FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 2024
Fixed up with Conn Carroll: Is it possible that those guilty verdicts will somehow help Candidate Trump?
We don't have the slightest idea. Nor is there any obvious way to find out.
That said, we thought of Maureen Dowd's sister as we read the latest analysis piece by Mark Leibovich for the Atlantic.
Oof! Below you see the recent report by Maureen Dowd about her sister's reaction to the verdicts. After that, you see the new attempt by Leibovich to play the dating game:
DOWD (6/2/24): I called my Republican sibs Friday to see if hearing the word “guilty” ring out 34 times in a New York courtroom had finally severed them from Trump; they are, after all, children of a police detective.
My sister, Peggy, said she couldn’t sleep all night.
“You decided you can’t vote for a felon?” I asked.
“I wasn’t going to vote for Trump,” she said. “But now I am because I thought this whole thing was a sham.”
She tried to donate $100 to the Trump campaign, but so many people were contributing, she said, the site crashed. The campaign said it raised $52.8 million in the first 24 hours after the verdict on the Republican fund-raising platform.
Will Dowd's sister end up voting for Trump? We have no way of knowing.
But are there other such people in the world? In his essay, Leibovich has doubled the count:
LEIBOVICH (6/7/24): [L]ast week’s verdict seems to have sparked something akin to activation energy among Republicans. The claim, no matter how dubious, that Democrats have “weaponized” the courts against Trump has clearly galvanized sectors of the right. “Through two primaries and two general elections I have never voted for Trump,” Conn Carroll, the commentary editor for the conservative Washington Examiner, posted on X last week. “I would crawl over broken glass to vote for him now.” Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee said that they raised a combined $141 million in May, boosted by a surge in donations in the 24-hour period following the verdict. This nearly doubles what Trump and the RNC raised in April.
Will Conn Carroll vote for Trump? Was he going to do so anyway?
We don't know, but Leibovich apparently believes Carroll's claim—his claim that he's now planning to vote for Trump because of the Gotham trial.
These testimonies may seem strange to many of us in Blue America. In part, the reason for that is this:
As an apparent point of pride, we Blues refuse to step inside Red America's shoes and walk around a while.
From 2015 or 2016 on, we've begged our nation's biggest orgs:
Please don't ask those people, the Trump voters, why they support the gent.
We've been devoted to the idea that we should stay among our own and refuse to wonder about the way The Others live.
It hasn't been the smartest way to play. We'll offer this clue to us Blues:
Red America has some valid complaints about the Gotham trial. The fact that our corporate thought leaders won't tell us that has made us dumber and dumber.
The Fox News Channel employs quite a few people who go on TV and play the rubes in the most egregious (and smut-laden) ways. Last night, Greg Gutfeld's opening monologues were the latest samples of his weird anger and the unfortunate tendencies lurking inside his (59-year-old) brain.
Quite a few people on Fox play the fool (or worse).
That said, some people on Fox (not most) play it reasonably straight. And quite a few people in Blue America's high-end orgs are serving our interests poorly by propagandizing us as they do.
In his new essay, Leibovich bites the bullet concerning what a deeply challenged candidate President Biden seems to be. Even there, we'd say the gent is pulling his punches as far as the fairly obvious reasons for the president's troubled poll numbers.
In Blue America, our corporate thought leaders have been refusing to help us see the lay of the land. President Biden may still win this year, but we Blues have been acting like a gang of frightened kids—and we're being badly served by a disingenuous gaggle of "our favorite reporters and friends."
Why have some people reacted to last week's verdicts in the manner of Dowd's sister and Carroll
On a daily basis, our Blue American thought leaders seem determined not to let us know.
Clarence Thomas is the most beloved Supreme Court justice:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/clarence-thomas-has-received-a-ton-of-gifts-while-on-the-supreme-court/
If Clarence Thomas were actually lovable, Anita Hill would not have rejected his advances and testified against him (along with the coworkers who were all set to corroborate her testimony, but not given the chance). Maybe Harlan Crow likes talking about pubic hairs on Coke cans or discussing porn?
