TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2024
The doorman knocks early and often: Journalistically speaking—and "at long last"—is it time for her to go?
Journalistically speaking, we refer to Lisa Rubin. She's either "an MSNBC legal analyst" or "an MSNBC legal correspondent," depending on which part of the thumbnail you read.
She's a relatively recent addition to the army of legal contributors who have clogged the airwaves at that Blue America corporate channel keeping ratings and profits high. She's also a food, decent person.
That said:
This morning, she appeared on Morning Joe to discuss the events which took place yesterday at the Donald J. Trump election conspiracy trial.
She appeared at the start of the 6 o'clock hour. By this afternoon, we'll be able to link you to videotape of what she said, and we'll give you a fuller transcript.
We did manage to capture some exact quotes as she spoke about yesterday's opening statement by the prosecution. She voiced her concern about something she heard—rather, about the things she didn't hear.
In Rubin's view, several dogs had failed to bark within one part of the case against Trump.
Several dogs had failed to bark! Rubin voiced her concern:
What I didn't hear as much about is how Donald Trump then directed the coverup. How are they going to prove that?
I was hoping to hear that they have a lot more than that. I didn't hear that yet. I'm hoping that we hear prosecutors have a lot more about the back end of the deal—as much as they have about the front end of it.
Later, we'll offer a complete transcript. You'll be able to see the fuller remarks, in which Rubin announced that she's rooting for the prosecution to have a full and complete mountain of evidence against defendant Donald J. Trump.
Credit where due! Rubin wasn't hiding the fact that she, as a major journalist, is rooting for a criminal conviction. We recalled the remarkable breakdown form last year, when Rubin and several other "legal analysts" reported that they were pre-existing personal friends of E. Jean Carroll, who was suing Trump in civil court for an alleged sexual assault.
Carroll won her case. For reasons which never went explained, MSNBC had assigned several of her personal friends to report on the progress of her trial.
Journalistically speaking, that struck us as a remarkable state of affairs. This morning, there was Rubin, making it clear that she's rooting for the Yankees, not for the Red Sos. Or you may choose to see it the other way around.
This afternoon, we'll link you to tape. We'll transcribe the full statement.
Journalistically speakng, it it time for her to go? We'll link, then you can decide.
Meanwhile, back at the New York Times, it was Protess and Bromwich all over again. Today, though, they were listed as Bromwich and Protess.
Their front-page report about yesterday's session contains 36 paragraphs. In our view, the "mountain of evidence" boys got to the doorman fast. Front-page headline included:
An Unprecedented Trial Opens With Two Visions of Trump
(1) Manhattan prosecutors delivered a raw recounting of Donald J. Trump’s seamy past on Monday as they debuted their case against him to jurors, the nation and the world, reducing the former president to a co-conspirator in a plot to cover up three sex scandals that threatened his 2016 election win.
(2) Their opening statement was a pivotal moment in the first prosecution of an American president, a sweeping synopsis of the case against Mr. Trump, who watched from the defense table, occasionally shaking his head. Moments later, Mr. Trump’s lawyer delivered his own opening, beginning with the simple claim that “President Trump is innocent,” then noting that he is once again the presumptive Republican nominee and concluding with an exhortation for jurors to “use your common sense.”
[...]
(8) Matthew Colangelo, a senior aide to the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, then seized on what he called a conspiracy in the criminal case. Over the course of a 45-minute opening, as Mr. Bragg watched from the front row, Mr. Colangelo calmly walked the jury through the prosecution’s argument that Mr. Trump orchestrated the plot to corrupt the 2016 election.
(9) The scheme, he explained, involved hush-money deals with three people who had salacious stories to sell: a porn star, a Playboy model and a doorman at one of Mr. Trump’s buildings.
(10) Mr. Trump, who faces up to four years in prison, directed allies to buy those people’s silence to protect his candidacy, Mr. Colangelo explained. Mr. Pecker took care of the model and the doorman, while Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer who is set to be the prosecution’s star witness, paid off the porn star.
Mr. Pecker took care of the doorman. The doorman arrived in paragraph 9, or perhaps right in paragraph 1.
The doorman arrived in paragraph 9, or possibly in paragraph 1. It wasn't until paragraph 25 that we rubes were advised about this minor detail:
(24) The plan was to watch out for any damaging stories about Mr. Trump—and then hide them from voters.
(25) Such stories arose swiftly. Soon, Mr. Pecker bought the silence of the doorman, whose story about Mr. Trump fathering a child out of wedlock turned out to be false.
The doorman's story—sold for cash in 2015, it dated back to the 1980s—turned out to be false! The doorman had been threatening to spread a story which happened to be untrue.
Presumably, Donald J. Trump would have known that the doorman's tale was untrue. But according to the logic of the Times report, Trump had engaged in a "plot to corrupt the 2016 election" by taking steps to stop a money-grubbing sleaze merchant from peddling a tale which was false.
So goes one part of the logic. According to Bromwich and Protess' account of the prosecution's claims, this was part of the gentleman's crime. More specifically, this was part of his corruption of our election!
The doorman knocks early and often in this morning's Times. That said, we don't have access to the text of the prosecution's actual opening statement. For that reason, we can't show you the precise way Prosecutor Colangelo presented this suppression of a false claim—the way he allegedly scored it as one part of the defendant's felonious crime.
We can tell you this:
Last night, an "all-star panel" had been gathered on Blue America's MSNBC for a special Ttump On Trial program.
Who sat on that all-star panel? When Rachel Maddow called the roll, it turned out that they were just the same old people who host the channel's shows each night!
(Everyone was there except Ari Melber, the channel's top legal host!)
To our ear, the all-stars were rather promiscuous, throughout their two hours, in the way they cited the doorman, generally failing to let us know that the story he had been threatening to peddle was false.
Like Bromwich and Protess, they downplayed that minor wrinkle. No one ever mentioned the presumptive fact that Donald J. Trump would have known, decades later, that the doorman's story was false.
The doorman's story wasn't true; the doorman's story was false! Mentioning that basic fact reminds us out here in soma land:
Sometimes, the exciting things that people say lack the advantage of being true!
The doorman's story was false. How about the claim by Stormey Daniels—the claim that she had consensual sex, on one occasion in 2006, with the defendant Donald J. Trump?
Is it possible that her claim is false? Well yes, of course it is!
We ourselves would be inclined to bet that her claim is actually true. But we can't exactly prove it.
Have previous president engaged in sexual relations with women (arguably, even with one girl) not their wives? Dear Jack was worst of all, but the answer is screamingly yes.
