SATURDAY, JUNE 1, 2024
The backwash will be forever: On this morning's Washington Journal, C-Span asked its viewers to respond to this question:
Does the Trump conviction impact the way you plan to vote in November?
For the record, the verdicts won't affect the way we plan to vote. Presumably, the verdicts won't affect the way most people, Red or Blue, were already planning to vote.
That said, the responses to C-Span's question help illustrate the nation's current Great Divide. Here are a pair of responses, as delivered on the air starting at 7:22 a.m.:
MODERATOR (6/1/24): We have received a comment from Ed in Darien, Connecticut, who said on—who sent us a text message saying:
"The verdict against President Trump has left a sick feeling in my stomach for America. The Justice System has been changed forever. I have only campaigned for one other President in my life and that was Reagan. Trump will now be the second."
[Text of message as shown on screen]
All right. Back to your calls. Jackie is in Stratford, Connecticut on our line for Democrats. Good morning, Jackie.
Jackie, can you hear us?
JACKIE FROM STRATFORD: Yes.
MODERATOR: Did the Trump conviction impact how you were planning to vote in November?
JACKIE FROM STRATFORD: Well, I just want to say—as a Democrat, if Biden committed these crimes, i would be totally for his conviction, full stop. Thank you.
MODERATOR: OK!
Like us, Jackie will still be voting for Biden. Most likely, Ed was already planning to vote for Trump.
The verdict won't affect the way they were planning to vote. That said, we were struck by one part of Jackie's statement.
Jackie said that "if Biden committed these crimes," she would want to see him prosecuted and convicted too. With that, a lingering question entered our heads:
How would Jackie define or describe "these crimes?" What are the crimes in question—the 34 felonies a fully constituted jury found that Trump committed?
Late on Thursday, the jury's verdict came in a flash. As was clear in this morning's calls to C-Span, the aftermath will be roughly forever:
As a nation, we'll go from talking about the affair with the porn start to talking about possible imprisonment and the status of Trump's appeals. We'll rarely talk about anything else, and Red/ Blue anger will grow.
Cable news ratings will remain high. Various major policy matters will remain undiscussed.
In such a setting, you'd ordinarily assume that everyone would be able to describe the (thirty-four) crimes in question. In this slightly peculiar instance, it still isn't clear that anyone can clearly describe or define the crimes.
We ourselves can't quite define the crimes. Beyond that, we know of no major news org which has made a serious attempt to provide that obvious service.
What are the crimes in question? In the societal / political / cultural sense, we'll repeat what we said last week:
In the societal / political / cultural sense, Trump has been convicted of (allegedly) "having an affair with a porn star," or perhaps of "having paid hush money to a porn star."
Allegedly, the affair in question took place in 2006; allegedly, it last roughly five minutes.
The woman in question says it occurred. Donald J. Trump says it didn't.
In the societal sense, Trump has been convicted of that offense. That said, engaging in congress with someone who isn't your spouse isn't a criminal offense at this point. What's actual criminal offense—what are the actual "crimes"—to which the C-Span caller referred?
To this day, we'll guess that very few people could answer that question with any degree of accurate specificity.
We're fairly sure that we ourselves couldn't do that. Could the caller from Stratford, Connecticut? We have no idea.
The complexity of the criminal charges involved in this prosecution is going to fuel the partisan anger which was evident in the calls to C-Span today.
In Red America, citizens have been told that the charges in question were generated as part of a legal scam, a hoax. In Blue America, little effort has been made to explain, in any detail, the actual nature of the crimes for which Trump stands convicted.
Many people could probably say that he's been found guilty of "falsifying business records." But the crimes in question involve more than that, and we'll guess that very few people, to this very day, could give us the rest of the story.
Trump was found guilty of 34 crimes—but what exactly are they? Yesterday morning, the New York Times didn't really try to answer that question in its front-page report about the jury's verdict.
To its credit, the Washington Post made more of an effort. That said, here are the three relevant passages, headline and paragraph numbers included:
Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in New York hush money trial
A New York jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to an adult-film actress, delivering a historic verdict that could shape the November election and that makes Trump the first former U.S. president convicted of a crime.
[...]
(16) Prosecutors accused Trump of overseeing “a long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.” The government’s complex theory of the case was built on interlocking alleged criminal violations, and jurors were given a convoluted set of instructions as a result.