DeleteOf course the gifts were legal and not corrupt Only gifts from parties whose case is before the SC would be corrupt.
DeleteTo be fair Hill is smart and beautiful and thus has the pick of the litter, whereas Thomas is dim and dumpy and was stuck marrying one of the least desirable women out there.
Delete"Of course the gifts were legal and not corrupt Only gifts from parties whose case is before the SC would be corrupt."
DeleteThe result of a Trump University education. I have a buddy who is a NY Supreme Court Justice and he won't even let me buy him a beer. First day of law School: A judge must avoid even the appearance of bias.
I doubt if you're a racist @3:45, but wow! Thomas was abandoned by his parents, raised in poverty, attended segregated Southern schools and still managed to graduate from Yale Law school and pass the Bar Exam.
DeleteI agree that Anita Hill is good-looking. She was rewarded for her lies by becoming a tenured Professor without having published much of anything academic.
BTW after the supposed sexual harassment, Hill continued to seek contact with Thomas. That's the tell. A real victim of harassment would never seek to be with her harasser.
Thomas threatened to retire so Leonard Leo found a billionaire benefactor, Harlan Crow, to provide enough wealth for Thomas (and Alito, via Singer) to keep him on the court. Leo and Crow both have a right wing agenda they want pushed through the SC, so they have conspired to buy the SC to achieve their right wing goals, which are unpopular and could not be achieved through legitimate means.
DeleteThis is the very definition of corrupt.
Leo, Crow, Thomas, Alito, these men are some of the most corrupt people to have ever lived.
If you struggle with understanding this kind of corruption, that’s on you, that’s your moral compass that is broken.
"Seek to be with" does that mean she continued to do her job in the department where he was the boss? She didn't seek to be with him at any time outside of doing her job. But that is Thomas's wife's interpretation of her accusations -- she said Anita Hill was jealous and vindictive because Thomas rejected her advances. What else does a sexual harrasser say when confronted? And don't forget that there was corroboration for Hill's side, but none for Thomas. But Hill was told to sit down and shut up, so she did. What choice did she have?
DeleteNone of the circumstances of Thomas's life justify harrassing women on his staff. You don't get to do that as a prize for having survived poverty, for example. It is not racist to accuse Thomas of things that Hill testified to during his hearing. Even black men can be sexual harrassers or corrupt conservative puppets, as he now seems to be.
DeleteDIC I don’t doubt that you are a racist, you practically scream it from the peanut gallery.
DeleteHill’s testimony was backed by other women that were harassed and witnessed harassment, and another woman in 99 that was harassed by Thomas. Even Thomas’ wife later called Hill to harass her more.
Hill never sought contact with Thomas, that is a pernicious falsehood; her only continued contact with Thomas was because they were in the same profession, Thomas being her superior.
Hill has had a more impressive career than Thomas, who is widely viewed as the weakest Justice in modern times, rarely engaging in case discussions, instead just following the direction of the Federalist Society and his billionaire benefactors.
Hill also grew up poor, the granddaughter of a slave, went to Yale and passed the bar. Getting a law degree and passing the bar is fairly routine and not particularly impressive; there are thousands of ambulance chasers and such out there.
Thomas is not good-looking and neither is his wife, they are both the bottom of the barrel, but that’s not the real issue, which is that they are both corrupt and immoral people.
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made national headlines when he finally admitted a conservative billionaire gifted two free vacations — a trip to Indonesia and a northern California "all-male retreat" — but investigative reporters say a slew of valuable perks remain secret.
DeleteProPublica — first to uncover in 2023 the two trips funded by Harlan Crow in 2019 — says Thomas' amendment to his financial disclosure filings Friday may not be the victory for transparent governance it appears at first glance to be.
