the people on MSNBC “our heroes” or our “thought leaders.” That is a false premise, which leads to false conclusions. But it pleasures Somerby to repeat it.

      Delete
    2. 'Servicing' implies the giving of pleasure in return for money. That's why it so apt a term.

      Delete
    3. Liberals don’t give MSNBC money.

      Delete
    4. Except that isn’t actually occurring. Many of us find the content of MSNBC frustrating, not pleasing.

      Delete
    5. MSNBC is run by a corporation and represents neoliberals, not progressives, and they never give air time to leftists.

      By all accounts, polls, surveys, etc. the mainstream of our country leans progressive.

      The blue tribe does have neoliberal aspects - old school establishment Dems like Schumer, Pelosi, the Clinton’s, etc - but in no way is MSNBC servicing the blue tribe. It’s not a remotely apt narrative.

      Delete
  9. I don't understand why these mass shooters are killing themselves at the end of the shooting spree. It's their word against those of the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read the Durham Report, and believe the reason Durham didn't charge more people with crimes, is courts need to see proof of accusations, while the media doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It turns out that the feverish nightmares of clowns suffering CDS is not admissible evidence in US courts.

      Delete
  11. Who is worse, the Democrats who were dumb enough to believe the Trump witch hunt or the Democrats who knew it was lies and stupid ones at that, but pretended to believe it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Durham not having an iota of proof that Democrats were behind Russiagate is the worst.

      Delete
    2. Well, my stupid right wing friend, I believe I saw Trump praising Putin to the skies and said “Russia, if you listening…”

      Delete
  12. Hillary-supporter Alan Dershowitz comes closer to the FoxNews interpretation of the Durham report. His comments are available on Youtube. He severely criticizes the New York Times so-called news analysis as being spin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is the Fox interpretation also spin?

      Delete
    2. You mean one of the guys who defended Trump at his impeachment trial is taking trump's dishonest side? Wow, that's really surprising,David.

      Delete
    3. Where were all the arrests? The evidence of TREASON!!!

      Delete
    4. Al says he voted for Hillary, I never recall him speaking out or doing anything to help her campaign. Beyond that, he’s been a perfect Trump tool so his comments on these matters are meaningless.

      Delete
    5. David,
      It really does "feel" like the FBI and Clinton Campaign were behind it, even though the facts show otherwise.

      Delete
    6. Dave in Cal -Please explain the dozens of indictments in the Mueller investigation vs. the one guy who fudged a FISA application in Durham's four years. Also review Barr's efforts to whitewash Iran/Contra with his efforts to whitewash Trump's criminal activity.

      Delete
    7. What is FoxNews, David. Is that the propaganda outfit that just agreed to pay $800 million to a company for lying to their audience. Real cute.

      Delete
    8. Mueller didn't indict anyone for anything that has to do with colluding or coordination or cooperation with Russia.

      Delete
    9. Without re compiling the details, 3:11 (shit band btw, sorry if you’re a fan) your claim is nonsense, and has been debunked here directly to you numerous times. Embodying Goebbels phrase isn’t a good look.

      Delete
    10. I'm sorry. Who was indicted for coordinating or colluding with Russia? No one was.

      Delete
    11. It's too bad Donald J Chickenshit was allowed to criminally obstruct the Mueller investigation.
      I would say lying to the FBI about your contacts with the Russian government and then holding for a pardon is related to Russia, Boris.

      *******************
      The special counsel issued three separate indictments against Manafort. In the third, prosecutors implicated Kilimnik for the first time, charging him with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice. These charges concern communications between Manafort and Kilimnik regarding messages they exchanged with two journalists who were potential witnesses in the case against them. Though Kilimnik has been indicted, he remains outside of the reach of U.S. law enforcement.

      In his dramatic and surprise guilty plea in U.S. District Court on Dec. 1, 2017, early in Mueller's investigation, Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn acknowledged that his false statements and omissions in FBI interviews a few days after Trump was sworn in "impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election," which the statement of offense he agreed to said.

      He specifically admitted to lying about asking the Russian ambassador to refrain from responding to Obama administration sanctions against Russia for its election interference and further requested Russia help block a United Nations vote on Israeli settlements which the incoming administration didn't agree with. Flynn also agreed that he lied about his lobbying activities in federal filings related to work on behalf of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 2016 campaign. Flynn is awaiting sentencing. Read more here.

      Delete
    12. None of that includes collusion or conspiracy with Russia. The Mueller investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


      How could he indict someone for something for which there is no crime?

      Delete
    13. What is the matter with you?

      Delete
    14. Trump criminally obstructed the investigation and then brought in cover up specialist Bill Barr to ABORT the report post delivery.