In her 2019 biography of Barbara Bush, Susan Page judged that President Bush 41 had a long affair with NAME WITHHELD. For Peter Baker's account in the New York Times, you can just click here.
We don't know if that judgment was accurate. That said, NAME WITHHELD came from the finer class. All-stars only scream and yell when extramarital sex is had with a woman from a lower station, with (say it loud!) someone described a "a porn star." Everyone knew they mustn't discuss the conclusion Page had drawn.
At any rate, Donald J. Trump corrupted our 2016 election by suppressing a false report! This is the way the accusation scans in the hands of Bromwich and Protess, and we suppose in the somewhat shaky hands of the prosecution.
In fairness, we checked with other major news orgs. We checked to see how often the doorman knocked in their accounts of yesterday's opening statement.
We checked with the Washington Post. We checked with the Associated Press (no paywall).
We checked with CNN (no paywall). We checked with the mothership—with NBC News itself (no paywall).
None of them even mentioned the doorman in their reports on the opening statement! At the glorious New York Times, the doorman knocked in paragraph 1—and you had to get to paragraph 25 to learn that his story was false, with no mention of the fact that Donald J. Trump presumably would have known that.
In our view, the all-stars were quite promiscuous last night with a second part of this clumsy logical fandango. We refer to the reason(s) why Michael Cohen went to prison.
The all-stars kept referring to his jailing—and they kept finessing some basic facts. This brings us up to what Joe Scarborough said, this very morning, about Yeats and The Second Coming.
"Thew worst are full of passionate intensity," Yeats said in his famous poem. Scarborough quoted the line.
Journalistically speaking, it isn't always all that easy to see where "the worst" are plying their trade.
The garbage is frequent at the "cable news" channel which exists in service to Red America. Journalistically, are some of the worst now found on Blue America's channel too? In our most famous newspaper?
At any rate, there was Rubin, this very morning, rooting, and rooting quite hard, for a criminal conviction. Later today, we'll link you to the videotape of what this good, decent person said.
She said she's hoping to learn that the prosecutors have more evidence than they suggested. Gone with the wind are the very old days of "just the [relevant] facts."
With us now are the fully emerging days of the clan. Within that realm, a criminal corrupted our election by suppressing a bogus tale!
Tomorrow: Wherever the winding road leads
"She's either "an MSNBC legal analyst" or "an MSNBC legal correspondent," depending on which part of the thumbnail you read."
ReplyDeleteThese aren't job titles, they are roles. Is this worth taking a snipe at the woman, who has no say in how she is described?
"She's also a food, decent person."
DeleteEveryone's gotta eat.
Did her plane go down in New Guinea?
Delete"Rubin announced that she's rooting for the prosecution to have a full and complete mountain of evidence against defendant Donald J. Trump." Any halfway decent person would be.
DeleteCarroll didn't win her case because she was friends with Rubin. She won because Trump was guilty. It makes no difference to anything whether Carroll knew Rubin (who had no connection to the case at all). Somerby raises these red herrings hoping dumb readers will think there was something fishy going on.
ReplyDeleteWhere was Somerby during the Carroll trials? He didn't seem to want to talk about them back then.
DeleteSomerby raised it as critcism of the media coverage. Did you miss that part? It is right there above so I guess so. Would you like to me to explain in extreme detail what exactly his point is? Reading is a problem for you I guess. I get it. It stinks have to go through all those words sometimes.
DeleteJust let me know and I'll show you where you've misunderstood this post!!!
Somerby's claim to be engaging in media criticism is the rock he hides behind when casting his own stones. There is no "media criticism" involves in calling Rachel Maddow and Lisa Rubin names because they have opinions.
DeleteI have posted many actual examples of media criticism here and none of them resemble what Somerby does here.
1:18 thank you for your fascinating contributions!!! They are really interesting in many ways. ;)
Delete"Several dogs had failed to bark! Rubin voiced her concern:
ReplyDeleteWhat I didn't hear as much about is how Donald Trump then directed the coverup. How are they going to prove that?"
Somerby is the one characterizing her concern as dogs failing to bark in the night. The prosecution has only just begun to present its case. It cannot do everything at once. They will get there in their own time and presenting things in whatever order they decide. It is ludicrous to talk about weakenesses in the case given that they have barely begun to present it.
Today is about violations of the gag order. That dog probably won't bark today either.
Somerby accidentally left off quotation marks around what he claims Rubin said, so it is hard to know what is Somerby speaking and what is Rubin.
DeleteHow do you know it was an accident?
DeleteFreud would say there are no accidents.
Delete"To our ear, the all-stars were rather promiscuous, throughout their two hours, in the way they cited the doorman, generally failing to let us know that the story he had been threatening to peddle was false. "
ReplyDeleteHow do we know that story was false. It is different to say that it was unproven. Given Trump's promiscuity, it seems more likely there was such a child, perhaps followed by an abortion or adoption, or payoff to claim there was no such child or affair. We just don't know and anything is possible (even probably given's Trump's reputation and proven actions with other women).
Notice how certain Somerby can be in situations where he is advancing his preferred narrative. No weaselly words when proclaiming Trump innocent of something, even though it remains that he may or may not have had an affair with a staff member that gave rise to the rumor. Somerby doubts Trump slept with Stormy but he's damned certain about the absence of a lovechild it seems obvious Trump is hiding (by paying hush money)! When no such child exists wouldn't a miser like Trump be more likely to tell the doorman to fuck off?
Ari Melber wasn't there! What can that mean? Maybe Rachel thinks she can conduct her show on her own?
ReplyDelete"Journalistically speaking, it isn't always all that easy to see where "the worst" are plying their trade. "
ReplyDeleteOh come on! Isn't it obviously Gutfeld? If Somerby cannot say Fox definitively, he is no blue tribe member, not even a blue clan member. He is pretending to be a fake media critic in order to bash Lisa Rubin and Rachel Maddow (for failing to invite Ari Melber, who was probably home eating) instead of quoting Yeats.
I suspect Scarborough did not quote Yeats. Somerby himself has mentioned that particular quote several times, so I think he is making it up that Morning Joe said it, but I will not waste my time searching the transcript to prove something like that, which means nothing more than Somerby is bending the truth again, while complaining about not knowing whether Rubin is a correspondent or an analyst.
"I think he is making it up that Morning Joe said it, but I will not waste my time searching the transcript to prove something like that"
DeleteWhy waste your time trying to figure out if your smear is true or not, right? Just go to the comment section and spew it!