"There are many gifts Thomas received that he has still not disclosed," ProPublica reported Friday, "Even after the new amendments."
From Rawstory
"and a northern California 'all-male retreat'"
DeleteWho had to eat the cracker? Inquiring minds.
Our Host regularly complains that news organizations serving "out blue trive" won't tell us the same stories told on Fox.
DeleteIt seems an insurmountable challenge to cover, anyalyze, and refute all the made-up scandals served up by the right. They're still claiming there were millions of "illegal" votes in the 2020 election, that Fauci personally enriched himself via the Covid vaccines, that a cabal of pedophiles is trying to "groom" America's children, that undocumented migrants are awarded free food, medical care, and housing.
There comes a point when its no longer possible to responsibly report every crackpot theory espoused by the right. Eventually, you have to move on.
"Only gifts from parties whose case is before the SC would be corrupt."
DeleteOr from parties who might one day have a case before the SC, but from which one would not recuse oneself.
Thomas is thoroughly corrupt. And he's a whiner, too.
"seek" to be with" means that on one visit back Hill chose to be in alone in a car driven by Thomas. A real victim of sexual harassment would not make that choice.
DeleteWhy would the Judiciary Chairman, who was a Democrat, choose not to let anti Thomas witnesses testify? Because they were flakes. Their testimony would have been an embarrassment.
DeleteBTW their testimony would not have confirmed Thomas's supposed offensive words to Hill. Not a single person was found who had been present at any occasion when those words were spoken and heard Thomas's supposed statements.
Because there was pressure by Congress to go ahead with the hearing. It is the same reason why Kavanaugh was not held to account for his treatment of Christine Blasey Ford. Requests to investigate those coming forward with additional evidence were denied and he was confirmed despite the presence of that additional testimony.
DeleteIf I were a cynic I would say that men in general don't like to be accused by women for their past misdeeds (which they expect will never come back to haunt them). Men had the power to ignore the concerns of the women and their supporters. These situations seem to be bi-partisan and women are still a minority among both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.
You do not know what the testimony of the 18 additional witnesses who were available to testify about Thomas might have been. They didn't get the chance to appear. Congress apparently decided that whatever Thomas said or did with women didn't matter, just as they decided with Kavanaugh. This is why more women need to be elected to the Senate.
Hector, it has been shown that Thomas did not recuse himself from cases of interest to Harlan Crow.
Delete"A real victim of sexual harassment would not make that choice."
DeleteBased on what, David?
Of course the gifts were legal and not corrupt Only gifts from parties whose case is before the SC would be corrupt.
DeleteIs that why he was deliberately hiding them and only now once they have been revealed he is forced to amend his disclosure forms?
Say what you will about Clarence Thomas, but you can't say he isn't a corrupt piece of shit.
DeleteIs it a surprise to anyone that Republicans are believing lies told to them about the trial involving Trump? It is a lie that the trial was rigged. It is a lie that Biden had anything to do with it. It is a lie that Trump is innocent of the charges that a jury found him guilty of.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans believe any number of bizarre conspiracy theories accusing innocent Democrats of horrible things. I don't know of any way to disabuse them of such beliefs. I find it suspicious that these relatives would suddenly believe yet another lie, when they had not previously believed all the others ones told by and about Trump since 2015. Why now? That makes this seem like another cooked up lie about the impact of the trial on uncommitted voters. Because this story just makes no sense at all.
There is a comparable story circulating about an uncommitted voter who heard the conspiracy theory that Biden used the DOJ to persecute Trump for political motives (to stop his campaign). That voter disbelieved it because, he said, how could they ever get so many people to collude on convicting an innocent person, from Biden to the DA to the attorneys on down to the individual randomly selected jurors. But he said the convincing fact for him was that Trump screwed up a simple hush payment to a woman after sex. He said that if Trump were so incompetent as to fail at that payoff, he wasn't competent to be president and he didn't want him in the job.
