DISPUTATION: Brooks and Capehart and Luntz oh my!

MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2024

Friends, is RICO a crime? Dearest readers, riddle us this:

How about it? Is RICO a crime?

We ask the question because Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) recently said that RICO isn't a crime. On the red tribe's Fox News Channel, she's been ridiculed for making that (accurate) statement from that day to this.

Saturday night, on The Big Weekend Show (actual name!), Joe Concha described the (accurate) statement by Ocasio-Cortez as "The Biggest Fail of The Week." He did so in the part of the entertaining "cable news" program which is called "Big Weekend Flops."

At this point, a spoiler alert:

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) actually isn't a crime!

We're sorry, but no—it isn't a crime. It's a (complex) federal law! 

You can break that complex federal law by committing certain types of crimes, which would have to be named and demonstrated at some point. But the law itself isn't a crime, any more than New York State's 65 mile per hour speed limit is some sort of state crime.

We'll discuss this dumb but instructive matter in more detail later today. For now, we'll tell you this:

The ridicule to which AOC has been subjected is a good example of what can happen when disagreement and disputation are removed from the culture of big-time American journalism. 

When that occurs, we're left with big fun, and with reliable group agreement. More simply put, we're left with an imitation of life.

Concha's silly behavior will come and go, leaving barely a ripple. This morning, let's consider a disagreement about a very important matter—a disagreement which surfaced last Friday night on the PBS NewsHour.

At issue was an important set of events which will start unfolding today. Today, Donald Trump's assets could start to be seized by New York State Attorney General Letitia James.

This important matter is covered in this report in this morning's New York Times. On last Friday's NewsHour, Geoffrey Bennett posed the following question to David Brooks during the program's weekly segment involving Brooks and Jonathan Capehart:

BENNETT (3/22/24): Donald Trump needs to find half a billion dollars, and he has to find it fairly quickly. He has until Monday to post a bond covering the full amount of the $454 million civil fraud judgment against him as he appeals this ruling.

And if he can't somehow find the money, the New York A.G., Letitia James—she might start seizing some of his assets to help cover that obligation.

David, for any candidate running for public office, especially the presidency, who is short on cash and who has to find $454 million, that is a serious liability, and it also raises in this case some national security questions.

To review the full transcript, click here.

Will Attorney General James start seizing Donald Trump's assets today? At this point, no one knows.

That said, here's where the disagreement started last Friday night. Responding to Bennett, Brooks said he has reservations about this whole affair: 

BROOKS (continuing directly): Yes, I mean, I have a few problems with the seizure. The Associated Press did a good survey. They looked like at 70 years of cases like this. And in cases where there was no clear victim, they have never seized assets before.

And so if the people who claim a lot of this is a political witch-hunt, I think that Associated Press [report]I found it kind of alarming that the Trump case is not being treated like the other cases. 

Nonetheless, it is what it is. And so he's got to raise a lot of money really fast.

Brooks continued from there, but he said this case is not being treated like other cases of the past seventy years. He cited a detailed report by the Associated Press, and he said he found the situation "kind of alarming." 

We'll link to the AP report below. At this point, let's move on to Jonathan Capehart.

David Brooks said he doesn't like the way this case has been shaking out. But when Bennett threw to Jonathan Capehart, a different view emerged:

CAPEHART: ...I have to disagree with David. No, take the properties! If any of us at the table were in that situation, we would be in serious trouble.

And it would be within the right of the attorney general to say, you know what, we're going to take your golf club, or we're going to take your tower. And quite honestly, I would love to see the A.G., the New York attorney general, do that, because then it would be the most tangible sign for the nation, the world, and for Donald Trump that you have been held accountable.  

Brooks said he finds the whole thing "kind of alarming." By way of contrast, Capehart said he would love to see Trump's assets seized. 

For the record, Capehart didn't mention the AP report to which Brooks had referred. Seeming to contradict what the Associated Press said it had found, he said that anyone would be in serious trouble if they'd done what Trump has done.

As viewers watched this weekly segment, they saw an obvious disagreement about a major ongoing matter. But at this point, Bennett made no attempt to explore this difference of opinion.  

He simply moved to a different topic. Disagreement frequently dies a quick death under current arrangements.

Brooks had one reaction to this highly significant matter. Capehart's reaction was quite different.

At one time, not long ago, American broadcast journalism was built around the presentation of such disagreements. During what might be called "the Crossfire era," people with opposing views were thrown on the air on a nightly basis and invited to battle it out.

By the end of the Crossfire era, it had come to seem that this practice had outlived any possible usefulness:

Partisans stuck to their talking points through thick and thin. Moderators couldn't make anyone budge, or didn't especially want to. 