OK, I searched and Morning Joe did not mention Yeats today or recently (if ever). Somerby, on the other hand, has repeated this same Yeats quote several times and it is true that Yeats was attracted to elitism and authoritarianism at the end of his life (despite being part of the Irish Resistance early on). Read Wikipedia.
Delete"The garbage is frequent at the "cable news" channel which exists in service to Red America. Journalistically, are some of the worst now found on Blue America's channel too? In our most famous newspaper?"
ReplyDeleteNo, the garbage is thicker at Fox, but it is also thick here at Somerby's own blog. And no, it is not similar on so-called Blue America's channel, because blue America does not have a channel the way Fox belongs to Republicans. MSNBC and CNN are mainstream news channels, not partisan mouthpieces for Democrats. And news reporting and commentary are much more reliable at CNN and MSNBC than at Fox. It is unhelpful for Somerby to pretend otherwise, except that he clearly has to earn his rubles.
Repetition doesn't make anything true, but Somerby is working his little butt off. Today he criticizes Maddow without actually making any criticism of her -- evidence free name-calling. Somerby must have another medical appt to get to this afternoon.
Why would Somerby assume that Lisa Rubin's opinion about whether Trump should be convicted reflects the opinions of the entire MSNBC station? She is appearing to give her opinions. On a station with a diversity of opinions, Somerby is bound to hear some he disagrees with. That doesn't mean those opinions are those of the Station itself or of the hosts of the show, or of anyone else appearing. Mainstream media does not follow party talking points the way Fox and Newsmax do.
DeleteHere is Somerby's defense of Trump today. Barbara Bush says George H.W. had an affair with NAME WITHHELD, so that must make it OK for Trump to have assaulted 27+ women, including charges of rape! And it is only the lower class women who get named Somerby says (like Stormy, who is lower class because she was a successful sex worker, or maybe just coming forward with an accusation automatically makes a woman lower class according to Somerby's standards). So, if some other president had a consensual but adulterous affair, that makes anything Trump did A-OK with Somerby.
ReplyDeleteAnd once again, Somerby pretends this trial is about sex, and not election interference (as stated by the prosecutor). None of the 34 felony counts in Trump's indictment is about sex with Stormy or anyone else. They are all about CRIMES committed in Trump's attempt to win election by cheating and breaking rules.
Is Somerby stupid that he doesn't seem to understand this? Of course not. He is working for the Republicans to whitewash Trump and win in 2024. But how do you whitewash such a turd?
I'm sorry, I don't see where Somerby says that it is "OK for Trump to have assaulted 27+ women." Is this just more shit you're making up?
DeleteIf you read what Somerby wrote about Barbara Bush and George H.W.'s affair, it should be obvious that he is equating that with the "affairs" of Trump. The main problem with that formulation is that Trump didn't only engage in affairs but also in sexual abuse, assault and rape, according to the 27+ women who came forward after the Stormy Daniels affair because public (in 2018, when Daniels went to court to remove her NDA). The only way Trump can be considered in any way similar to Bush is to ignore the seriousness of those many accusations, which had nothing to do with adult consensual sex.
DeleteYou keep looking for direct quotes but Somerby doesn't say things that way. He doesn't say anything clearly at all, except when accusing Maddow of stuffing cash down her pants. Would it be safe for me to say, based on that statement, that Somerby dislikes Maddow? Somerby counts on excessively literal interpretations like yours, to absolve him of ever saying anything that he can be pinned down on.
Did you read the link I provided you to where Somerby spends an entire essay arguing that Chanel Miller was too drunk to accuse anyone of rape (despite Brock Turner's guilty verdict)?
So is this just more obfuscation, or is it your way of admitting that Somerby never said it was OK for Trump to assault 27+ women?
Delete(I love how your go-to move is to blow smoke by raising 15 other issues, virtually all of which are also untrue.)
Somerby equates George H.W. Bush's affair with Trump's affairs and I pointed out they are not the same. Why are you still talking about this?
Delete"Anything can be true" is Bob Somerby's only contribution to political discussions.
DeleteToday Somerby wants you to think that the current Trump trial is about the interpersonal sleazy (but legal) behavior Trump has engaged in - cheating on his wife, etc.; however, this agenda of Somerby's demonstrates his lack of integrity, as the trial is not about Trump's sleazy but legal behavior, the trial is about how Trump illegally falsified business records in furtherance of the crimes of election interference and violating campaign finance laws. In fact, it does not matter whether or not Trump fathered a secret child or repeatedly cheated on his wife, those claims could be proven false and it would not impact the charges. Ironically, it is Somerby that wants you to ignore Trump's illegality, and instead focus on the prurient behavior.
ReplyDeleteTo support his agenda, Somerby quotes from a poet!
And not just any poet, but one famous for an appreciation for fascism and a distaste for democracy. Here are some things Yeats said in the 30's as fascism was on the rise and only a few years before his death:
“I find myself constantly urging the despotic rule of the educated classes as the only end to our troubles.”
“everybody talked about progress...I took satisfaction in certain public disasters, felt a sort of ecstasy at the contemplation of ruin.”
Not too dissimilar from Somerby, Yeats warmly imagined a world where privileged elites ruled the dirty and thoughtless masses, and he appreciated disasters that aided in ruin, an end to democracy.
When you rely on storytellers, who are out to make a buck while manipulating readers towards some agenda, from which to make sweeping statements about human behavior, you are engaging in folly, falling for a con, and enabling ignorance.
In reality, what we know about human behavior comes from science, and it demonstrates that storytellers generally get human behavior wrong, largely because they are ignorant of the science.
Somerby's reliance on storytelling has led him to become a poor thinker.
Trump is not being accused by any clan. He was indicted by a grand jury of his peers who heard evidence presented by a prosecutor (because that is his job) and recommended Trump be tried. That is a legal mechanism to protect people from arbitrary prosecution. Trump has submitted numerous motions to dismiss to the judge, but these have all been denied, not because Merchan is a Democrat, but because they lacked legal merit (had no good arguments or evidence supporting the requests). These have been appealed and also denied. That makes it even more unlikely this is a frivolous or biased prosecution.
ReplyDeleteNow we are about to hear evidence, but Somerby appears to have already decided that Trump is not guilty, calling Stormy's complaint against Trump "a bogus story." Note that Somerby ignores the other evidence from Pecker and McDougal and Michael Cohen's evidence. He only talks about Stormy, apparently considering her the weakest link against Trump, when others find her credible, including the judge who found in her favor in 2018, dismissing the NDA as unenforceable and awarding her $44K in court costs.
