WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2024
Where can you go to find out? Late last Thursday afternoon, former president Donald J. Trump was found guilty, in a Manhattan courtroom, on 34 felony counts.
As we noted yesterday afternoon, some Trump critics reacted to the guilty verdicts with a type of glee. Early the next morning, George Conway got a snootful and went on CNN, where he produced a somewhat comical outing as he and a former Republican strategist struggled to describe the charges involved in the Gotham trial.
As we noted yesterday morning, a different conservative NeverTrumper soon pictured a worrisome aftermath. In Monday's New York Times, Bret Stephens pictured this possible backwash from the trial:
I yield to nobody in my loathing for [Trump], particularly since he stole my grand old party from me. But this conviction, from a flimsy and convoluted case that should never have been brought and may ultimately be reversed on appeal, probably improves his chances of winning in November.
[...]
I doubt that anyone previously inclined to vote for him will now be swayed to vote for President Biden because Trump fiddled with the books seven years ago to cover up a tawdry affair from more than a decade earlier and got convicted in a case brought by a progressive prosecutor in a liberal jurisdiction through an obscure law. The verdict plays to Trump’s argument that the system is out to get him.
Say what? Momentary exultation to the side, is it possible that the guilty verdicts will actually help Candidate Trump?
Is that possible? We'll suppose that it possibly is! If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that aftermaths can be a real -----.
That has been especially true with respect to mainstream assessments of Candidate Trump, dating to his unusual remarks in June 2015 about John McCain's years as a POW.
At any rate, Trump is now a "convicted felon"—pending a possible reversal of the guilty verdicts on appeal, a possibility to which Stephens alluded.
"Count no man [sic] happy until he's dead," Sophocles once advised. We're not sure what the playwright meant, but we'd be inclined to adapt his statement in the following way:
Call no one a convicted felon until he has lost on appeal.
Questions abound, including these:
Could the guilty verdicts possibly be reversed on appeal?
What might the political aftermath be if Trump is defeated this November, then is later absolved on appeal?
So many questions, so little time—and of course, so little clarity!
Under current arrangements, citizens of Red America are being exposed to one set of assertions and claims concerning the now-successful prosecution of the current Candidate Trump.
Citizens of Blue America are being exposed to a completely different set of claims and assertions.
These contradictory assessments are rarely tested in the traditional way—by bringing proponents of these contradictory claims together in respectful debate, where the dueling sets of claims can be critiqued and challenged out in the open air.
For today, please riddle us this:
Is it possible that Donald J. Trump could actually win on appeal?
At Politico, this analysis plainly suggests that he possibly could. Elsewhere, publications including the New York Times have suggested that he probably couldn't.
Was something "wrong" with this prosecution—so wrong that those guilty verdicts might get tossed on appeal?
Viewers of the Fox News Channel are routinely being told that the prosecution was a scam, a fraud, a hoax. And of one more thing, we can be certain:
If Trump's appeals end up being denied, viewers of that "cable news" channel will be told that such denials are simply the latest chapter in this Blue State's weaponization of the legal system.
That said, was something actually "wrong" with this prosecution and trial? Was something so wrong that Donald J. Trump might have his verdicts tossed out on appeal?
On Sunday, that question was asked on Meet the Press and also on Face the Nation. The question was posed to two major legal figures—and at least as a matter of basic theory, what followed was highly instructive.
On Meet the Press, Peter Alexander posed that question to Cyrus Vance, Jr., the former Manhattan D.A. On Face the Nation, Margaret Brennan posed the question to Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Vance and Bharara are major figures within our legal system. The way their answers were handled helps us see the long-standing haplessness of our struggling nation's high-end journalistic culture.
Could Trump's verdicts be overturned on appeal? On Meet the Press, the discussion of that particular question started off like this:
ALEXANDER (6/2/24): Donald Trump's attorney says they're going to appeal this verdict. Do you think the prosecution's case will withstand an appeal?
VANCE: Well, certainly there will be strong appeals, and there are going to be issues that will be carefully considered by the appellate courts.
"Certainly, there will be strong appeals?" What did he mean by that?
Tomorrow, we'll show you where the discussion went next. Meanwhile, on Face the Nation, the discussion started like this:
BRENNAN (6/2/24): Well, sentencing is July 4—excuse me, July 11, four days before the convention, as we mentioned. What grounds for appeal do you think Mr. Trump has here?
BHARARA: So, I think they'll make a number of key points. You know, Donald Trump does not want to leave anything on the cutting room floor. I think some of his arguments are non-frivolous.
Say what? Some of the defendant's arguments—presumably, some of his grounds for appeal—"are non-frivolous?
Viewers of the Fox News Channel are being told that every aspect of this prosecution and trial were part of Blue America's fraudulent effort to keep Trump from getting elected.
As part of that ministry, they're being told that Judge Merchan was hopelessly biased—corrupt. By way of contrast, MSNBC's most prominent legal analyst recently said that he has a "man crush" on Judge Merchan because he had proven to be so upstanding and fair.
"Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"
That's what the late Raymond Donovan famously said, way back in 1987, after he was acquitted on all charges in a high-profile prosecution and trial.