Nothing much was ever learned from these scripted pseudo-debates. In October 2004, Jon Stewart appeared as a guest on Crossfire. In the course of a single half hour, he brought the whole system crashing down, a bit like Samson of old.

Today, cable news is organized in a very different manner. The Fox News Channel is loaded with red tribe partisans who can be relied on to agree with every red tribe talking point and with every other panelist. 

MSNBC's programs are built the same way, but from the blue side of the partisan tracks.

Last weekend, no one on The Big Weekend Show challenged Concha when he ridiculed AOC for her statement. In all candor, AOC's basic statement was plainly accurate—but viewers of the Fox News program saw a panel of four reliable employees mock her for what she said.

Whatever happened to disputation? As we'll start to see tomorrow, disputation, even within the confines of the tribe, has a long and noble history here in the western world.

Today, disputation is almost totally gone from red and blue tribe "cable news," and from much other contemporary journalism.

For what it's worth, we're inclined to agree with Brooks a bit more than with Capehart concerning the current point of dispute. In part, that's because we've never seen an explanation of the unusual-seeming procedure according to which an individual may have to raise a large sum of money before he can pursue an appeal of a legal finding.

For the record, we're also concerned about what Frank Luntz recently said.

Luntz has been strongly NeverTrump for the past several years. Last week, he said that James might get Trump elected if she decides to kick him right in his assets.

Luntz's statement was widely noted—but only in red tribe circles. Despite this lonely report at the progressive site Raw Story, most blue tribe members never heard a word about what Luntz has said.

Does democracy die in the darkness? It seems to us that intelligent discourse dies in the darkness when everyone is sent on the air to stick to preapproved tribal topics and to mouth preapproved tribal points.

Tomorrow: The disputation of monarchs!


127 comments:

  1. "Last weekend, no one on The Big Weekend Show challenged Concha when he ridiculed AOC for her statement."

    Why aren't you producing the money quote, in context, Bob?

    Normally, you love to produce quotes. And here, suddenly, we're suppose to trust your judgement, and get outraged along with you, without seeing the actual quote?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Somerby is being excessively literal in order to imply Trump did nothing wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby is not implying Trump did nothing wrong. He'says he tends to agree with Brooks' concern that Trump is not being treated like other cases.

      Delete
    2. Maybe, 11:14. But remember, Somerby claimed that Trump was so deluded that he really believed he’d won in 2020, so you really shouldn’t prosecute him for his actions. That’s Somerby not actually saying Trump was innocent, but still arguing against prosecution/impeachment.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 11:25am, you’ve distorted what Bob says about the distinction between lying and being misinformed, uninformed, or illogical.

      Delete
    4. No, Cecelia. Somerby claimed numerous times that he felt Trump truly believed he won. That wasn’t a distinction, it was an assertion on Somerby’s part. He used that in part to question the idea that Trump had any corrupt intent, which in his mind undermined the ability to prosecute him. For what it’s worth, he also argued that that made it ill-advised to charge him with obstruction of justice, when the mueller report was out.

      Delete
    5. 11:54,
      Perhaps you can explain Bob's point, better than his gibberish. Do you mind taking a crack at it, for us?

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 12:37pm, Bob has made the distinction between Trump having views Bob feels are asinine rather than Trump just telling “lies”, but I’ve never seen Bob say that about Trump’s claims of voting fraud.

      Delete
    7. "... Trump is not being treated like other cases."

      He's just been given another 10 days to come up with less than half of the original bond amount. Also, no criminal prosecution.

      Given the scope of Trump's fraud, he's not deserving of any deference at all.

      Delete
    8. Of course Somerby has said that maybe Trump really believes he won the election.

      Here is one place:

      "The headline said that Trump had lied. The report said something different.

      For ourselves, we would have tilted toward "unfounded," not "false." But then, we believe that journalists should "use their words" to make accurate statements—accurate statements in which they report the things they actually know."

      "THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2017

      Part 3—Crazy men tell no lies: On Tuesday morning, the New York Times did something very exciting."

      https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2017/01/falsehoods-misstatements-and-lies_26.html

      Today, we know that Trump was lying about winning because so many members of his own staff reported trying to convince him of that, because of statements Trump himself made indicating knowledge or his loss, and because it has become an article of faith and part of his stump speeches to insist that he was robbed and things were rigged. He cannot continue to insist this after the testimony of the 1/6 Hearing (which Somerby seem to have watched).

      If you haven't seen Somerby say this stuff, Cecelia, you must not have been paying attention, but I think it is far more likely that YOU are lying.

      Delete
    9. Somerby seems NOT to have watched.

      Delete
    10. Trump is NOT being treated like other cases. He is being given the benefit of EVERY doubt. That is unfair to routine defendants. It suggests one system of justice for the rich and a different one for the poor and middle class and that is inherently unfair.