Laws exist to be followed by all presidential candidates, not just the suckers. Trump has tried to ignore the court rules too, which is what the hearing on his violation of the Gag Order is about today. Trump continues to break rules. Many on the left consider this trial to be about whether any person, even the president, is above the law and can break laws with impunity and without consequence. Trump has argued yes and the court (on behalf of the People of New York) is saying no. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes on Trump's behalf, granting Trump immunity, he will finish this trial and abide by whatever verdict is rendered and sentence imposed, just like any other person would have to do. For those who believe in the rule of law, that is what this trial is about. Should a presidential candidate have to take his lump for getting caught violating multiple laws? Somerby says no. And it has nothing to do with clans.
"Somerby appears to have already decided that Trump is not guilty, calling Stormy's complaint against Trump "a bogus story."'
DeleteNot sure where you got Bob calling Stormy's complaint bogus. Today he says, "We ourselves would be inclined to bet that her claim is actually true."
As for the fairness of this prosecution, here's a thought exercise. Would Bragg have charged this case if the defendant was from a little town in Arkansas called Hope?
If the guy from Hope committed the crime in New York City, yes.
DeleteIt's bizarre how often Anonymice complain about Somerby saying something that he never actually said.
DeleteAnd so frequently it's like this example, where Somerby said he believes Stormy, which is then, paradoxically, taken as "proof" that he believes Trump. Or when Somerby says he supports Biden, which is "proof" that he supports Trump. Go figure.
Bragg would not charge someone in Arkansas because he is the DA in NYC, where the type of charges against Trump are so routine (they do over 100 similar cases in a year) that they call those cases their "bread and butter".
DeleteToday Somerby is referencing the doorman claim as "bogus", but in the past he did spend a fair amount of time questioning the veracity of Stormy. This is, of course, ignoring the actual charges in the trial, which are falsifying business records in furtherance of committing other crimes.
"the type of charges against Trump are so routine (they do over 100 similar cases in a year)"
DeleteSimilarity is in the eye of the beholder. Bragg is attempting to link the alleged business records violation to federal campaign finance law, which is being called a novel legal theory since it has never been tested.
So in that aspect, this prosecuton is unique.
And thanks for letting me know Arkansas is not in New York. I never stop learning when I read these comments.
If there were no basis to the case worthy of trial, the judge would have dismissed it already.
DeleteYou are conflating circumstances with theory. Bragg is using well established legal theory, it is the circumstances that are somewhat novel (in reality it has occurred before); however, the novelty of the circumstances have no bearing on the case, where one of the star witnesses will be someone who has already plead guilty for the same crime. In all likelihood the trial will result in a conviction, or a hung jury if there is a Trump supporter on the jury.
DeleteYour smugness aside, you could learn much from comments, but it seems like your personality is impeding any gain of knowledge that challenges your biases.
"the novelty of the circumstances have no bearing on the case"
DeleteObviously, you're not a lawyer.
Pied Piper,
Delete"Anything can be true" is the totality of Somerby's contribution to political/ media discussions over the last decade.
Everything else is something Somerby seems to say, or seems to not say. He's far too much of a coward to cop to believing the Right-wing Grievance of the Day he repeats here.
If you have any quotes where Bob takes a definitive stand, now might be the time to show your hand.
Good luck.
"'''Anything can be true'" is the totality of Somerby's contribution to political/ media discussions over the last decade."
DeleteObviously, you have a reading comprehension problem if that's all you've gleaned from Somerby's writings. And I have to wonder why you have read Somerby for ten years if this is all you've gotten out of it. But it's easy for me to show where he takes a stand. As but one example out of many - one I'm sure you're familiar with - he says that Americans have been siloed into Red medialand and Blue medialand.
Somerby says we liberals are not being well-served by this discrimination by viewpoint, especially since those who hold the microphones in our Blue silo are not very competent. And that, in part, is why it's so difficult for us to beat an orange-haired, clown conman.
Delete(And I could go on.)
What a pile of crap Somerby has produced. He builds a strawman about the media, providing no evidence (or trivial nitpicks that are overgeneralized), then berates the left, creates false equivalences, bothsiders the heck out of whatever the right does, and then calls us responsible for Trump when he is entirely the product of Russia/right wing extremism.
DeleteYou are so wrong about everything Pied Piper that you have to be paid to come here and write this shit. Please just go away. No one is convinced by your attacks on commenters here. You are just embarrassing yourself.
"Please just go away."
DeleteHere's the thing: You don't have to read what I write, just like you don't have to read what Somerby writes. I use a nym - just skip over my comments if you think they're shit. (Unfortunately, since you don't use a nym I'm forced to read your ridiculous comments.)
Fuck off.
DeleteHere's the thing. Somerby keeps posting bullshit, and we'll continue to point his bullshit out, no matter how much that gives you a sad.
DeleteLori and George Schappell have died.
ReplyDeleteI used to ditch third period, and eat at their diner, when I was in High School.
DeleteClosing time, L & G. Farewell.
DeleteWhere have you gone Charles Manson?
ReplyDeleteBob Somerby turns his lonely eyes to you.
Woo. Woo Woo.
Looks like the Jack Smith case against Trump is about to totally fall apart.
ReplyDeleteThat just leaves this case which is weak to the point of absurdity. Bragg has to prove intent. How is going to do that?
Really hoping the Supreme Court rules on Presidential immunity, and Biden has Trump sentenced to death.
DeleteLet's all cross our fingers.
How will Bragg prove intent? He has tapes of Trump instructing Michael Cohen to pay off Stormy.
Delete1:15 that doesn't prove the intent Bragg needs. You didn't read about this case? I can explain it all to you if you would like.
DeleteBragg certainly thinks he can prove intent. Why not listen to the evidence and see how he does it?
DeleteWe all have no choice but to listen to the evidence and see how he does it. There's not an option not to do that.
DeleteIt depends on which "intent" is meant.
DeleteIf it is intent to defraud, that is one of the easier tasks for Bragg, as the district in which the trial is in applies a broad scope for intent to defraud.
If it is intent to commit a second crime, were the jury to accept Cohen's testimony, who already plead guilty to the same crime, then Trump is toast.
12:32/1:18 it sure seems like it is you that does not understand the case very well.
2:10 A commenter said Bragg had tapes of Trump instructing Michael Cohen to pay off Stormy which would prove intent. I was offering to explain the case to them since they were not familiar with it all.
DeleteNAME WITHHELD is not the CEO of Policy Genius:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald
"This morning, she appeared on Morning Joe to discuss the events which took place yesterday at the Donald J. Trump election conspiracy trial."
ReplyDeleteThe grand jury did not charge Trump with conspiracy.