We'll ask a slightly different question:
Where does an American citizen go for a serious discussion of very important issues?
Tomorow, that's the question we'll be asking as we show you the rest of the story from last Sunday's interview programs.
What will the fall-out be from those guilty verdicts? At this point, we have no idea.
This month's debate is approaching fast. What will the aftermath be like there?
That could well turn out to be a more significant question...
Tomorrow: Strong appeals, some of which are non-frivolous? Where do you go to answer this question:
What did they mean by that?
"AFTERMATHS: Could those verdicts be reversed on appeal?
ReplyDeleteWEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2024
Where can you go to find out?"
We will find out when and if it happens, and not before. There is no one who can tell us for certain whether Trump's convictions will be overturned. Could they be overturned? Anything is possible, as Somerby is fond of saying.
Why make this the headline of today's essay? Somerby is working hard to discredit Trump's felony convictions. This is just more of the same. But has there ever been such a fatuous question?
In this vein, could Trump be struck by lightning before the first presidential debate? Could I win the lottery? Could my team, The Rockies, win every game between now and the end of their season? Why ask any of these questions either?
If the verdict is overturned, it won't be before the election and it won't save Trump from the electoral consequences of his actions in 2016. Karma is a bitch.
Meanwhile, try this:
https://www.axios.com/2024/05/31/trump-appeal-guilty-verdict-arguments
It would be very bad if the Supreme Court were to reach down and rescue Trump in this situation. It would undermine any pretense that the highest court has not been politicized and eradicate faith in a fair system of justice in our country.
ReplyDeleteRight now, even Republicans know that Trump uses the courts to meddle in any number of situations. But he doesn't always get his way. If the Supreme Court were to act on Trump's behalf (as Judge Cannon is already doing), the majority of people in our country would be outraged, and that is a more serious situation than when Trump's extremist MAGAs throw their tantrums.
The prosecution of the 1/6 insurrectionists (except at the top of their conspiracy) has maintained a sense of faith in justice. The 1/6 Hearings, although they did not punish anyone, at least acknowledged what happened and the law-breaking associated with it. Any action by the Supreme Court would motivate all non-Trump supporters to defeat him at the polls and he would surely lose the election.
Republicans have been using a kind of take-no-prisoners language to protest Trump's conviction, but Democrats had no part in what happened. The courts are independent of our Party, no matter what the MAGAs claim. The same could not be said about the Republicans should the Supreme Court intervene to rescue Trump. That would move us all from threats to action. I cannot believe the right would dare to do something so stupid, so destructive to our nation's democracy.
"It would be very bad if the Supreme Court were to reach down and rescue Trump in this situation."
DeleteIt would depend on the reasoning they used to do so. You should try to get a little more nuanced than thinking anti-Trump rulings are good and pro-Trump rulings are 'very bad.'
"You should try..."
DeleteIt depends on how much you read and comprehend, 10:38 provided context on why it would be bad for the SC to act in such a partisan manner.
12:45,
DeleteThe SC doesn't go out soliciting cases or jump into a state case that has not even begun the normal appeal process. ( I seem to recall that we are a Republic not a democracy and states rights and all that shit) But that is what the fucking Speaker of the House, Moses, and that tribe of barbarian anarchists that call themselves the republican party are suggesting should happen here.
1:40,
Deleteagain, how one should feel about the SC 'rescuing' Trump, and whether or not it should be viewed as a partisan action, would depend on the reasoning they employed in doing so.
It would be on its face a partisan action if they jumped into the case now. This is not debatable.
DeleteDon't debate it, then, 2:49 PM.
DeleteI think it will depends on the sentence. If the sentence obstructs the possibility of a major presidential candidate campaigning, then it's a constitutional crisis, and SCOTUS would probably have to interfere immediately.
3:04 there is no basis for Trump being a jailed candidate as a "crisis" of any kind, and in fact it would not be the first time a presidential candidate has run a campaign from prison.
DeleteThere is no reasonable rescuing of Trump in this case, running for office is not a get out of jail card.
10:38 provided appropriate context, calls for "nuance" are often just an attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.
@3:18 PM "There is no reasonable rescuing of Trump in this case"
DeleteWe'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
The SC could take up the case on the grounds that it is not constitutional for a state prosecutor to enforce a federal law (campaign finance).
DeleteThough 2:49 thinks this question is not debatable, it actually is.
"a state prosecutor to enforce a federal law"
Deletethat is not what happened, and no the SC can not review the case, they have no jurisdiction.
4:10,
Deletethe Supreme Court seems to think they can take up whatever cases they think involve important legal issues.
You'd better let them know you've decided otherwise.
@4:32 PM,
Deletewell, I think technically SCOTUS needs to wait till all state-level appeals are finished. And even then it can get somewhat complicated.
But I'm sure in a case of federal constitutional crisis, which this could easily become, they can do pretty much whatever they want. If not overturn the conviction, then at least prevent NY from wrecking the presidential election.
Yes. Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ” I have an agenda. I like guns. I hate guns. I like abortion. I hate abortion,” and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world. You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the Constitution, to wind their way through the process.
DeleteAmy Coney Barrett: Day 2 of her Senate confirmation testimony.