      Delete
  3. Why hasn’t Somerby explained what a RICO law is about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And why should he need to? Why is this hard to grasp? Murder is a crime. Theft is a crime. Fraud is a crime. Rico is a law. Is there something hard to grasp about that?

      Delete
    2. There are crimes and there are hate crimes, committed against specific groups of people motivated by hate. These are defined by additional legislation to prevent the targeting of minority groups by bigots. There is a penalty for murder and there is an additional penalty for "special circumstances". These are defined by additional law than applies to murder itself. Rico was created in order to prosecute Mafia and corrupt union organizations whose organizations engaged in systematic crime in order to control income and maintain power. That fits what Trump has been doing, including his conspiracy to stay in office by submitting fake electors. There was an additional special law written to prosecute the KKK for its terrorist acts immediately after the civl War, when Jim Crow was being enforced on newly freed black slaves throughout the South. Several of these specific laws have been superseded by new laws. Donald Trump worked amicably with the mob bosses in his construction in NYC. He knows how RICO crimes work, even if his MAGAts do not.

      Delete
  4. They put the Al Capone in prison for cheating on his taxes, just because he was "controversial".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And caused 29 people+ to be murdered by his gang.

      Delete
    2. That's what made him "controversial".

      Delete
  5. “we've never seen an explanation of the unusual-seeming procedure according to which an individual may have to raise a large sum of money before he can pursue an appeal of a legal finding.”

    Here, Bob. It took me a long time to find this, maybe 2 minutes:

    “Appeal Bond: What it is, How it Works, Special Considerations”

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/appeal-bond.asp

    You see, it’s standard, not “unusual”, practice. Your bond will be returned to you if your appeal is successful. But if it fails, it shows that you will pay the original judgment. It’s a way of ensuring that you don’t simply skip out on your legal obligations. You’ve heard of criminal defendants posting bond? Well, similar idea here. Would you like for me to tell you how bonds work in criminal proceedings?

    Got it, Bob?

    Anything else I can help you with?

    Oh, and by the way, this has been explained over and over on MSNBC. Perhaps you were watching Gutfeld.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As to Brooks’ (and Somerby’s) “concern”: so, we should just ignore massive business fraud? Is that what you’re saying? Or are you both implying it’s a political prosecution? So, in that case, are you saying that people running for President should not be prosecuted?

    ReplyDelete
  7. From a conservative POV, James's conduct was highly alarming. She got elected promising to find something for which she could prosecute Trump. She then found a unique theory to prosecute him. The bizarre fine was determined by a unique method. Stripping a losing candidate of his assets is the kind of thing banana republics and Putin do. There's no point in my debating this here, because people never change their minds.

    I do want to make a point I had thought of and which Scott Adams discussed this morning -- prominent black misbehavior. Letitia James and Fani Willis are behaving highly unprofessionally, corruptly and perhaps illegally. Trump haters don't see this, but half the country does. When two black women are the face of corrupt government, what does that do to the image of blacks in general? It hurts their image. And, how does that affect the election? It helps Trump.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please explain how Letitia James is corrupt, David. Also, even if true, does that exonerate Trump’s business fraud?

      Delete
    2. “ prominent black misbehavior.”

      You and Adams sure do focus in on race, don’t you? It’s disgusting.

      Delete
    3. @11:08 Please re-read my comment. I specifically mentioned 3 or 4 corrupt things she did.

      Does her behavior exonerate Trump's business fraud? I don't know enough to say. Is it normal for borrowers to exaggerate their assets, knowing that the lenders will do their own audit? It's certainly abnormal to prosecute a victimless crime. Given that nobody lost money, James used a unique calculation to come up with the fine. To me it looks like Trump's crime, if it is a crime, was minor. But, I don't know enough about commercial real estate to have a valid opinion.

      Delete
    4. @11:31 I expected that. As I mentioned yesterday, noticing accurately something bad about blacks leads to being called a racist.

      The trouble is, there's a reality out there. Even if we're not permitted to talk about it, the harm to the image of black Americans is real. Those of us who care about blacks should all be concerned.

      Delete
    5. You did not show James’ prosecution was corrupt or illegal, David. I would also suggest you gather more knowledge, which you admit is lacking. Perhaps then you wouldn’t be so cavalier in accusing James of corruption and “black misbehavior.” It’s really disgusting, David.

      Delete
    6. David, would you say that Trump’s behavior harms the image of white people?

      Delete
    7. Here David is relying on a prominent white racist cartoonist.

      Delete
    8. I can’t speak for David, but yes, Trump makes white men look bad, entitled, ignorant. Also, you didn’t ask, but Fani Willis makes it look like black women can’t be trusted with power. Remember, she used RICO to punish teachers who cheated on high-stakes tests. And now she’s made a mess of the Trump case in Georgia.