See @1:13 below
Delete"Alvin L. Bragg, then seized on what he called a conspiracy in the criminal case."
ReplyDeleteThe grand jury did not charge Trump with conspiracy.
The conspiracy is what makes the 34 counts of falsifying business records felonies instead of misdemeanors. The conspiracy involves the suppression of info to manipulate the election results, the hush money payment and the failure to report Cohen's campaign donation (the payment to Daniels). It is a federal violation, which is why it is not being charged by the State of NY. It is the same charge that John Edwards was tried on.
Delete"A prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, began by telling jurors that Mr. Trump had conspired with his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, and the publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to conceal damaging stories during his 2016 campaign.
“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Mr. Colangelo said, telling a story about a hush-money payment to a porn star and insisting that the former president was ultimately responsible.
In the end, Mr. Colangelo said, there would be “only one conclusion: Donald Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/22/nyregion/trump-hush-money-trial
The grand jury did not charge Trump with conspiracy.
DeleteTrump has not been charged with conspiracy.
DeleteGrand juries don't charge. They indict.
DeleteTrump is accused of falsifying business records. Those are misdemeanor charges.To elevate it to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg pointed to potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. Both require that the defendant made the false record with “intent to defraud.”.
DeleteSo the question is - defraud who? The records were private.
A link to the indictment listing the charges has been provided here multiple times.
DeleteYou seem to think that if Bragg did not charge conspiracy that no conspiracy existed or took place, such as the one at the federal level involving interference with the election -- the alleged crime that makes those misdemeanor STATE charges into felonies, that were charged in the indictment. The conspiracy involves the election and misuse of campaign funds, which is NOT a STATE crime. Bragg is not part of a federal court, nor was the grand jury. States charge state crimes. Federal courts charge federal crimes based on federal laws.
That doesn't mean there is no conspiracy, and because Bragg and his prosecution team described a conspiracy in their opening statement, they clearly believe a conspiracy occurred that makes the state crimes that WERE charged into felonies.
If you trolls want to persist in your stupidity in order to repeat mistaken statements about conspiracy, it would be better if you did it somewhere else and let the grown ups here discuss what we want without your tiresome interference.
That's the point. The Bragg team described a conspiracy in their opening statement, they may clearly believe a conspiracy, but Trump isn't being charged for that. Right? No?
Delete1:43 - I can take you through the case point by point if you would like. I think you may need to bone up on it. Just judging from your comments.
Delete1:37 et al
DeleteThe smugness with which you chastise others for not understanding the case is interesting considering how you appear to not have a firm grasp of the case or the law.
Trump defrauded state authorities, and the intent to defraud will be one of the easier elements to prove, here is why:
https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/
2:18 PM - Trump has not been charged with conspiracy. This is what we are discussing. A commenter above who is not familiar with the case thinks because Bragg brought it up, it is a part of the case.
DeleteThat is not what anyone said above.
Delete"Sometimes, the exciting things that people say lack the advantage of being true!"
ReplyDeleteGood point by Somerby. We have to look out for confirmation bias.
Generalities like this are useless, except Somerby often says them to imply that something is untrue when he doesn't want to explicitly say so.
DeleteSometimes, the exciting things that people say have the advantage of being true! We have to look out for motivated skepticism that substitutes for actual analysis.
Truth is independent of whether something being said is "exciting" or not to someone.
This was said not in general application but in response to something very specific. Did you miss that? Would you like me to explain (reexplain - it is above) in extreme detail exactly what the exciting thing that people said that lacks the advantage of being true?
DeleteYou missed that part of the post I guess.
12:57,
Deletejust pointing out your last sentence simply restates the Somerby quote you seem to want to criticize.
1:13 exactly, lol. Can't make this up.
DeleteAs Somerby says, you trolls are illustrating why we cannot have nice things in this comment section.
DeleteOut rolls out the ad hominem, right on schedule.
DeleteSomeone explain to 1:38 what "ad hominem" means.
Delete1:57 - Maybe someone should explain the definition to you. An ad hominem fallacy is a common logical fallacy where a person's argument is rejected or criticized based on the person's character, background, or other personal traits instead of addressing the argument itself.
DeleteIn this case, the responder dismisses the opposing viewpoints by labeling the individuals as "trolls" rather than engaging with the substance of their arguments. This can be seen as an attempt to undermine the credibility of the speakers without directly addressing their points, thereby diverting the discussion away from the actual issues at hand.
No one knows anything personal about any of the trolls here. We do know that they ignore links, facts, quotes (even from their own sources) and continue to repeat the same garbage after being corrected. That is behavior, not personal characteristics. It makes talking to you guys a complete waste of time.
Delete2:20 do you understand now what ad hominem is? I can explain it to you in more detail if you're still confused about it.
DeleteIt is of no consequence to the charges against Trump whether the doorman claim is true or not. It may in fact be true.
DeleteSomerby is suggesting that the titillating nature of the claim may motivate Trump opponents to accept the claim, all the while he ignores the actual charges of illegality in the case. Somerby provides no evidence for his claim, or even that his claim involves anything bad, other than just his personal distaste. It seems like Somerby is engaging in the same behavior he is criticizing, ignoring Trump's illegality and focusing instead on the salacious aspects.
Somerby is a cynic, not a skeptic.
12:57 does a good job pointing this out.
When someone responds to credible counterpoints by behaving like a troll, it is reasonable, fair, and not fallacious to call out that behavior. Defending that behavior by crying "ad hominem" is not reasonable.
12:57 repeats Somerby's claim.
Delete"Sometimes, the exciting things that people say lack the advantage of being true!"
"Truth is independent of whether something being said is "exciting" or not to someone."
12:34:
DeleteThe post does not provide direct evidence to support the claim that Trump's opponents are accepting allegations without sufficient scrutiny of the evidence or legality. Instead, it critiques the media and certain journalists for their approach and potential biases, suggesting that these could influence public perception and the acceptance of claims. The focus is more on questioning journalistic practices and the potential conflict of interest, rather than providing specific evidence for how the public or Trump's opponents are reacting to the trial's coverage.
Somerby struggles to criticize media for something he thinks is occurring, yet provides no evidence for it. As such, Somerby's argument is not compelling beyond expressing his personal dissatisfaction with the circumstance, which makes his claim irrelevant for the discussion.
Delete12:57 is not repeating Somerby's claim, he is countering the notion that people will believe something merely because it is "exciting", which is what Somerby is implying with his otherwise meaningless declaration.
And yet my claim that 12:57 agreed with Somerby, while thinking they were critiquing him, stands unrefuted.