"This month's debate is approaching fast. What will the aftermath be like there? "
ReplyDeleteTrump gave an interview yesterday on Newsmax in which the interviewer could not interrupt Trump or get him to stop talking when the interview ended.
How does anyone expect that Trump will be able to follow the rules and time constraints in a debate, given his performance yesterday? If Trump talks over Biden or refuses to stop, will the moderators turn off his mike? Will they give Biden a fair chance to express himself. And if Trump bulldozes Biden, will that be seen as strength or incapacity on Trump's part?
Republicans should fear that the public will see for themselves the deterioration of Trump's ability to function like a credible leader. That happened for those who watched Trump's trial. To the extent that Trump is going down hill fast, he may not come across well in the debate, and seeing that for ourselves is what a debate is for.
Trump may finish himself off, without any need for sentencing. By the time an appeal is decided, he may be too senile for it to matter.
An actual media analyst might talk about the blatant hit piece against Biden in today's Wall Street Journal. Crickets from Somerby.
ReplyDeleteClearly Somerby is a fake media analyst because he didn't clear the subject of his post today with you.
DeleteWhat was he thinking?
10:44 provided an example of how Somerby fails at musing on the press corps, and 12:43 gets all emotionally triggered. Interesting.
Delete"Interesting."
DeleteYes, insinuate something negative, but don't tell us what or why. Classy.
I learned that from Somerby!
DeleteYou moron! (sorry, I learned that from you)
Clearly Somerby is a fake Biden supporter because people who support Biden care when he is unfairly maligned by the press.
DeleteJanis Paige has died.
ReplyDeleteJimmy Page is still alive, thank god.
DeleteJimmy Page is a god.
DeleteWoody Guthrie died in 1967.
DeleteLed Zeppelin I came out in 1968, blew everyone away, and defined rock music for decades until rock's demise some 20 years ago, largely at the hands of musicians (instead of just record co execs) increasingly putting profits over quality - hacks like Dave Grohl.
DeleteCiao, Janis.
DeleteCiao Rock .
DeleteTell Jazz we said "Hello".
yeah...sad but true. And that wonderful combo of Jazz and Rock called Fusion never had much of a chance, but there is some amazing stuff out there from the 70s:
DeleteBrand X
Mahavishnu Orchestra
Weather Report (pre Jaco)
anything with Billy Cobham, Alphonse Mouzon, Narada Michael Walden, Tommy Bolin, John McLaughlin...
Chicago, with Jimmy Pankow on trombone.
DeleteIn 1968 I lived in a Spanish style apartment building on Formosa Ave in West Hollywood, that was also occupied by the drummer from Led Zeppelin and nextdoor to us lived a member of the Mothers of Invention. I remember watching the presidential returns among a crowd at his place, while the host tried to free a litter of kittens stuck inside the wall, apparently abandoned by their mother. That was an interesting summer before I had to return to college.
DeleteTo Braggmerchan is to have a corrupt prosecutor and a corrupt judge collude to make up fake crimes, accuse a person and have him judged by a jury of soulless ghouls animated only by tribal hatreds. Trump was braggmerchaned.
ReplyDeleteThe jury was a group of 12 randomly selected people who were closely examined by Trump's attorneys and the judge and prosecution, for their ability to be unbiased and non-partisan while considering only the evidence and law.
DeleteThe documents presented as evidence showed that these were not "fake crimes" but actions that Trump and others performed with the goal of meddling in the election in 2016.
No corruption has been demonstrated by either the judge or prosecutor. The fact of Trump's conviction is not evidence of corruption, but of his guilt.
Making up fake words doesn't make the refusal to accept this verdict any less an example of psychological denial, much like Trump's refusal to accept that he lost the 2020 election. Refusing to accept reality is a form of delusion, mental dysfunction. Calling the public servants who served as Trump's jury "soulless ghouls" shows how bent you guys are.
Fake words?
DeleteJury?
DeleteDocuments?
DeleteMany of us were following the trial in real time. You had that chance too. If you now believe right wing disinformation, that is on you.
DeletePolls have limited utility in terms of being reliable or instructive, but, having said that, polls do indicate that the trial and conviction has been a net negative for Trump with respect to electoral politics.
ReplyDeleteAnd we can see it playing out, for example, Trump's candidate in the NJ Senate primary lost badly yesterday.
Somerby's analysis of electoral politics has always been quite poor, and today is no different.
Following Somerby's views, one could reasonably conclude that we should avoid upsetting Republicans because their temperament is such that they do not cope well with having to face personal responsibility, and they will lash out at Dems and choose not to vote for Dems. Oh no! Well, they were never going to vote for Dems, even if Jesus was the Dem nominee.
Somerby never makes any sense, his views are driven by his emotions, and he willfully ignores data, science, and context.
"Somerby never makes any sense, his views are driven by his emotions, and he willfully ignores data, science, and context."
DeleteAnd yet you read him every single solitary day "to get the latest in right-wing memes," right?
Don't sell the way Bob clowns himself short.
DeleteSomerby is a good jumping off point for interesting discourse - all the action is in the comments, but also Somerby started this blog as a retort to corporate media being little more than stenographers for the Republican Party, and then Somerby shifted to the right and now does little more than parrot Republican/right wing talking points.