      Delete
    9. David’s support for Israel’s crimes hurts the reputation of old Jewish men.

      Delete
    10. Why do you make it about race, 12:20? And, the Georgia case has yet to be put to a jury. That will be the indication of whether the case is a “mess.” Oh, and what was the outcome of her prosecution of those teachers? Juries found them guilty. And, if Trump makes white men look bad, then by your “logic”, white men can’t be trusted with power.

      Delete
    11. I rather like the theory that you can't be held accountable for your crimes, if you file election papers.
      I can see the range of candidates the public gets to choose from broadening substantially with this understanding.

      Delete
    12. I like the theory that all you need to be excused is being a well-meaning elderly man with bad memory.

      This is much easier than filing election papers.

      Delete
    13. The amount of the judgement for this “victimless crime” was calculated as the amount of interest Trump would have paid on the loans he got preferential treatment for based upon his lying about his assets. If you go to 7/11 and take a candy bar off the shelf, leaving the amount on the shelf equal to its wholesale cost, you have stolen profit from the store owner. This is obvious to anyone but David in Cal.

      Delete
    14. Bankers testified and stated, under oath, that they had no problem with customer's own evaluation of the collateral. It didn't affect the interest.

      Delete
    15. I guess they weren't convincing.

      Delete
    16. This doesn't explain the tax cheating eithers. Wasn't one of Trump's witnesses paid $900,000 to testify?

      Delete
    17. Running for office is not a "get out of jail free card" but it does lower one's chances of being elected. No one drops charges if you file for office. This sounds like Republican/Russian disinformation to me.

      Delete
    18. Is "black misbehavior" a euphemism for sex? Why isn't an adult woman allowed to have a sex life, black or white. No wrongdoing was uncovered but the judge asked Willis to fire her friends in order to eliminate the perception of wrongdoing or conflict of interest.

      Delete
    19. Quaker in a BasementMarch 25, 2024 at 10:13 PM

      DiC: You don't really need to know much about real estate to understand the case. Here's a link to Engoron's order:

      https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/02/Judge-Engoron-ruling-in-Trump-New-York-civil-fraud-case.pdf

      The nut of it is as follows: The Trump organization added phony assets to their balance sheet to get lower interest rates from lenders tu the tune of 4% lower. As a privately held company, there are no audited statements of finances like you'd expect for a publicly traded company. In several significant cases, Trump's loans would have been called in or never issued at all if they had been truthful about the company's finances.

      There's nothing unique about the prosecution's theory of the case or the method for determining the penalty. Read it for yourself.

      Delete
    20. Quaker in a BasementMarch 25, 2024 at 10:15 PM

      @3:20

      "Bankers testified and stated, under oath, that they had no problem with customer's own evaluation of the collateral. It didn't affect the interest."

      https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/02/Judge-Engoron-ruling-in-Trump-New-York-civil-fraud-case.pdf

      Delete
  8. "RICO isn't a crime" is one of the dumbest things ever said by anyone in Congress.

    Carville was right. The Democrat party is dominated by "dumb, scolding preachy females." No straight man belongs there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RICO isn’t a crime. It’s a law.

      Delete
    2. 11:25 do you always need the simplest things explained to you?

      Delete
    3. Repeating stupid stuff doesn't make it true.

      Delete
    4. Misogynists hang out on the right. Carville may have been watching too much Fox News, like Somerby does.

      Delete
    5. Carville sounds like a dumb scolding preachy man who dislikes the CIA.

      Delete
  9. Carville also said that Biden, a politician for decades, couldn’t do the “wet work” (CIA slang for killing people) and needs operatives to do it for him.

    That’s quite the imagery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s absurd. So he’s saying that Biden isn’t a killer. Neither is any politician. What’s the fucking point?

      Delete
    2. Cecilia's world view is always fed on colorful innuendo loosely tied to castles in the air.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. 2024 at 12:10 PM
      Anonymouse 11:43sm, you just made my point via your limited imagination which is actually imerely you playing dumb(er).

      Delete
    5. What was your point? That that’s “some imagery”?

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 12:50pm, indeed. And Carville went on to define wet work as taking someone “out”. Are we now going to have another round of you playing dumb(er)?

      Delete
    7. What the fuck are you talking about? The term has been around quite a while:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetwork

      Are you drunk?

      Delete
    8. Cecelia, you own Carville an apology.

      "The expression and the similar wet job, wet affair, or wet operation are all calques [translations] of Russian terms for such activities and can be traced to criminal slang from at least the 19th century and originally meant robbery that involved murder or the spilling of blood"

      Delete
    9. Here is what Carville said, referring to Biden as an "attack politician" not as a murderer:

      ""Yeah, not so much him," Carville responded. "I mean, to be candid, Anderson, President Biden is not the best attack politician I've ever seen in my life, and I'll leave it at that. But there are a lot of people to do what I call 'the wet work.'"