DeleteSo 1:37's use of 'troll' is indeed an ad hominem attack. Case closed, no further questions.
What is Lisa Rubin's "conflict of interest"?
DeleteHector, your factually inaccurate remarks do not stand unrefuted simply because people are tired of dealing with you and don't want to engage with trolls.
DeleteHector, it was refuted, and even explained how it was refuted, but you are too intent on "owning" to face up to being in the wrong.
Delete
DeleteThe article raises concerns about Lisa Rubin's potential conflict of interest by highlighting her apparent rooting for the prosecution in Donald Trump's trial. It criticizes her for not just reporting the facts but openly supporting one side in a legal case, which can be seen as compromising journalistic neutrality and objectivity. This rooting interest, especially when a journalist is expected to provide unbiased coverage, suggests a conflict between her professional responsibilities and personal opinions or biases. Additionally, the mention of Rubin and other legal analysts being friends with E. Jean Carroll, who was suing Trump, further amplifies concerns about a conflict of interest, as these relationships could influence the fairness and impartiality of their reporting.
Conflict of interest refers to her own position and her opinions. As has been pointed out already, her position was not to be objective but to analyze legal aspects of the trial. She commented on the evidence presented and whether it would succeed in convicting Trump, which is well within her job description. Somerby calls that "rooting" but that is clearly in comparison with Somerby's own desire to see Trump acquitted.
DeleteRubin being friends with E.J. Carroll had no impact on anything, especially not now when the trial has been over for a while. Rubin was not talking about Carroll in her remarks today (or this week). Even news reporters do not have to be unacquainted with anyone, uninvolved in what they cover. They are merely expected to disclose relationships, not have none.
Somerby knows nothing about journalism. It handicaps him in using this as his cover.
Legal analysts are often expected to provide expert commentary, dissect legal strategies, and explain the implications of legal proceedings, which inherently involves some interpretation and subjective insight.
DeleteHowever, even within this role, there is an expectation of professional integrity and a balanced approach. While legal analysts are not held to the exact same standards of neutrality as news reporters, they still need to maintain a degree of impartiality to ensure that their analysis is credible and not overly biased. If a legal analyst appears to be rooting for a particular outcome in a trial, it can undermine their perceived objectivity and the trust that viewers or readers place in their analysis. Thus, while their role is inherently more interpretive, maintaining a clear separation between personal biases and professional analysis is crucial to uphold the credibility of their insights.
3:23
DeleteLisa Rubin being friends with E. Jean Carroll matters journalistically because it can raise concerns about her ability to provide impartial and unbiased reporting or analysis regarding matters involving Carroll. From a journalistic standpoint, personal relationships with individuals involved in a story can lead to a conflict of interest, as the reporter or analyst may have personal biases that could affect their coverage.
When journalists or analysts have a pre-existing relationship with a subject they are covering, especially in a high-stakes context like a legal trial, there are valid concerns that they might not be able to separate their personal affiliations from their professional responsibilities. This can result in coverage that may either consciously or unconsciously favor the friend, which can undermine the trust of the audience in the accuracy and fairness of the reporting.
In ethical journalism, it's important to either disclose such relationships to the audience or recuse oneself from reporting on issues where there's a potential conflict of interest, to maintain journalistic integrity and the credibility of the news outlet. The relationship between Rubin and Carroll potentially complicates the expectation of unbiased analysis in her reporting, which is why it's a point of concern journalistically.
Hopefully Rubin will recuse her from the case, the way Clarence Thomas recused himself from the January 6th case, because his wife was behind the plan to overthrow the country.
DeleteMaybe "someone" told Lisa Rubin she didn't have to disclose her potential conflicts of interest, when she first got the job.
DeleteIt would be ironic if it was the same "someone" who told Clarence Thomas that he didn't have to report the gifts he was getting after joining the Supreme Court.
A media critic might note that no one in the media followed-up by asking who that "someone" was.
Lisa Rubin is a legal analyst, not a judge or a participant in the legal proceedings, so the concept of recusal functions differently for her than for a Supreme Court Justice. In journalism, ethical dilemmas like potential conflicts of interest are usually addressed through disclosures or by avoiding coverage of certain topics where bias might be perceived.
DeleteIn journalism, addressing potential conflicts involves transparency with the audience or stepping back from specific coverage areas where the journalist has personal connections. If Rubin’s relationship with E. Jean Carroll might affect her perceived neutrality, the appropriate response would be to disclose this relationship when discussing related topics or to avoid covering those topics if impartiality cannot be ensured.
Lisa Rubin is not a reporter.
DeleteThe Bragg case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution.
ReplyDeleteThat's why black people relate to Trump over it.
Black people do not relate to it, and in fact are supporting Dems in the same number as they always have.
DeleteA primary reason Black people do not relate to Trump's various crimes, is because Black people are almost never accused of those crimes, or even anything similar.
In reality, Black people suffer from people like Trump engaging in "white collar" crimes, so if anything, they are likely cheering on these charges, and are hoping to finally see someone who has caused so much damage to their community, finally face the consequences of their corrupt behavior.
From the Root:
DeleteWhy Black Men are Fed Up with Joe Biden and the Democrats
Charlamagne Tha God succinctly summed up his frustration with the Democratic Party during a recent interview with Politico.
“I’m not looking for my politicians to be pure…I’m looking for my politicians to be effective,” he declared.
It’s a sentiment he’s echoed to the millions of listeners on his popular show “The Breakfast Club:” Black men are frustrated with the Democrats and President Joe Biden. We believe the Democrats are wasting time and energy telling us what we already know about Donald Trump, when instead, they should focus on delivering their promises to our community.
Democrats should also be nervous about losing the White House and Senate in 2024: In what’s expected to be another tight race, several polls indicate that some Black voters – particularly Black men – are rethinking their loyalty to the Democratic Party.
A recent Wall Street Journal poll in seven swing states found that 30 percent of Black men are either definitely or probably going to vote for Trump in November. That would be a shocking increase given only 12 percent of Black men nationwide voted for Trump in 2020.
In comparison, just 11 percent of the Black women polled said they would cast a ballot for Trump in 2024. Black women, who are among the most stalwart Democrats, were credited for saving the party in 2020.
Why is there so much frustration?
Black folks feel used. Every four years, an army of canvassers descend on Black communities, knocking on doors and rallying people to get out and vote for Democrats. But empty promises are all that remain after election victories.
Many Black men are asking why they should vote for Biden again when the Dems failed to deliver on things like student loan debt relief, police reform and voting rights.