DeleteFurthermore, progressives/leftists are naturally inclined to help those in need, and Somerby's posts along with the fanboy comments are essentially cries for help, they are manifestations of wounded people suffering.
Therefore, it is reasonable to read this blog and criticize it and try to nudge people towards a better path.
Help me, I’m suffering.
DeleteI am nudging you towards a better path right now. Do you feel it?
DeleteI am Corby.
3;23, 3:27 you are just proving 2:36's point, with your hardcore copium.
Delete“Therefore, it is reasonable to read this blog and criticize it and try to nudge people towards a better path.”
DeleteAnonymouse 2:36pm, start by taking your own advice.
The internet awaits you.
Say what you will about the Republican Party nominating a rapist to represent them in a Presidential election, but you can't say it isn't on brand.
DeleteCecelia cannot be nudged. But that's OK because she isn't interested in finding a better path either. She isn't very good as a troll because she annoys people too much to ever convert (persuade, convince) them. It is obvious she is suffering because her drinking while typing is too sad for words, and she is here both at night and first thing in the morning, suggesting she has no life. (Or maybe her role is played by multiple people on the Eastern European troll farm.) I've never seen her change her mind about anything, not even the tiniest fact.
DeleteIf Trump's appeal is successful due to technicalities of the charges, would that make Trump less guilty of what he was found to have done:
ReplyDelete1. Would he not have falsified business records?
2. Would he not have paid off Stormy Daniels via Michael Cohen's hush money payment?
3. Would he not have slept with Daniels and then bragged about it to fellow golfers the next day, then denied it ever happened when it became a political liability?
4. Would he have not been a creep using no condom and skipping the dinner he promised her, not to mention no Apprentice show audition?
5. Would he not have let Cohen go to jail for his own crimes, letting him twist in the wind while he cut Cohen loose?
6. Would Trump not have behaved like a cretin during the trial?
7. Would he not have created a catch-and-kill operation with David Pecker at the National Enquirer that involved manufacturing fake stories against Hillary and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio while suppressing ones about himself.
8. Would he not have had an affair with Karen McDougal while Melania was pregnant, that lasted nearly a year and also involved a payoff?
Is there anything an appeals court can decide that would walk back the testimony presented at trial and make Trump into a truly innocent man, when he is guilty as hell of being a scummy guy who doesn't deserve election to president.
Shouldn't all of this matter to us a great deal more than legal technicalities being discussed on TV? It doesn't seem to bother Somerby at all -- he says men shouldn't have to answer for the way they treat women while running for office. Not to mention that Trump also treated Michael Cohen badly, and probably is no better to anyone when they are no longer useful to him.
Is this the kind of guy we want as president? That is what Somerby might be discussing, but he isn't.
Yes, that is the kind of guy they want. The kind of guy who steals boxes of classified and defense documents from the government and then orders his underlings to lie and hide the material from the FBI. They would like to give him a chance to steal some more documents and obstruct the government from getting them back.
DeleteI am old enough to remember Hillary Clinton had to release to the public every single email she sent or received as S.O.S. because, everyone was claiming they belonged to the public, even though that was absolutely false.
Trump is promising retribution if he is reelected, including putting Joe Biden in jail. This isn't a joke. Trump is insane and he cannot be allowed back into office.
DeleteBut if Ken Burns says it in his commencement address, it’s incomprehensible to Somerby.
DeleteWhile Trump was president, he repeatedly pushed to prosecute Clinton, but was rebuffed by his staff.
DeleteThe same portion of his staff that has now largely turned against him.
If Trump has a 2nd term, his staff will be just absolute loons, and there will be no stopping his fascistic leanings.
Israel uses fake social media accounts to influence US lawmakers.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/06/05/israel-reportedly-used-fake-social-media-accounts-to-garner-support-from-us-lawmakers-on-gaza-war/?sh=73aacb8b804b
Please do not hijack this discussion to talk about israel.
DeleteAs we all learned recently, Speaker of the House, Moses, is certain the some of his friends on the SC are very troubled by the verdict and will quickly overturn the Shitstain's guilty verdict, making Maggots all throughout the land dance and sing.
ReplyDeleteFor first time readers, welcome to the Trump Manhattan Trial blog.
ReplyDeleteanon 10:33, is it that you want more about how the Iliad is relevant to what's happening now in the Blue Red War?
DeleteFake lawyer, sure.
DeleteFake Dem, sure.
Somerby defender against any and all criticism, absolutely.
Chivalry is alive!
anon 1:36, thanks for letting me know I'm not a lawyer, not a dem. I'm apparently living in a world of delusion. O well, at least I can humor you by responding to your nitwit comment.
DeleteAC/ MA,
DeleteYou might be the only graduate of Trump University Law School we have at TDH.
Lawyer is as lawyer does. You seem to be having trouble convincing others you are an attorney based on your knowledge of law and expertise. Maybe you are a patent attorney?
Delete"According to a new NBC News report, Michael Cohen's family was doxxed after Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges in the New York election interference criminal trial. The report notes that Cohen's family members had their addresses and phone numbers posted on a doxxing website. This information included the phone numbers and addresses of Cohen's wife and children. "
ReplyDeleteThere is no excuse for this behavior.