      "Sounds like a mob hit," Anderson quipped.

      "Well, it's kind of, but it's paid TV and stuff like that. But yes, that's a CIA term," Carville said. "Take a guy out."

      He continued, "But he doesn't need to do the wet work. People like me and other groups in the party need to do that. He's not very good at it. I don't think people want to hear from that. And then he can, you know, cruise along here at a better altitude. But this has got to be done, and they've got to press this advantage right now when they have it."

      Carville is called a "political activist" but he has no affiliation with the Biden campaign or administration. Meanwhile, Biden's image is of a friendly good guy, not a killer, and it makes no sense to change that when it is a strength for Biden. Biden has enough examples of "getting tough" in foreign affairs and busines, and he beat Trump in 2020. But Carville is one of the voices who is claiming that Trump will win becase Biden is too much of a nice guy.

      Meanwhile, Carville is 79 years old. He may not be at his best as an analyst and he has motives for trying to attract attention to himself. I doubt that many Democrats would be attracted to a Biden who engaged in Trump's bombast and drama. Even Republicans are getting tired of Trump's schtick. I think Democrats find it reassuring that their candidate is not a looney tune (like Carville clearly is).

      Delete
    10. Trump didn't take out Haley or DeSantis and now both are serving as magnets for disaffected Republican votes.

      Biden's gentle humor gets his points across fine. He has no competitors on the left, so there is no one to "take out" meanwhile Trump is going to jail, so there is no need for Carville's suggested swagger.

      Delete
    11. Carville is using Trump's tactics to draw attention to himself for his own self-interest. He doesn't help Biden with this bilge.

      Delete
  10. Slightly off topic: It is interesting that Bob is able to touch on this without mentioning Bobulinski. This is the fellow who apparently was a friend and business partner of Hunter Biden who realized at some point that the Biden's were a crime family taking some bribes from Russia and China etc. and perhaps some other things that he can't in anyway prove or even suggest happened in a mildly convincing way.
    There have been a lot of strange conversions in all things Trump (running both ways) but nobody seems to know much about this guy (he does not like to talk about his connections to the Trump campaign, we do know that) on either side. But there just does not to seem to be any background on this colorful fellow anywhere that I can find.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This is the fellow who apparently was a friend and business partner of Hunter Biden"

      Oh, really? How long were they friends? What businesses did they run together as partners?

      Delete
  11. In the matter of Trump, Bob has had no problem looking the other way at mountains of bad behavior he has dismissed as "legal trivia." So he is in no position to question Capehart's judgement here. He has sided with Trump on every legal matter, and questioned the morality of those who disagree (they just like putting people in jail.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I’m waiting for David and Cecelia to say that RICO really is a crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rico isn’t a crime. The law isn’t a crime. It’s breaking that law thsts the crime.

      I hope you find this exegesis enlightening.

      Delete
    2. But normally the law and the crime are the same word. Homicide. Theft. Rape.

      Is RICO an exception?

      Delete
    3. Just because someone breaks the law doesn't make them an illegal. The illegality is in breaking the law.
      This IS enlightening.

      Delete
    4. Yes RICO is different than those terms, those terms indicate specific actions, whereas RICO is a legislative act that was passed to broaden the scope of the law enough to enable prosecution of those who have means to conceal their criminality.

      Delete
    5. So racketeering and corruption via organizations aren’t crimes.

      Who knew.

      Delete
    6. Murder, rape, and robbery aren’t laws, they’re crimes.

      Cecelia understands this distinction. I don’t always agree with her, but I respect her.

      Now how about David? Will he say RICO is a crime? If it’s not a crime, AOC is right.

      Delete
    7. 18 U.S. Code Chapter 103 - ROBBERY AND BURGLARY
      Is this a law or what?

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 1:06pm, if you say that you agree with me, you should understand that I find this to be an asinine argument in defense of AOC.

      On the other hand, the media flogs these things to death too.

      Delete
    9. I can't believe anyone would quibble over whether RICO is a crime or a law defining a crime. People are going to ridiculous lengths to defend AOC.

      Delete
    10. Bobulinski was asked directly if he was accusing President Biden of a crime. He stuttered out "rico". That is because he has jackshit on the president.
      go fuck yourself, David, you racist bastard

      Delete
    11. It's good that Bobulinski, the businessman, doesn't accuse people of crimes, idiot-moonbat. It's not his purview, you know.

      Delete
    12. Oh, yeah. Bobulinski merely accused Biden of a law.

      Delete
    13. Well, shit, Cecelia, he could think of any actual crimes.