That is an example of logic that does make sense. While his reasons wouldn't be mine, his thinking seems a lot more plausible than that reported by Dowd or Leibovich. And I do not believe that Conn Carroll would be a conservative and yet not have voted for Trump in the past two elections, especially in 2016, but would believe the specious conspiracy story that Trump has been peddling.
"And I do not believe that Conn Carroll would be a conservative and yet not have voted for Trump"
DeleteDon't believe it either.
Any professional liberal or conservative has a salt-of-the-earth contrarian family member who they trot out in order suggest that they’re not a walled-off partisan who never encounters the other side. Or they reference this “person” in order to make some point that is prefaced upon the authority of the close (mythical) sib or friend.
DeleteIt’s a con.
Or conn.
DeleteJust like DiC.
DeleteDavid is real.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:52pm, no, anonymices are the cons.
DeleteNone of you would be making a peep about this dumb trope if Dowd’s report was that her supposedly conservative sister was now denouncing Trump.
Also, Cecelia. Republicans would be big supporters of abortions, if it could be proven they lead to lower taxes on corporations.
DeleteCeceia,
DeleteDon't be an idiot. If Dowd's sister was now denouncing Trump, it wouldn't be mentioned at all in the NY Times.
Anonymouse 11:16am, both siblings have already been referenced in her column as to have hoped for a Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis win.
DeleteWhat do you think the significance of her supposedly conservative sister now backing Trump was about, Einstein?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:14am, so you’d support lower corporate taxes if that led to more abortion
DeleteEinstein here, in response to 11:23.
DeleteIt was typical NY Times fair, throwing shade on Democrats,
Did you forget the NY Times spent most of 2016 pretending to care that Republicans were pretending to care about Hillary Clinton's email protocols? What do you think that was about mouth-breather?
DeleteAs a Soros' trained monkey, I would support anything for more abortions. Mm-mmm.
And for confessions of black people counting snowflake rapists' votes, of course.
12:03,
DeleteThat reminds me that there is a troll here who hates hearing about Right-wing snowflakes throwing a childish temper tantrum at the United States Capitol, because black peoples votes were counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
Just in case they read this post, I want to point out that Right-wing snowflakes threw a childish temper tantrum at the United States Capitol, because black peoples votes were counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
Anonymouse Einstein, what are you jabbering about? The never-Trump political persuasion of two of Dowd’s relatives had already been reported by Dowd in the NYT, before the Trump verdict supposedly changed their minds.
DeleteI would be remiss, if I didn't point out that Republican voters, who are economically anxious and not at all just a shit pile of bigots (hat tip mainstream media), threw no tantrums when Trump gave his HUGE tax break to the rich and corporations.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:03pm, no one hates it when you write that as you have for years. We all understand that you’re limited.
Delete12:18,
DeleteI agree that no one here hates when I write about Right-wing snowflakes throwing a childish temper tantrum at the United States Capitol, because black peoples votes were counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
I'll continue to do it anyway, so that there is something truthful on TDH every now and then.
No harm, no foul.
Yes, we Soros' trained monkeys are limited. But we are still capable of learning new tricks, for a ripe banana or two. But it might take a while.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe anonymouse flying monkeys are the “special mices”. (mices pronunciation - meeces)
DeleteI fly, but I’m no monkey.
Delete12:30,
DeleteIt's so funny, because it's so true.
DiC - May jobs report - 272K. Let the good times roll!
ReplyDeleteThe Biden admin is the most pro labor, anti corporate corruption admin we’ve had since FDR.
Delete"Why have some people reacted to last week's verdicts in the manner of Dowd's sister and Carroll"
ReplyDeleteBecause they are fictional?
Because they are Republicans.