Comer is proposing charging Fauci with felonies because of his testimony to Congress about the 6-ft distancing procedure during covid.
ReplyDeleteDead horse, meet Bob Somerby.
ReplyDeleteHa! Yes, Somerby generally has really bad takes, and lately he is like a broken record, apparently he can not be bothered to put any effort into his goofy rehashing of the same post, likely due to how his endeavor has become an embarrassment.
DeleteIt's funny. You'd think Somerby-haters would go find someone else to read, but instead they seem to want to flock to their Two-Minute Hates.
DeleteAnd miss the Bob Somerby Show?
DeleteNo way. His de-basing of himself is hilarious.
Pied Piper, there might be only a couple of the real nut job haters, though there is no way to tell for sure. They won't give a straight answer to your question, they're trolls.
Delete"they're trolls."
DeleteHello pot, kettle here...
Pied Piper has never put more than two minutes into any comment here. He doesn't have to, because his comments are just attacks on other commenters.
DeleteIf Bob was writing about this with any degree of honesty or seriousness, why would he put the term convicted felon in quotes? Can any of Bob’s defenders explain this?
ReplyDeleteAn appeal is still pending, with a good chance of being successful.
DeleteWhy is there a good chance, David? Historically, only 12% of convictions in state courts get reversed on appeal.
DeleteHe became a convicted felon when the verdict was rendered, not after all appeals are exhausted. Trump has not filed an appeal yet, so there is no appeal "pending". Appeals do not happen in all cases.
DeleteThese are the squeals of Trump supporters trying to undo what happened. This is not about meaningful legal challenges to his conviction.
If DIC can not cling to the illusion that 12% is a "good chance", he will have to face the reality of the circumstances. The horror, the horror.
DeleteThose quotes, until such appeal is successful, and even then, really, are a lie. This must be taken into account when we size up Bob’s stern appraisals of journalists who use the term lie in reference to Trump’s obviously false statements.
DeletePro Tip, David: in order to file a criminal appeal, there has to be a criminal conviction. Ergo, Trump is a convicted criminal.
DeleteNo appeal has been filed yet in the hush money case. Trump's defense has filed a motion to remove the gag order, but not an appeal. There must be sentencing first. After the appeal is filed, the prosecution is given time to file a response to it, then it will be considered by Merchan. If he denies it, it can be appealed to the appellate court and ultimately the state supreme court and appeals court in NY state.
DeleteSee: https://ballotpedia.org/Courts_in_New_York
This appeals process will take time. Some estimate there may not be a final decision until 2026. In the meantime, Trump is a convicted felon.
If Somerby weren’t so fond of cliff hanging melodrama, he could have quoted the rest of what Bharara said on Face The Nation, where he listed the points Trump’s lawyers could appeal on. It’s standard fare at this blog. He complains that nobody discusses something, only to quote people discussing it.
ReplyDelete"If ever there was a time when we needed a serious, mature President of the United States, with a depth of knowledge and a foundation of personal character — a grownup in the White House — this is that time. But seldom a week goes by without Donald Trump demonstrating, yet again, that he is painfully lacking in all these prerequisites.
ReplyDeleteInstead of offering coherent plans for dealing with the nation’s problems, Trump skips that and boasts of the great things he will achieve. Those who dare to question are answered with cheap putdowns, often at a gutter level.
There are signs that some people are belatedly waking up to the dangers that Donald Trump represents."
-Thomas Sowell
Sowell has not endorsed Trump. In fact during Trump's reign, Sowell was critical of Trump, and complained that Trump was more mature in his 30's than his 70's.
During his reign, Trump cut taxes for the wealthy, including corps (in the midst of posting record profits in the wake of the Obama recovery), ultimately raised taxes for the middle class (by nearly half a trillion over 10 years), cut regulations that require we have clean air and water, had a trade war with China that resulted in the US losing 35k manufacturing jobs, dismantled our pandemic preparedness, mishandled the Covid pandemic that directly resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. No wonder Sowell dislikes Trump.
Having said that, Sowell is infamous for flip flopping; pursuant to his education he endorsed Marxism until finding employment with neoliberals; he strongly was for the Iraq War until that view was untenable in light of public opinion and the disastrous results, and flipped to being against it, although he was late to the party.
To be fair, Sowell is a right winger with cynical views, his smug self satisfaction largely arising from a pernicious form of racism called tokenism.
Anonymouse 12:12pm, it shouldn’t be that difficult to ascertain that Sowell’s sense of self-satisfaction comes from being an accomplished writer, academic, former marine, magna cum laude of Howard University, PhD (UChi).
DeleteAnonymices are anything if not self-congratulatory. Perhaps if you view Sowell as a beneficiary of liberal policy you’ll feel less inclined to see him as the unappreciative upstart who is ungrateful to his betters.
I don’t see any other anonymouse impetus toward magnanimity other than self-congratulation, so attempt to take that route.