      Delete
    14. Anonymouse 2:17pm, no, just the name of his favorite uncle.

      Delete
    15. What’s asinine? Defending AOC for saying RICO is not a crime? Or ridiculing her for correctly saying that RICO is not a crime?

      I say ridiculing her is asinine.

      Her point was that if we want to impeach Biden we have to say what specific crime he committed.

      Delete
    16. 18 US code 103 is a law. Robbery and burglary are crimes. If you want a conviction, you don’t just say “18 US code 103!” You specify the exact robbery or burglary the defendant committed. Where, when, against whom, for how much, and so on.

      Delete
    17. Claiming that there is a RICO case to be built against the Biden Crime Family is easy to say on one of the Crackpot right wing outlets where Cecelia gets her news. Much easier than naming an action that is illegal that a Republican could take to Court and say HERE is a LAW that had been broken by the Biden Crime Family and we want to see somebody charged. If you do that and it turns out to be BS you can face large fines as Trump already had this happen. That is the distinction AOC was making and Cecelia is too dumb to grasp.

      Delete
    18. @2:55 PM
      18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

      According to your logic, then, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 is a law and RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (aka RICO) is a crime.

      Delete
    19. To violate RICO, a person must engage in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise. The law defines 35 offenses as constituting racketeering, including gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, drug dealing, bribery. Significantly, mail and wire fraud are included on the list.Oct 15, 2023

      Do you understand yet, shit-for-brains Trump-humper?

      Delete
    20. RICO is different from homicide, theft, etc, because those are specific actions whereas RICO is a legislative act designed to go after those who try to hide their crimes behind a veneer of legality.

      This is bone simple stuff, but beyond the capabilities of Cecelia and David, not because they are dumb, but because they have been brainwashed by their cult.

      Delete
    21. So, then, hiding crimes behind a veneer of legality is not a specific action? What is it, a metaphysical phenomenon?

      Delete
    22. 4:08: WHAT CRIMES?

      Delete
    23. Ask 4:02 PM.

      Delete
    24. Saying that the Bidens are hiding their crimes behind a veneer of legality expresses Republican frustration that they have been unable to identify any crime (beyond Hunter's late taxes and his gun ownership when he was using drugs, neither of which would justify a RICO charge. Failure to identify any actual crimes means that the Bidens do not have a veneer of legality but are actually law-abiding and not a RICO crime organization (which requires criminal acts).

      Republicans have heard so often that there is dirt behind the Bidens, that if none is revealed, they believe it must be hidden. They do not consider either Biden not-guilty, for even a second.

      Delete
    25. AOC doesn't need defending.

      Delete
  13. Somerby continues his Trump Simp Tour 2024.

    Luntz's statement was covered in "blue tribe" media, in fact it was roundly mocked, including his ridiculous toupee.

    Somerby praises Trump's (and his supporters) style of attacking the blue tribe, he says Trump is smart and clever for his methods. Yet if the blue tribe engages, even tangentially, in similar methods, suddenly Somerby says the sky is falling.

    Somerby is barely less a conman than Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dic/Adams: A specific black person does something wrong or questionable. This makes all black people look bad.

    Please explain how this is not racist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 1:02pm, does the same go for blanked assertions about white privilege , entitlement, etc?

      Delete
    2. Answer the question, Cecelia.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 1:10pm, oh, no.

      You've told us where you stand as to the blanket labeling of black people. Now tell us where you fall as to that being done to whites.

      Delete
    4. @1:01 Facts are real, even if you call them racist. IMO a large number of Americans are affected by the examples of those two corrupt black women. You can call a lot of American racist, but that doesn't affect the reality that IMO the behavior of these two women makes blacks look worse to a lot of people.

      Delete
    5. 1:07 honestly, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read here.

      No the same does not go, they are completely different.

      Delete
    6. Why would people think that way, David? Do they think all white people are implicated when one white person does something wrong? Can you even begin to understand why that’s bigotry?

      Delete
    7. @3:55 You can call it bigotry if you like. Maybe it was bigotry to notice that George Floyd was black.

      BTW did you really not notice the race and sex of these two prosecutors? If so, I salute you.

      Nevertheless, if their behavior hurts the image of black Americans, that matters, even if you think many of us are bigots.

      Delete
    8. David, everyone needs to quit judging an entire group based on a specific individual. It’s just wrong. And yes, in this case, it’s bigotry. You don’t get to excuse the thinking that denigrates all blacks because of two specific individuals. Sorry, but that’s the freaking definition.

      Delete
    9. …definition of bigotry, as much as you and Cecelia want to dance around it.

      Delete
    10. Was it bigotry to notice that no good guy with a gun showed-up in that 15 minute video of George Floyd being murdered by a police officer?
      Of course not, but it definitely hurt the image of good guys with guns.
      Is that your point, David?