DeleteSomerby is trolling his haters on here. How many times has he taken the media to task for talking to one person or a small handful of people and then drawing some broader conclusion on the basis of what this statistically insignificant number of people said? And yet here is doing that exact thing, because it helps his own preferred narrative that the case was "wrong." And there's this little bit of richness: "But are there other such people in the world? In his essay, Leibovich has doubled the count." My god, the number doubled . . . just like that! We're doomed!
DeleteWhy didn't Somerby report on statistically more important data like this: "In a Reuters/Ipsos survey taken immediately after the verdict, 10 percent of Republicans said Mr. Trump’s conviction made them less likely to support him in the fall." Didn't fit Somerby's sermon.
https://bit.ly/3wYlirx
To the extent that anyone really changed their mind in favor of Trump as a result of the trial, it says nothing of the merits of the case. Instead, as usual, it represents a failure of the media and Dems/liberals to counter right-wing propaganda. How many such people understand that the Biden administration and "the Democrats" had nothing to do with the case? That it was the decision of a district attorney? How many understand that it wasn't a "concocted" lawsuit, that Michael Cohen had already been charged in relation to the same scheme six years ago? How many understand that Trump's crimes have nothing to do with the sex, the adultery, the porn, or the hush money? That it was about falsifying business records with the aim of influencing an election? How many understand all of the various ways that Trump and his enablers have corrupted/politicized much of the justice system, far more egregiously than this case allegedly has, and that he/they are promising to corrupt it far more in a Trump second term? Etc., etc., etc.
AC/MA doesn't even understand this but we have tried repeatedly to correct his mistaken ideas about the trial. If we cannot get him to see, how can we do anything about the others out there?
DeleteThe prosecutor decided to pursue the case after a grand jury recommended it, after hearing evidence. The grand jury is not Democrats but randomly selected people, just like Trump's eventual jury.
"The prosecutor decided to pursue the case after a grand jury recommended it, after hearing evidence. The grand jury is not Democrats but randomly selected people, just like Trump's eventual jury." Good points.
DeleteNo. The jury is most likely majority Democratic since it was drawn from the general population of Manhattan, where Biden got 85% of the vote.
Delete"That it was about falsifying business records with the aim of influencing an election?"
DeleteIf Trump's crime was falsifying records with the aim of influencing an election, how come the falsification came after the election was over?
And Trump is a failed businessman from Queens.
DeleteLet's not let him and his sycophants forget it.
"No. The jury is most likely majority Democratic since it was drawn from the general population of Manhattan, where Biden got 85% of the vote."
DeleteThis is a misleading statistic.
From an earlier post:
1. That margin of 86 to 12 only reflects New Yorkers who actually voted; roughly half did NOT vote; which means that probably only about 43% of the New Yorkers who could potentially be called for jury duty voted for Biden.
2. There was a rigorous jury selection process during which potential jurors were eliminated if they showed signs of anti-Trump bias (a process which included a review of news consumption and social media posts), and during which Trump himself and his lawyers vetted potential jurors and could eliminate ones they thought might be biased against him.
3. Given the first two points above, there were undoubtedly several jurors who were not biased against Trump, and likely even some that were Trump supporters. And it would have only taken ONE such juror to cause a hung jury, and yet that didn't happen. The verdict was unanimous and relatively quick.
Delete"If Trump's crime was falsifying records with the aim of influencing an election, how come the falsification came after the election was over?"
Fair point. Revised:
"How many such people understand that Trump's crimes have nothing to do with the sex, the adultery, the porn, or the hush money? That it was about falsifying business records with the aim of concealing a scheme to influence an election via unlawful means."
Somerby wants you to think a certain way, so towards that goal he floats two ridiculous and obviously false stories.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence indicates that the conviction is a net negative for Trump. We even have outcomes that the evidence predicts, with the Trump candidate in NJ losing badly.
Furthermore, were it the case that the conviction did give an electoral advantage to Trump, that is not a justification to let someone like Trump get away with crimes and corruption. To think otherwise is immoral.