Put “Thomas Sowell Reverses Position on Donald Trump” into a search engine to see the video
DeleteDIC, not only am I already aware of that video, but I paraphrased Sowell from that very video, which is mistitled, in my previous comment; in that video Sowell not only does not endorse Trump, which Sowell never has done, but he explicitly mocks Trump for being more mature when Trump was in his 30's versus his 70's.
DeleteDIC you are too caught up in "owning the libs" to notice that all your views are based on misinformation and emotions.
Oof, if you are a right winger feeling particularly smug about something, double check it, because you are probably in the wrong.
For example, when Sowell graduated "magna cum laude of Howard University" he was a Marxist. He was also drafted into the Marines for the Korean War and served as a photographer for only a year before being discharged; he opposed the war and experienced racism in the military.
Sowell found his purpose when he was taken in by neoliberals and used by them as a token to mask their racism. Sowell knew this, but chose money over integrity.
@12:45 Sowell didn't graduate from Howard University. He graduated from Harvard University. His exceptional SAT scores helped him get accepted, even though he had been a high school dropout.
DeleteDavid, didn't he take those SATs many years after he dropped out high school, and after he was discharged from the marines? And then he had to attend Howard University night classes to complete his HS degree?
DeleteDIC, 12:45 happens to be yourself, you nut.
DeleteYes Sowell graduated from Harvard which is why there are quotation marks, quoting from the misinformed right winger at 12:43.
Sowell attended Stuyvesant High School, "a prestigious academic high school" in NYC before dropping out during his senior year due to his family having difficulty finding housing - this was back when people like Trump's dad was willfully making life difficult for Black people.
Sowell later completed high school before attending college.
I achieved higher scores than Sowell, but that is not why I understand economics better than him, it is because he compromised his integrity, sold his soul for some coin.
Sowell never endorsed Trump, and is generally critical of Trump.
Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and was endlessly derided by Republicans who accused him of being an affirmative action hire and demanding to see his grades. Ironic, isn’t it?
DeleteYeah, Sowell did graduate from Harvard, not Howard.
DeleteWikipedia:
Sowell was born in segregated Gastonia, North Carolina, to a poor family, and grew up in Harlem, New York City.[7] Due to poverty and difficulties at home, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and worked various odd jobs, eventually serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. Afterward, he took night classes at Howard University and then attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958.[7] He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.[8] In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks including the Urban Institute. Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.
"...ungrateful to his betters." Among the pompous prose is this gem.
DeleteChristians are hellbent on taking over the country and ruling a Christo Nation, replacing democracy with Christian Fascism; and some, I assume, are good people. Perhaps even good and decent, but those are rare, as religious indoctrination is brainwashing and a form of abuse when done in childhood, a trauma that all but rules out rationality.
ReplyDeleteIt would make no sense to interpret the overturning of Harvey Weinstein's convictions as condoning his behavior. It was done because of the mechanics of his trial, not because he was deemed innocent. The same is true for Trump. He did what he is accused of doing. Whether that is a felony or not may be the question during appeal. Whatever the decision, that wouldn't change what Trump did or what kind of person he has been shown to be.
ReplyDeleteMAGAts don't care whether Trump is guilty or innocent. They want him put back in office, not in jail. That is as far as their thinking goes. The courts are viewed as a tool for doing the bidding of those with certain kinds of power. It is wrong and bad for our democracy if people who support Trump are able to manipulate courts to get Trump out of hot water that his own criminality got him into.
Somerby is not looking at what is actually happening. The right is throwing a major tantrum and it thinks it can change reality by making threats. Somerby is abetting this today. That is the kind of thing that made me lose respect for Somerby over the past few years.
Keep in mind too, that this was always a solid case, but some of those same lawyers pontificating now were previously in charge and could have developed the case but were too squeamish at the potential political and career fallout, whereas Bragg had the integrity and competency to see justice prevail over any concerns about politics or career, therefore those lawyers now likely feel some embarrassment and jealousy.
ReplyDeleteI am Soros' trained monkey, Christo Nation.
ReplyDeleteI confess black people's votes counted rapist snowflake Kati.
“MAGAts don't care whether Trump is guilty or innocent. They want him put back in office,”
ReplyDeleteTrue. Same for Democrats. They don’t care if Biden has lost some mentality. They want a Democrat to win. That’s the curse of tribalism.
“MAGAts don't care whether Trump is guilty or innocent. They want him put back in office,”
DeleteDiC: "True"
Enough said, maggot.
Don't you fucking both sides this, you treasonous bastard.
Yes. I remember Bob saying that of course he would vote for that what's his name officially braindead senator from PA, like it's the most natural thing in the world.
DeleteAnyone here who thinks DiC is debating in good faith may rest easy now, since he has conceded that that it makes no fucking difference to him. If he argues that Trump never broke the law and you spend months proving him wrong, he will just shrug and say well it don't matter anyway.
Delete12:52 Are you saying that there are conceivable circumstances where you would vote for Trump? No. You would vote for the Democrat no matter what, just as MAGAs will vote Republican no matter what
DeleteHmm. Hopefully, MAGAs wouldn't vote Republican no matter what.
DeleteHopefully they would vote MAGA, regardless of the party affiliation. Otherwise, they are just as retarded as idiot-moonbats.