      Delete
    11. @4:12 - you have a valid point. I agree that it is bigotry to judge an entire group based on a specific individual. Judging white police based on the actions of Derek Chauvin is bigotry. Judging white people based on actions by George Zimmerman is flagrant bigotry, since Zimmerman is actually Hispanic.

      OK we can agree that these things are bigotry. But, what does that label get us? If the actions of these two corrupt prosecutors hurt the reputation of black Americans, that's unfortunate. It's not good.

      Delete
    12. Each of the white people who watched Chauvin murder a man without intervening have been judged, either in court of in public opinions.

      Zimmerman and other hispanics who join white supremacy organizations and militias are in full flight from the knowledge of their own ethnicity. See the various analyses of how Hitler's own part-Jewish heritage affected his psyche and later actions.

      Who exactly are you talking about when you refer to black women? The ones doing their jobs as prosecutors and judges?

      Delete
    13. David is hinting that the women prosecuting Trump should be reviled for persecuting him.

      I admire their courage, knowing that they will be targets of MAGA hate on a personal and professional level.

      Delete
    14. The reason why there are several high ranking black women as prosecutors and DAs is that it is easier for black law grads to get hired under civil service protections. It is much less likely that even the most talented black women will be hired into a top law firm, especially in the South. Further, in my experience, black students at the college level tend to be motivated by doing some good in the world, not making a lot of money, which leads them to jobs in law enforcement and non-profit orgs. These are economic realities that David may not have considered, but it may seem to him with his race-conscious perception that there are way too many black women in high places where they can make Trump's life difficult. If you start with the premise that there should be none, David may feel like he is being inundated by black lawyers.

      Notice that Trump has had no black lawyers on any of his legal teams. That may look normal to David.

      After firing Omarosa, Trump had no black senior staff and refused to answer questions about why. In 2020, Trump claimed 25% of his senior staff were
      "people of color". That number may have been achieved by defining Asians and Hispanics and Middle Easterners as "people of color" and redefining who he considered "senior staff."

      On his current staff, Brian Jack is not the Zydeco artist (despite coming from Ben Carlson's staff) but a white guy, as is Susie Wiles. That leave only Steven Cheung, an Asian POC with the potty mouth that Republicans admire so much.

      No wonder David thinks that an absence of black people is the natural state in the USA. So, if some black women are prosecuting Trump, it must not be because they are doing their jobs, but because they sought out the position in order to persecute Trump. Because, after all, their natural jobs are all somewhere else, doing something else.

      Delete
    15. @6:39 I'm not just hinting that these two prosecutors should be reviled. I am flat-out saying they're corrupt. OTOH I am not surprised that you and many others admire them for "getting" Trump. Many people think Trump deserves to be punished.

      You wrote something which is incredibly opposite of the case: "It is much less likely that even the most talented black women will be hired into a top law firm..." On the contrary, organizations of all sorts are desperately trying to hire qualified blacks. It's much easier for a talented black woman to get hired than an equally talented white man.

      Maybe we need to debate this specific assertion, given our opposite views of reality. I invite others to comment on this issue.

      A related problem is the shortage of highly capable blacks. As Bob often tells us, on average blacks in school are 3 to 4 years behind whites and 4 to 5 years behind Asians. No doubt, that kind of gap persists when it comes to professional competence, although I don't know how to measure it. Of course, that's only an average. There are many highly capable blacks in the professions, but there's bigger percentage of highly capable Asians.

      You accuse me of thinking these prosecutors "sought out the position in order to persecute Trump." Are you not aware that James specifically promised to get Trump during her campaigning? E.g., see Letitia James Vowed To Target Trump: Promise Kept
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/letitia-james-vowed-to-target-trump-promise-kept/ar-BB1iRzUz

      Delete
    16. Correction -- the second paragraph is about a comment by @8:19

      Delete
    17. So, “getting” Trump is corrupt? I guess it’s just too convenient that he committed actual fraud. The charges weren’t made up, he wasn’t framed, and he got a fair hearing, despite publicly ridiculing and threatening the judge and the prosecutors. You’re just … sad, David.

      Delete
    18. David,
      Where was your anger when the government went after poor Osama bin Laden for his free speech?
      Should have spoken-up then. It might have kept Trump from being prosecuted now.
      Oh well...

      Delete
    19. First they came for Osama bin Laden, but I said nothing because I'm a hateful American blinded by vengeance...

      Delete
  15. President Biden has cut taxes overall during his time in office, according to an analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The tax cuts signed by Biden for individuals and corporations are larger than the tax increases he has imposed on big corporations and their shareholders. The analysis estimates that Biden's tax changes will amount to a net cut of about $600 billion over four years and slightly more than that over a full decade. However, Biden has struggled to pass his most ambitious tax-raising plans, and his record has not matched his own ambitions for taxing the rich and big companies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. " ...his own ambitions for taxing the rich and big companies."