When you have to present false stories and ignore the evidence to make your case, your case is weak, and if you had any integrity you’d not try to con people. But Somerby seems quite content running his con.
I don't watch FoxNews, but the other day surfing YouTube I came across Gutfeld's opening monologue. Boy, do I agree with Bob! It was disgusting and not even funny
ReplyDeleteYoung men in the 20-35 age group love Gutfeld and Joe Rogan and crude humor like that. These are the people Bill Maher brags about hanging out with. But ask yourself, if Somerby really disliked what Gutfeld says in his routines, would he keep quoting them as extensively as he does? Wouldn't he be telling people not to watch him, instead?
DeleteDo not vote for Republicans.
DeleteTrump wants to destroy America, for his personal benefit.
Delete4:11,
DeleteSure. Bob could write a column saying 'don't watch Gutfield,' but without quoting from Gutfield's show. What an interesting column that would be.
10:10,
DeleteHow is that different from his criticism of the media's reporting on the NY State case against Trump? He tells you it's bad without discussing how it's bad.
The best way to say Don’t watch Gutfeld is to ignore him.
DeleteBiden has out-raised Trump by a significant amount, and notably in individual contributions, where Biden has out-raised Trump on a scale of about 70 to 1.
ReplyDeleteThat massive differential in individual contributions further suggests that Biden’s support is much higher than the polls indicate.
Somerby obscures this data, putting his thumb on the scale, playing his readers for rubes.
Somerby is an agent of malign forces.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:15pm, annonymices are agents of malign farces.
DeleteQuite the spectacle on TV yesterday. Republicans castigating Garland for politicizing the judiciary. You know, the judge they blocked from consideration for the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans take pride in their hypocrisy and lack of integrity; for them, these are features, not bugs.
DeleteWhat about the hypocrisy of Garland engaging in the same behavior of refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena that his DOJ just prosecuted Bannon and Navarro?
DeleteYou mean just like Jim Jordan and a bunch of other mongrels?
DeleteThe difference between the Garland case and the other two is that Biden asserted executive privilege in the Garland matter. Trump never did, for either Navarro or Bannon.
DeleteThe president cannot use executive privilege or pardons to protect himself, his family or his private interests. Bannon was subpoenaed to answer questions about the 1/6 insurrection, which it is believed that Trump helped plan. That makes the assertion of executive privilege self-serving because the investigation was inquiring into Trump's role and was an impeachment inquiry. In the Garland case, Biden was not protecting himself because there was a finding of no charges. The Congress has no legitimate reason to demand the tapes and the president has the right to maintain the confidentiality of records and communications from subpoena. Biden was within the limitations of executive privilege, Trump would not be and his telling Bannon that executive privilege applied to his testimony was incorrect. That has now been appealed and settled, against Trump and Bannon, and that is why Bannon is finally going to jail. Trump tried to use executive privilege (based on what Bannon says Trump said to him) but it was denied by the courts.
DeleteIt is hard to argue that planning an insurrection is within the duties of the president or his staff. That means executive privilege cannot apply and attempts to use it fail because it is an attempt by Trump and his staff to conceal private not official actions. Executive privilege doesn't apply to private self-serving actions, such as trying to illegally overturn an election.
DeleteThere is a clear difference between Trump and Biden that should be considered by every voter. This should be a matter of values, not which side can yell loudest and which side sinks lowest in disparaging the other side. I would never vote for Trump even if he had never been charged with a crime, much less convicted. He isn't qualified and he doesn't support anything I care about.
ReplyDeleteDigby sums it up:
https://digbysblog.net/2024/06/07/the-contrast-couldnt-be-any-more-stark/
I work as a paid troll because an illegal immigrant took my job.
ReplyDeleteSomerby needs to moderate his blog in order remove spam like this.
ReplyDeleteI give Bob credit for at least admitting he doesn't know if the Dowd's Sister's claim in true. We can be thankful, by the way, the Post didn't just give her her own guest column, as they have Dowd's brother (!).