      Delete
    15. Ok. So we agree Mueller didn't indict anyone for anything that has to do with colluding or coordination or cooperation with Russia.

      Wasn't that easy??

      Delete
    16. We also agree the claim is not nonsense and has not been debunked.

      So why do you say.it is? Why do you lie to yourself?

      Delete
    17. Nonsense, lying to the FBI about your contacts with the Russian government was directly related to the heart of the investigation. Of course we understand brought in Billy Barr to deliver the baby report and then immediately abort it. So you can continue to jerkoff screaming no collusion no collusion like an insane cult member but it is not very persuasive or impressive. You should be ashamed of yourself, but then again that is the cults secret weapon, lake of shame.

      Delete
    18. Your dumb and damaged af.

      Delete
    19. Your ignorant: your=you're
      Or do Republicans talk that way on purpose to show they don't need no stinkin' learnin'?

      Delete
    20. For example, Manafort was convicted for not reporting $16 million he received from Russian assets, its not known exactly what the Russians bought with that $16 million, due to obstruction, but that’s clearly collusion.

      Furthermore, many of the indictments were for lying to authorities about meetings with Russians, exchanging info with Russians etc, those contacts with the Russians weren’t for organizing a surprise birthday party, that’s all collusion too.

      You keep repeating the same debunked lie over and over, and you keep convincing no one of your lies; sounds like a personality disorder, would you like to book a session with Dr Lee?

      Delete
    21. Also there were all kinds of indictments related to Russians running fake news scams on social media for Trump.

      Also there were indictments about Russia obtaining opponents’ emails for Trump.

      This 3:11 indictment “hoaxer” is full of beans.

      Delete
    22. But Mueller did not indict anyone for anything at all that had to do with coordination, conspiracy or collusion with Russia in their 2016 election interference activities. That includes Manafort., The crimes for which he indicted were for long long before 2016 and trump. Sorry the man that's just the truth. There's nothing you can do to change it.

      Delete
    23. None of the examples you have given represents collusion according to Mueller or the republican-led Senate intelligence report. Sorry. It doesn't mean that Trump is good. It doesn't mean you have to like Trump or vote for him or that you are a bad person or the politicians you like or bad. It's just the fucking truth.

      Delete
    24. You're a collision dead ender!

      Yeah that whole episode was really embarrassing for everyone all around. Pretty soon it'll all fade away and you won't have to face up to how that all turned out. Ouch! Arguing collusion in 2023. That's that just shows the effectiveness of the propaganda. It's interesting. But I do wish you the best and respect.

      Delete
    25. What’s embarrassing is how moronic you are.

      All the indictments were related to collusion, whether it was payments to Manafort by Russian assets or fake news spread through social media, or hacking for emails, or lying to coverup collusions. The intent was to get someone friendly to, or beholden to Putin, and Trump and his campaign secretly, and sometimes even openly, engaged with that effort.

      That you always lose this argument so badly really seems to trigger you. Sorry it’s so bothersome, it’s just the truth.

      Delete
    26. I didn't realize that all of the indictments were related to collusion with Russia in their 2016 election interference activities. Thanks for straightening me out. 👍

      Delete
    27. I believe 3:11's point is even though there is no doubt the Trump Administration and Russian oligarchs were committing multiple crimes, charges of collusion could not be proven, due to the obstruction of the investigation by the Trump Administration.

      Delete
    28. 9:11 collusion with Russia was proven. All of the indictments Mueller issued had to do with collusion, coordination and conspiracy between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia in Russia's election interference activities.

      Delete
    29. I'm more than willing to sign a loyalty pledge to the DNC and the CIA.

      Delete
    30. Some people love Trump's HUGE tax break for the Establishment Elites too much, to care that Trump had to commit crimes to be in a position to deliver them.

      Delete
  13. I wish Josh would get a few Dems to agree to Senate hearings, Durham and Barr should both be grilled. In a way it’s a waste of time and money, but are we getting anything else out of our Republicans? Surely for flagrant lawbreaking there is some kind of civil action he could bring against Hillary and give us all the pleasure of watching him get counter sued and make a fool of himself?

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

    ReplyDelete
  15. Defund the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  16. We live in a barred spiral galaxy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We spend an inordinate amount of our lives pooping, our bodies were poorly designed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it is taking you that long, you should perhaps see a doctor.

      Delete
    2. In aggregate, silly.

      Delete
  18. I don't understand the Berlin Wall reference. Isn't there supposed to be a gap? Which tribe is Russia? Not the blues. Have we told the red tribe they can't watch "our" media ever?

    ReplyDelete