      His own ambitions? Didn't he, before the 2020 election, assure his sponsors-oligarch that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he is elected?

      Delete
    2. Did the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center analyze how the 20,000 new IRS auditors Biden wants hired would effect federal tax revenues?

      Delete
    3. Quote @1:39 please...

      Delete
    4. Here Biden talks about raising the corporate rate to 28%:

      https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/joe-biden-tax-plan-2020/

      In the Washington Post he says:

      "“I will raise taxes for anybody making over $400,000. … No new taxes [for people making less than $400,000], there would be no need for [any].”

      — Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, interview on ABC’s “20/20,” Aug. 23, 2020

      “Nobody making under 400,000 bucks would have their taxes raised, period, bingo.”

      — Biden, interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” May 22

      Biden has pledged to reverse much of President Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations to fund, in part, ambitious climate, education and health-care plans. But he has drawn a firm line if he is elected president — no new taxes for anyone making less than $400,000."

      I wouldn't call any of that reassuring for oligarchs (whatever you mean by that term).

      Delete
    5. All quotes from 2020 during election.

      Delete

    6. Interview to ABC (and such) is bs for the rubes. What politicians say to their sponsors (oligarchs) is what you need to pay attention to. Take it as a free advice, my friend.

      Delete
    7. Of course he talks about it. Hehe.

      Delete
    8. You still haven't provided any support for your claim.

      Delete
    9. Weirdo Mao just makes shit up. He has no idea what he's talking about. His biases and conspiratorial habits of mind force him to assume that Biden is corrupt and in on some big corporate/oligarchical scheme to screw the hoi polloi. Has he actually done any real research about what Biden's presidency has been about? What he has accomplished? What he has TRIED to accomplish? Of course not. Here's the reality of the situation: Biden has actually TRIED to fulfill 98% of his major campaign promises, but of course Republicans have stymied, stalled, or forced a compromise on a majority of them: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true

      Delete
    10. Here, learn something dummies: "Everyone knows that politicians make all kinds of crazy promises during elections that they jettison as soon as they take office.
      At least everyone thinks they know that. But it's not true. In an article for the January/February issue of the Washington Monthly, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein argues that the evidence on this point is clear: "Presidents usually try to enact the policies they advocate during the campaign."
      We can all think of exceptions, of course. George H.W. Bush told the country to read his lips — a turn of speech that’s always confused me, incidentally; is lip-reading really so much more accurate than listening? — and then he raised taxes anyway. But such betrayals are not the rule.
      Bernstein relies on two studies from the 1980s to make his point. In 1984, Michael Krukones published "Promises and Performance: Presidential Campaigns as Policy Predictors," and found that "about 75 percent of the promises made by presidents from Woodrow Wilson through Jimmy Carter were kept." In 1985, Jeff Fishel published "Presidents and Promises: From Campaign Pledge to Presidential Performance," which argued "that presidents invariably attempt to carry out their promises; the main reason some pledges are not redeemed is congressional opposition, not presidential flip-flopping."
      More recent evidence supports this view, too. Politifact.com has tracked more than 500 promises Barack Obama made during the 2008 presidential campaign. It found he has kept 161, passed a compromised version of another 50, and has either been rebuffed by Congress or is making progress toward another 239. In only 56 cases — about 10 percent — has Obama actually broken a promise." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/presidents-keep-their-campaign-promises/2011/08/25/gIQAwCA9DQ_blog.html

      Delete
  16. While Afghanistan and Gaza starve, while the president signs into law a ban on suing the most moral army in the world, the very important legal scholars worry if Trump's businesses will go under.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Famine in brown country: They deserved it!

      Bankruptcy of a billionaire America: What if that happened to me?

      Delete
  17. “I was an actuary, working in insurance, and I believe using falsified real estate and net worth valuations to obtain favorable loan and insurance rates is not illegal. In fact, it should be mandatory. Why should any insurance company complain? Everyone should do it.” Signed, DIC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fact @11:12, no insurance company did complain. Nobody complained. Nobody was harmed. The prosecutor found a unique law that allowed her to prosecute a victimless crime.

      Normally the fine would be based on the amount of the damage, but nobody was harmed. There was no damage. So, they came up with a new and unique method of assigning an enormous fine.

      When this kind of made-up, jury-rigged, unique law enforcement is applied to the other party's Presidential candidate, that is scandalous. If Trump's prosecution and fine followed normal procedure, that would be one thing, but what happened was the opposite.

      Delete
    2. In bizzarroworld, white-collar crimes would be prosecuted, and black people could use "stand your ground" laws.

      Delete