There are things more important than Trump's conviction. One of them is Iran becoming a nuclear power. For some reason I don't understand, President Biden is discouraging European opposition to Iran's nuclear program. If and when Iran becomes a nuclear power, the world will have changed in a way that can't be undone. See
DeleteBiden Administration Presses Allies Not to Confront Iran on Nuclear Program
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-administration-presses-allies-not-to-confront-iran-on-nuclear-program/ar-BB1n6Myr
I know two things that matter to David in Cal and Republican voters, because I took Bob's advice and listened to them.
DeleteSee, even though I know you're full of shit, I am not going to argue with you or try to correct the disinformation you spread. CAUSE. YOU. SIMPLY. DON'T. GIVE. A. SHIT. Okay, DiC, have a nice day. Your latest excuse to still support the man who stole documents from the government and lied to the FBI and tried to incite an insurrection is comical.
DeleteFive members of Trump's 2016 election team are now convicted felons, not counting Trump.
Five members (and counting) of his 2020 election team are now convicted felons.
Two people from his company have been convicted of felony charges, one is still in prison.
Only the best people, David.
"There are things more important than Trump's conviction."
DeletePlease don't hijack this thread to discuss Israels genocide of Palestinians.
Don't hijack this thread to bring up how Obama accomplished an agreement with Iran to stop their nuclear weapon program, and then Trump reversed that policy.
DeleteAnd we certainly do not need reminders about how Israel has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, I have to sleep at night.
Obama made a deal with Iran whereby Iran WOULD develop nuclear weapons, except that the development would take 10 years IIRC. That's if Iran obeyed the deal, but there's no reason to think they would have done so.
DeleteFor some reason, Obama and now Biden sucked up to enemies like iran and Hamas and treated allies like Israel harshly.
Every right-wing accusation is a confession, David.
Delete'We fell in love' - Trump swoons over letters from North Korea's Kim
Trump gives his enemies soothing words but gives them nothing in actions. Biden is somewhat opposite.
DeleteBiden has harsh words for Iran, but released billions of dollars to them. Biden had harsh words for Hamas after Oct 7, but now he's withholding weapons in order to restrict Israel's ability to defeat Hamas.
DIC, false.
DeleteObama's deal, JCPOA, had a sunset clause, as is normal and routine for such deals, since circumstances change and deals need to be revisited and renegotiated.
The deal did not allow Iran to continue it's nuclear weapon program in the intervening time, and in fact Iran kept to the deal, even after Trump pulled out in 2018. It was in 2020 when Trump assassinated Soleimani that Iran revived the program, although they have yet to develop any weapons, four years later.
Obama's actions prevented nuclear weapons, Trump's actions encouraged the development of nuclear weapons.
For some reason, DIC, you get everything wrong - it is like a tic. In the future, try being accurate instead of bluffing your way through with bluster.
See, right or wrong, and he is consistently wrong, it matters not to David. He doesn't give a shit.
DeleteJust like the other day when DiC was arguing that Democratic policies were bad and he used the example of his state of CA saying it had the highest poverty rate in the country. When he was shown to be full of shit, did he revise his opinion of states run by dems? LOL.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:52pm, consider that it might do you some good just to scream into a pillow every couple of hours.
DeleteOr pray to God, if you want to do something even more useless.
Delete"For some reason, Obama and now Biden sucked up to enemies like iran and Hamas"
DeleteHoly hell, man. That's just false.
DiC: The Wall Street Journal article (via MSN) is an interesting read. The headline doesn't get much support within the text of the article. The main claim that the US is pressuring allies is attributed only to "according to diplomats involved in discussions." There's no further indication of whether these diplomats are credible sources or the circumstance in which their views were acquired.
DeleteThere are two separate denials of the main claim.
The rest of the article goes on to explain the complexities of the situation and the varying positions of the US and its allies. Global nuclear stability is hardly something one can accuse President Biden of taking lightly.
D in C - if Trump didn't renege on the treaty with Iran, which provided for inspections, chances are Iran wouldn't be moving forward to attain capability to build them. Trump gave them the green light to move forward. What do you propose - nuking them? North Korea has them also, what did Trump do to stop that. Assuming Iran develops them, which is a distinct possibility, it is almost inconceivable that it would ever use them (maybe if they were attacked with nuclear weapons - to prevent that is probably the main reason they would develop them). As far as the money you say Biden gave Iran, that was Iran's money, which the US seized, and was part of a prisoner release deal Iran is run by religious zealots,(though isn't Netanyahu's hold on power dependent on support by religious zealots also?)
DeleteAnonymouse 5:30pm, you’re just mad because God hangs up on you.
DeleteGod is rude.
DeleteLike His followers, God has hang-ups.
DeleteHe has delusions of grandeur.
DeleteThe one area where Trump outdid both Presidents Obama and Biden was preventing Russia from invading Ukraine and annexing part of it. Ironically, Trump was successful because of his (undeserved) reputation as a loose cannon. He told Putin that if Russia invaded Ukraine, the US would bomb Moscow. If Putin gave even slight credence to that threat, say 5% or 10%, that was enough to discourage Putin from invading Ukraine.