Black men are also looking at our economic situation. Yes, Black unemployment fell to a record low during Biden’s time in office, but Black families are pinching pennies amid high inflation, and the racial wealth gap remains stubbornly high despite decades of vows from multiple Democratic administrations to close the gap.
Furthermore, many of us live in disinvested communities that have been decaying for generations. We are often reminded that the monumental federal budget deficit prevents renewal, yet tons of cash flow to Ukraine and other priorities.
When in power, Democrats at the local, state and federal levels have failed over many decades to repair infrastructure, fix dilapidated school buildings and spur private investment.
No wonder Republicans see an opening and are swooping in.
Black people get railroaded by the justice department?
DeleteThose must be the armed blacks. The unarmed ones are killed by police officers, no questions asked.
3:48,
DeleteI'm saddened to hear the idea that "only Democrats have agency" is not just a core belief of the entire media landscape, but has now affected how many Black Men think.
We're doomed, if we ignore the amorality of the entire Republican Party.
Electing Republicans erases the deficit (from the National conversation).
DeleteMany voters do not follow politics at all and barely read the news. They are not aware of things Biden has done for black people, nor of Trump's recent racist statements about blacks. As the election draws nearer, all campaigns will be working hard to educate prospective voters so they can make better informed choices in the election. That includes black voters.
DeleteThe Root carried an article about Trump's staging of the Chik-fil-A photo op and the fact that the woman who hugged him is a campaign operative (who also believes Trump's father was a racist). Too bad she doesn't know more about Trump himself, but there is plenty of time to learn. Meanwhile Trump is pretending the event was spontaneous because black people just love him so much. Ignorant white Trump supporters have their own lessons to learn.
Historically, Black voters have overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party, but younger Black voters are less tied to the party's civil rights legacy and are frustrated with the lack of tangible benefits from their support. Trump's outreach efforts and claims of economic improvement for Black Americans may be resonating with some voters. This shift in support could pose a challenge for Democrats in swing states.
DeleteYounger black voters, like all younger voters, are uninterested in politics and less likely to vote. There is no major shift in support toward Trump. This is another one of those false stories that the prosecution is currently discussing that Trump planted with the National Enquirer. Fox and Newsmax and similar sources are advancing a lot of bogus news that you would be foolish to believe.
DeleteBlack folks feel used because Democrats are full of empty promises.
DeleteWe'll know blacks are moving away from voting for Democrats, when the GOP stops suppressing their votes. In the meantime, the Right can cling to whatever fairy tale they want to tell themselves.
DeleteBob Somerby has allowed right wing trolls defending Trump to so infest these blog comments that there can be no actual discussion of anything. What a huge waste of time!
ReplyDeleteFeel free to discuss anything!
Delete(What did the right wing trolls defending Trump get wrong?)
DeleteHere is how meaningless Somerby's writing is:
ReplyDelete"ELECTION: Is it time for her to go?
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2024
The doorman knocks early and often: Journalistically speaking—and "at long last"—is it time for her to go?"
First he says "ELECTION" (note the all caps). What election? There is one coming up, but there is no woman running in it. There is no women talking about the election either, not that Somerby has referred to in his article. So what does election have to do with anything?
Then he says "Is it time for her to go?" Her who? He hasn't said. Go where? He doesn't say that either. There is no context established yet that would tell us what he is saying.
Then he mentions a doorman. He did talk about a doorman yesterday, but not today, so readers may not know what this refers to. Assuming it is about the same doorman as yesterday, there is nothing telling us what his knocking at the door means. Is it "her" door? Is it "Trump's" door? He was Trump's doorman, but that isn't clear and doesn't make any sense in the slight context offered by an election and her going somewhere. It is just hanging there without explanation and makes no sense, even with what Somerby said about the doorman supposedly bogus story yesterday.
Then he says "journalistically speaking" by which we assume he isn't calling for anyone to be killed or resign from office, but makes no real journalistic sense because it still doesn't answer her who or go where. He adds "at long last," which makes no sense because Somerby hasn't made this claim recently or repeatedly. So what does that say? Nothing. And then he repeats that it is time for her to go, which adds more words but clarifies absolutely nothing.
This is how Somerby writes. It will be 12 more paragraphs before we find out that Somerby is upset with Rubin because she, as a legal correspondent/analyst (not a journalist) expressed the opinion that Trump should be convicted (without hiding it). Is she not allowed to do that? Somerby doesn't say. It would be wrong of her if she were a reporter, because reporters strive for objectivity and stick to facts, but that isn't her role on the show. Somerby doesn't explore that at all (a media critic might do so). He tries and convicts her as if she were a reporter violating an oath of objectivity, ignoring that she is an attorney with a legal opinion about the trial.
This is how Somerby rolls. He is incompetent as a media critic but only hides behind that cover in order to criticize opinions he dislike -- but he doesn't do that by arguing the merits of the opinion, he calls for the person expressing the opinion "to go" which we assume he means "to be fired" as a correspondent or analyst. Since he hasn't explained why he disagrees with her opinion, what she did wrong (except to hold that view), he seems to be calling for summary execution or even assassination (journalistically speaking).
Somerby is a huge asshole. Today's unfair article about Lisa Rubin in just the latest illlustration of why I call him that. Somerby will find lots of people arguing Trump's innocence over at Fox News. Some of their arguments are being repeated by the trolls here. Rubin is allowed to state her views (which she did not try to hide) if they are, surely? A media critic would notice that there are opinions being stated all over the place. Why single out Rubin? Beats me, but Somerby does this kind of thing a lot, usually focusing on youngish, black, women doing the same things on air as everyone else.
Why all this blather? Hang the treasonous bastard already.
ReplyDeletePence?
DeleteI think Pence was the one who would not break the law and his bosses supporters thought it would be cool to hang him, and not the treasonous bastard.
DeleteTrump worsened the situation by addressing the crowd and explaining that Pence was a traitor who lacked the balls to do his job, setting him up as the target of his supporters' anger. It seemed obvious to everyone listening in real time that he could have gotten Pence killed -- so obvious that it seemed to be Trump's intent to focus on the crowd violence on Pence. Then when Pence was being urged to go elsewhere in a car, he was so suspicious of the efforts of the secret service that he refused to get in the car. Why would he fear the secret service (who are controlled by Trump and by a liaison who had his office down the hall from Trump)?
DeleteSomerby says:
ReplyDelete"We don't know if that judgment was accurate. That said, NAME WITHHELD came from the finer class. All-stars only scream and yell when extramarital sex is had with a woman from a lower station, with (say it loud!) someone described a "a porn star." Everyone knew they mustn't discuss the conclusion Page had drawn."