[...]
(27) The jury in Manhattan was tasked with deciding whether Trump was guilty on each specific count of falsifying business records and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election. Prosecutors offered three types of underlying crimes that could raise the unlawful election-meddling allegation; jurors did not have to be unanimous about which of those they felt was at play.
The Post began with the standard account. Trump was found guilty "of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to an adult-film actress."
Of course, it's been said a million times by now that it isn't illegal to enter into a nondisclosure agreement (an NDA) of the type in question. That leaves the basic question unanswered:
What was the actual crime?
As of today, the jury has spoken. The appeals have yet to be filed.
Cable news stars will now sit around, all day long and day after day, discussing the status of those appeals and ignoring everything else.
That said, what exactly is the crime which lies at the heart of this growing societal meltdown? You'd think we'd all know by now, but the answer remains unclear.
In paragraphs 16 and 27, the Post made a minor attempt to answer that fairly obvious question. In its own lengthy front-page report, the New York Times pretty much didn't try to do so at all.
The Washington Post made a minor attempt. You can see the text of their effort in the excerpts we've posted above.
Tomorrow, we'll try to walk you through what those paragraphs say—but this question is going to linger for a very long time.
Ed now plans to campaign for Trump. Jackie says she'd want to see Joe Biden convicted if he committed the same crimes Trump committed.
Having said that, what are those crimes? The backwash will go on forever. Conceivably, the anger could help Trump get elected. Or then again, quite possibly not!
The verdict came in a flash. The aftermath will be forever.
That said, what were the actual crimes in question? If we lived in a modestly rational world, wouldn't we know that by now?
What were the crimes? What were the verdicts?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/06/the-courage-of-their-convictions
"When Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg first announced his indictment of former President Donald Trump back in early 2023, there was a wave of skepticism from liberal commentators, legal experts, and Trump critics. The case relied on a “dubious legal theory,” wrote Ian Millhiser at Vox. At New York, Jonathan Chait argued the case shouldn’t have been brought because only a political candidate could have committed it (which is true of all campaign finance laws, but I digress), saying it “is like getting Al Capone for paying off his mistress.” At The Atlantic, David Frum made an incredulous-stare argument that it couldn’t possibly be a big enough crime to merit the first-ever prosecution of a president. At Slate, law professor Richard Hasen argued the case didn’t have legal merit.
DeleteYet it turned out that the Bragg case was solid. After just a couple days of deliberation, the jury delivered total victory: guilty on every one of 34 felony counts.
For all the flaws of the criminal justice system, this is how it’s supposed to work. An accused criminal—in this case, one of the most influential and famous people in the world, with an extremely well-funded legal defense—got his day in court, and a jury of random citizens unanimously agreed he did the crimes.
Now, Trump will undoubtedly appeal, and it’s anyone’s guess whether the appellate judges in New York, who as a rule bend over backwards to accommodate wealthy criminals like Trump (or Harvey Weinstein), will bail him out once more. But it must be admitted now that Bragg knew his business and was right to prosecute.
The odd thing about all the anxious liberal hand-wringing is that once the prosecution’s various filings were published, the legal argument in the case was fairly straightforward. As Quinta Jurecic carefully explains at Lawfare, the core of it was that Trump had falsified business records, namely paying back Michael Cohen’s hush-money bribes to Stormy Daniels, which he disguised as payments for legal services. This is normally a misdemeanor, but it is upgraded to a felony if in the service of other crimes—even if they are only attempted—namely, falsifying other business records, tax fraud, and most importantly, violating state and federal campaign finance law.
And the prosecution’s case had Trump dead to rights. Multiple and reinforcing pieces of evidence and testimony proved that Trump knew the purpose of the payments was falsified, and that they certainly constituted a political expenditure. After all, the entire reason for paying Daniels off, as Hope Hicks testified that Trump told her, was to prevent the story getting out and tanking his 2016 campaign.....
In a sense, Chait is right that this is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion—but that was a good thing. Gangsters like Capone are such a dire threat to public safety that the most important thing is to get them for something. If his criminal conspiracy is so tight that you can’t get him for organizing the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, then by God you hunt around and see if he’s done some other crimes. And Capone did, in fact, fail to pay his taxes. It would have been senseless to let him skate on a small crime because you can’t build a case for a much worse one that he obviously committed....