ReplyDeleteThis claim that a right wing vote is compelled by a (in this case perceived) liberal action that goes over the line is an old political saw, usually intended to make left America stay in it's place. Mo's dimwit sister's revenge fantasy is not to be taken at face value. As Bob admits, however, his own perception of the American Political dynamic rests on such dubious stuff.
In my own circle of Democratic but hardly far left friends,
the reaction was the exact opposite. The joy at Trump being called to account for his ghastly behavior admittedly was triggered by things FAR beyond the case itself. Can my friends be forgiven this? Can they be excused for not seeing this grotesque, perverted figure merely as an unfortunate "disordered" individual? But rather as the personification of everything rotten they have experienced in that part of America where might makes right, , money defines morality, and people like Bob look at Trump and say "well, he never did. anything to ME."
I felt a burst of energy that doesn't seem to exist in the eyes of the media, from people whose viewpoint Bob has no interest in. I don't know if this will affect the election either, but the notion it helps Trump seems very dubious.
@10:23 How would you have felt if Trump and the Republicans prosecuted Hillary for felonies in 2017 using a novel legal theory? She did monkey with e-mails in order to make herself more electable. You would have been irate, and rightly so.
DeleteThe indictment was brought by the DA of the State of NY , no matter how many times DIC promotes the false narrative that Biden was involved in the decision. The claim is an outright lie at this point as he has been called out about it previously. A jury that included 2 lawyers, that was vetted by Trump's defense team, came to the unanimous conclusion that Trump's activities violated NY law after only 9 hours. Trump said, on multiple occasions, that he wanted to lock Clinton up; at no time has Biden made a similar inflammatory statement about Trump. This case is only one of many in which Trump's behavior has been shown to be unethical, in this case to the point of being unlawful. DIC and others in the Trump cult can cry all they want about election results or jury verdicts with false narratives that are intended to sway uncommitted voters. That does not change the fact that their chosen candidate is a habitual liar who has been impeached twice and now judged to be a felon.
DeleteDIC trots out the days lamest “what aboutism” but here’s the rub: Trump obviously flushed tens of thousands of tax dollars down the toilet trying to get something on Hillary Clinton or “the Biden Crime Family” and he could never quite get his flunkies to take that final step and manufacture evidence. I expect this may still create problems if the worst happens in November. Trump has corrupt, hack judges protecting him now, watch how quickly that changes if he loses.
DeleteAnd we should also note The President’s comment that he will not pardon his Son is proper but a little heartbreaking. He would have been allowed to plead out on these charges years ago if it wasn’t for the politics.
DeleteHis Son is our Lord.
DeleteI vote for either Pied Piper or Hector to take charge.
ReplyDeleteI vote for Corby.
ReplyDeleteDid it ever occur to you that Mo Do might be lying about her sister?
ReplyDeleteYes, it did, since it nicely served her purpose, as it does Somerby's here. It is interesting that Somerby choses two examples from a galaxy of opinions after the New York trial, to bolster his conclusions about the verdict affecting opinions in general. Latest polls suggest that these are in the minority, but it is important that anecdotal cases be the bulwark of Somerby's argument, insofar as good arguments are frequently made using cherry picked data.
ReplyDeleteSo, Dowd's sister is saying that although he broke the law, he should not be held accountable. Maureen isn't the only crazy on in her family.
ReplyDeleteYes. Her sister is one vote. Maureen helped sink All Gore.
Delete"We Blues refuse to step inside Red America's shoes and walk around a while." Hey Bob, you make this complaint over and over again... but I never read anything from you demonstrating a willingness to do the heavy lifting yourself. Where's your empathy for those better-than-the-poors, nice white people; those redneck suburbanites? Why don't you step inside Red America's shoes for a change and inform us why they think the way they do? It's always somebody else who has to do it, right?
ReplyDelete