But Susan Page says:
"Barbara Bush nearly committed suicide in the 1970s during an episode of crippling depression sparked by her husband’s affair with an aide, a new biography reveals.
“She would pull over to the side of the road until the impulse to plow into a tree or drive into the path of an oncoming car had passed,” writes author Susan Page in “The Matriarch,” out Tuesday [2019], a book based on hours of interviews with the former first lady."
In the actual book, the person having an affair with Bush is described as an aide. That is not typically a member of the "finer class" as Somerby calls it. It is someone her husband would have spent time with at work, someone like Monica Lewinsky (who was an aide and White House office worker). Somerby creates this made-up class distinction to put his thumb on the scales about the media supposedly being unwilling to talk about her by name. Note how he puts NAME WITHHELD in all caps and repeats it.
Most likely Susan Page didn't name her because the affair was speculative not proven, and because there is no point to ruining someone's life so long after Bush was president just to publish a bio, based only on Barbara Bush's accusation decades later.
So why did Somerby include this odd non-sequitur? Mostly to call Stormy Daniels trash (Somerby makes a big deal of saying she is lower class, which is why her name came out). Actually Stormy Daniels' name came out when she filed suit to remove the NDA. But unlike the aide in Page's book, Daniels was already famous as a highly successful businesswoman in the porn industry, a star in a truer sense than Somerby's malicious reference to journalistic all-stars.
Why would Somerby work hard to diminish the stature of Stormy Daniels? By doing so, he assists Trump in his attacks on the various witnesses (Pecker, Cohen, Daniels) and violates the spirit of the gag order on Trump's behalf. And he does this under the pretense of media criticism as long as he says mean-spirited things about journalists. Here he calls Page a snob while offering pseudo-social criticism of withholding someone's name.
I find Somerby's behavior despicable. And unlike Rubin, Somerby doesn't admit what he is doing.
"In the actual book, the person having an affair with Bush is described as an aide. That is not typically a member of the "finer class" as Somerby calls it. It is someone her husband would have spent time with at work, someone like Monica Lewinsky (who was an aide and White House office worker)."
DeleteNo. Lewinsky was an intern who had no official interactions with Clinton and was not Clinton's aide.
Bush Sr. in the 70's was both UN Ambassador and chairman of the RNC, so anyone who was in fact working as his aide would most likely be from one of the finer colleges, as Somerbysays.
She was an intern when she first started out, but when she was involved with Clinton, she was an office worker and was 25 years old. She said in her deposition that she "stalked" Clinton and was the aggressor in their relationship, seeking him out and calling him. She did have "official" interactions with him as a member of the White House office staff.
DeleteALL of the young people who worked in Washington would be likely to come from one of the finer colleges, usually recommended by someone. Note how Somerby keeps mentioning the colleges that Washington Post and NY Times young journalists graduated from. Those schools funnel their students into good jobs throughout the Northeastern coastal area, just as Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD do in the Pacific Southwest.
That doesn't make them finer class or upper crust or whatever Somerby's bigoted assertion is. It makes them upper middle class. Perhaps you have to come from New England to understand that distinction. Not only does money make someone "fine" but also family, upbringing and breeding, knowing and moving in the right circles, being accepted by them. Kids fresh out of school don't qualify.
If Lewinsky wasn't Clinton's aide (good for him), she was someone's aide. The term refers to the position, not the relation to Bush/Clinton, unless the writer says "she was Bush's aide". I didn't say that and neither did Susan Page.
Somerby's madonna/whore complex, acquired perhaps from years of Catholicism, prevents him from seeing someone who works in porn as a good, decent person (or even a food, decent person). Stormy can never be anything but a lowlife because of her sex work. It has nothing to do with SES status.
ReplyDeleteYou have something against Catholics?
ReplyDeleteBut whether you do or not, I don't think it's Stormy's sex work that makes Somerby take a dim view of her character. It's the fact that she's been trying to monetize her tryst through borderline blackmail.
Which Catholics? The horrible Mother Theresa or the priests who fondle children? Surely, some of them are good and decent people.
DeleteConsidering the context of how Trump was mistreating Stormy, Somerby's dim view is more likely a result of him identifying with Trump's sexual urges towards women.
Sounds like you're an anti-Catholic bigot. So, Bye!
DeleteHurry away, and don't come back! Somerby has discussed his Catholic upbringing often here himself. The Catholic church makes no secret how it feels about women in Stormy's profession. Somerby comes down on women extra hard for doing things like Chanel Miller did (having too many drinks at a frat party and passing out). Men do that all the time (it is often their goal at such a party), but there is that big old double standard for women and Somerby is all for it. But no harsh words for MTG or Lauren Boebert, oddly. Wonder why?
DeleteNot 3:24,
DeleteI was raised Catholic, but I grew out of it.
The stories don't make much sense.
If God is benevolent and all-powerful, why doesn't He snap His fingers and make pain, suffering, and child abuse disappear?
Pied Piper obviously believes Somerby's version of Stormy's story, not her own. There are two sides to what happened, including the so-called extortion aka strong-arm tactics used by Trump goons to force her into an NDA over a "date" involving sex. Pied Piper and Somerby have no proof supporting their version except Trump's own statements and we all know how much Trump lies, especially when it benefits him. Way to engage in critical thinking! Much easier to malign Stormy Daniels' "character" than to doubt Trump.
DeleteYou're so gallant to step up and protect the honor of that trembling maiden! Look, here's what we think we know: Stormy had sex with a married man. I'm not a prude, but I do not find that honorable. She then tried to get a bunch of money out of that hook-up, either by selling her story or by blackmailing Trump. Again, not my idea of a nice person. I'm a stone-cold feminist, but Stormy is not my idea of a feminist heroine.
Delete"If God is benevolent and all-powerful, why doesn't He snap His fingers and make pain, suffering, and child abuse disappear?"
DeleteBecause that would undermine human free will.
Stormy was single. Trump was married. Doesn't he bear some responsibility for that? If Stormy had attempted blackmail, she would have been prosecuted. And no, you don't get to be a feminist by claiming you are one. I've never seen you express a single feminist idea. And you are not my idea of a nice person either.
DeleteSomerby made a bigger deal about Stormy being a feminist hero than anyone else did, including feminists. Somerby doesn't like feminists and has several times misrepresented their actions here.
"Because that would undermine human free will."
DeleteSee? I told you praying to God is nothing but virtue-signaling.
Shouldn’t Bob, as a minor blogger, admit
ReplyDeletehe wants Trump acquitted of everything
he’s charged of, guilty or not?
After all, we can’t have legal answers
to political probllems.