...Trump poses a threat to the American republic that’s a million times worse than Capone ever did.... The fact that the partisan hacks Trump installed throughout the federal judiciary have successfully delayed his federal cases past the election (enabled by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s inexcusable dithering), in a flagrantly corrupt effort to help him escape justice, only makes it all the more urgent he be punished for whatever other crimes he’s done. And again, these were not “to be determined” charges; as the jury agreed, they were genuine and serious." [continued below]
"So Alvin Bragg has delivered the American people an invaluable gift: the truth that Donald Trump is a convicted felon. That just might break through the fog of right-wing propaganda and inert mainstream coverage that made him seem like just another politician. We all owe Bragg a debt of gratitude." https://bit.ly/4c3Q8O2
DeleteDestiny Deacon has died.
ReplyDeleteYou told us that yesterday.
DeleteThat was a different anonymouse.
Deleteyeah, even if we've been informed of someone's death already, it's very important that we be informed again from this particular anonymous. thanks weirdo!
DeleteShould it matter? Paying off a lover to shut up is hiding from the voters. Like with Clinton, it is above moral character. The jury adjudged the sex & the payoff really happened.
ReplyDelete.. about moral character...
DeleteThis has nothing to do with what the trial was about.
DeleteBill Clinton's impeachment may have been about moral character and the rule of law etc. but it ended up helping him in the end. Voters did not care about the moral transgressions made in that case or that the rule of law was applied.
DeleteIt's interesting to see if that is going to happen here. The rule of law may have been applied and the scales of justice bah blah blah but will voters agree that that is an important issue? And could Trump use it to rally support among potential voters who are skeptical about the fairness of our justice system?
Clinton did not run for reelection after the scandal which occurred during his second term. It was vindictive by the Republicans.
DeleteVoters in the midterms. It was vindictive by the Republicans. Trump may be able to successfully convince some potential voters that his conviction was vindictive by the Democrats. It will be interesting to watch to see if he does.
DeleteThe circumstances of Clinton and Trump were vastly different, for example Clinton was not trying to impact his electoral chances through crimes, and Clinton was not convicted.
DeleteClinton's popularity at the time of the 98 elections was in fact about where it had been for the previous 2 years, long before the scandal broke.
In 98 in fact Republicans maintained control of Congress, Dems only picked up 5 seats in the House, which was repeated in the 2002 midterms, thus nullifying the argument that 98 was a result of Clinton's impeachment.
In 98 Bush was re elected in Texas by a landslide, and then was close enough to Gore in 2000 for the SC court to hand the presidency to Bush.
There is no credible evidence that Trump's conviction will increase his electoral chances. The only relevant question is how much it will harm his chances.
The trial didn't change my vote, but it strengthened my commitment. The fundamental facts, that nobody can refute, are
ReplyDelete-- the Prosecutor boated that would a find a crime to charge Trump with
-- He didn't find a clear, serious crime
-- All he found was do was that six years ago Trump made a single series of payments to Daniels via his lawyer and these payments were booked in the wrong accounting category.
-- On this basis, Trump can be sent to prison for over 100 years.
Trump opponents can say "34 felony convictions" or "falsifying business records" or "He deserves it because he's a bad person." or "The conviction was legally proper." But, the fact remains that they intentionally looked for a crime with which to charge Trump. They found something trivial, but convicted him anyway.
-- the Prosecutor boated that would a find a crime to charge Trump with
DeleteYou're a fucking LIAR, David. That didn't happen. But you will repeat this fucking LIE because you like it. Don't fucking come here and lecture us about how you listen to all different sources.
Of course it didn't change your vote. That is because you're a racist cretin and love trump.
I am sure you will cavalierly dismiss all the other felonies he has been charged with as well, cause you're so fucking open minded. LOL
Only racists support Trump?
DeleteBlack voters criticize Biden for 'pandering' as support shifts to Trump: 'It's insulting'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/black-voters-criticize-biden-for-pandering-as-support-shifts-to-trump-its-insulting/ar-BB1nrMYc
You mean the investigation that was begun by the Trump justice department and that Bragg inherited from the previous AG, Cyrus Vance? That fucking investigation?