Delete"The one area where Trump outdid both Presidents Obama and Biden was preventing Russia from invading Ukraine and annexing part of it."
DeleteHe was equally successful at preventing Marian invasions.
There's no evidence that anything Trump did or said had anything to do with Vladimir Putin's designs on claimin Ukrainian territory.
"He told Putin that if Russia invaded Ukraine, the US would bomb Moscow."
DeleteHe later said Russia could "do whatever the hell they want." He also withheld arms shipments to Ukraine to repel such an invasion to persuade Ukraine to help him fabricate evidence against his opponents.
Above comment from David in Cal
ReplyDeleteJon Stewart uncorked an epic rant the other day in which he said this:
ReplyDelete"The news media has decided there is no such thing as reality...what the courts do really well is look back and reconstruct the reality" Stewart said. Instead, said Stewart, "They look forward and wildly speculate on the future."
The news media prefers to "look forward and wildly speculate" on the future. I'm not always clear on the exact nature of Our Host's complaints, but I think this lies in there somewhere--alongside his favorite red/blue tribe constructions.
Can Trump win on appeal? Where does one go to find out?
Until an appeal is filed, granted or not, and decided, any commentary is just speculation about the future. As one of my daughter's endlessly re-read children's books puts it:
"Anything can happen. And sometimes it does."
This is a very good point about one bad aspect of the political media, But it’s not Bob’s problem. Bob has become so in the can for Trump that his now long history of carrying water makes him want to soften the blow and put up ridiculous quotes around “convicted felon.” It might as well be a case that is not going to be appealed, but Bob insists they may discover evidence someday nobody knows about so it’s really wasn’t a conviction.
DeleteTo me, any commentary about whether a Trump appeal would or would not be successful is akin to discussing which team is most likely to win next year's Super Bowl. Anyone can have an opion, and as of today, all of those opinions are equally valid--unless you think it will be the Raiders.
DeleteYes, and horse race handicapping as political reporting is the sort of thing this blog used to point out and decry, before it became the strange whatever it is it is now.
DeleteWoke borders overrun by inflation drag queen babies Jim.
ReplyDeleteBharara also mentioned that he was friends with Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, who had worked with and been promoted by Bharara. Bharara was reluctant to criticize his friend.
ReplyDelete12:34,
ReplyDeletewhat negative political/career fallout would have resulted to a Democratic prosecutor bringing a 'solid' case against Trump?
Are you shitting me? Ever heard of Fani Willis? Put together an incredible RICO case down in Atlanta and now finds herself on trial for dating a guy she hired. Even though several defendants have already pleaded guilty, the entire case has been derailed because the good ol' boys down in GA are having fun digging into her sex life. Ain't that some shit.
ReplyDeleteWeird too how Somerby rushes to defend Trump for his affair, but not a word about Willis.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, Somerby defends a Republican, refuses to defend Dems. Huh! Quacks like a duck.
That RICO case was crap. Teachers who cheat on high-stakes tests are not racketeers.
ReplyDeleteRICO has broad applications, does not require direct monetary profit, is about illegal schemes that are coordinated and repeated, and the GA RICO law is even broader than the federal one.
ReplyDeleteanon 3:51, the derailing of the trial in Georgia on the basis of Willis hiring her boyfriend to be in charge of the case, seems to me on the bogus side. Seems, though, that she walked right into it, appointing her boyfriend, who apparently doesn't have the cred to be leading the prosecution of a case of this magnitude. They went on trips together, and there is an accusation that she paid for all of it apparently is deemed by the accuser to be wrongful) was met with her response that the each paid 50 - 50 - but in cash which could raise an eyebrow - why cash not a credit card? I don't see any conflict of interest however. I just read the (liberal) media, not the court pleadings and rulings, so don't know for sure what's going on, maybe you do.
ReplyDeleteAC/MA, I don't see the possible harm this would be to any defendant. This was litigated for weeks. There is no basis to have her removed from the case but now the Supreme Court of GA agreed to hear the appeal in October. Aint that some shit? They dragged her through the mud. 12 good ol boy white male lawyers questioning her and the prosecutor about their sex life. Aint that some shit.
ReplyDelete"I just read the (liberal) media"
ReplyDeleteMother Jones Magazine?
If I were a defendant, I'd WANT a prosecutor who was in over their head. Of course, I'd pay my lawyers, too, so I'm not much like the defendant in this case.
ReplyDeleteAC/MA, somebody above snidely asked "what negative political/career fallout would have resulted to a Democratic prosecutor bringing a 'solid' case against Trump?"
ReplyDeleteI offered Fani Willis as Exhibit A. I was not referring to the RICO case against the school teachers and administrators, I was referring to the RICO case against Trump and his accomplices trying to push through a fraudulent slate of electors in GA in 2020. That case had been totally derailed while the good ol boys down in GA pick at Fani Willis's sex, scheduled for the SC in October. Cause there's no fucking rush and you don't want to conflict with any of their summer vacations, do we?
The hearing determined that she didn't hire her boyfriend to be in charge of the case. Don't facts matter to anyone here?
ReplyDeleteTrump just said he doesn't want a woke military so he is going to get rid of the bad ones.
ReplyDelete