DeleteBut you fucking just wrote that he boasted that he would "find a crime to charge with". Didn't you just fucking say that, David? That's because you can't help yourself, you're a fucking LIAR. You are indecent.
Hey, David, you racist fuck. Trump's a gangsta now, don't you know. I own 3 pair of gold sneakers cause that's what us ghetto blacks love. go fuck yourself, whiney bitch troll.
DeleteDavid is more hysterical than usual, as is the rest of the Republican party, which shows that David is not just some guy commenting here but part of that right wing political effort that sends trolls to an ostensibly liberal blog to do Trump's dirty work.
DeleteIt is tempting to feed the trolls, like DIC and Cecelia and PP, because they present misinformation, and it is natural for non right wingers to want to help those in need; however, responding to the trolls is not helping them, these are wounded folks, and their views are baked in. The best way to help these people is to explain to them where their wrongheadedness comes from, giving them a sliver of self awareness so that they might someday be able to break the cycle of abuse and oppression.
DeleteBest to agree with them, and make them cry.
DeleteThey want to live in a merit-based society? Good, the Estate Tax rate should be 100%. What will they do to help make this happen?
Anonymouse 12:51pm, please explain what is unhealthy about following a writer who you admire, as opposed to following a writer who you have expressly stated that you despise?
DeleteCecelia, imagine for a moment that the writer you admire is a despicable person. Admiring him and following him then is itself despicable because of your support for him. Someone who appropriately despises that despicable writer, recognizing his despicableness, is better off that you with your slavish admiration of gullible swalling of the despicable prose written by that despicable writer.
DeleteGet it now?
7:45 - Yes, I do get it! You have set yourself up as the judge of despicable writers and admirable writers! I bow to your superior wisdom in this matter.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:45pm, generally, people don't frequent the blogs of people they find despicable. They don’t hang around to berate the blogger and the people who do enjoy the blog. That sort of behavior isn’t dissent, it’s too personal for that and too angry.
DeleteYou’re not in a good place and this thinking of yours will affect your health.
But you dodged CC’s question. Granted, you’re superior to CC in discerning that Somerby is a despicable writer; but why do you follow a writer you so despise?
Delete12:51 - I just read your lovely promise to help me out of my wrongheadedness by teaching me how to become self-aware so I can break out of my cycle of abuse and oppression. So I can become self-aware, am I the abuser/oppressor in this little morality tale playing in your head or am I the victim?
Delete"Presumably, the verdicts won't affect the way most people, Red or Blue, were already planning to vote."
ReplyDeleteSomerby has no support for this statement.
Agree. He never bothers to substantiate his nonsense.
DeleteSomerby explicitly signaled that he had no supporting evidence by giving “presumably” as a preamble. He thinks his statement should be accepted as self-evident.
DeleteAnd don’t you agree? Wouldn’t you be shocked if 51% of the voters said they had changed their vote because of the verdict?
I don't agree with making statements pulled out of one's ass and asserting them as true without evidence. It is disrespectful to Somerby's readers that he does this routinely. I don't know whether this habit arises from laziness or inability to research his ideas.
Delete"Late on Thursday, the jury's verdict came in a flash."
ReplyDeleteThe jury did not take an abnormally short amount of time to deliberate. They deliberated for 9 hours, asking several questions of the judge in the process. That suggests they took their duty seriously and gave it thought.
Somerby's off-hand remark about "in a flash" implies they had already made up their minds, which is inconsistent with the fact that they took 9 hours to decide Trump was guilty.
Somerby keeps saying no one's minds were changed by the trial outcome, but what about the jurors' minds? They were selected because they had no detectable bias against or for Trump at the start of the trial. Yet ALL of them were convinced by the evidence at the end of the trial. If the jury was persuadable and convinced, why wouldn't other Americans be too?
ReplyDeleteIt is as if Somerby is saying that all of America holds bias, but that is not consistent with the ability of the trial process, judge and lawyers to find 12 open-minded people to serve on the jury. I suspect that many were not regular voters or partisans at the beginning of the trial (most New Yorkers are in that category rather than being registered Democrats or Republicans). There are similarly voters who are not committed to either candidate, swing voters and independents and those who haven't made up their minds. I suspect this verdict will have an impact on them, just as the evidence had on those who served as jurors.
Somerby's vested interest is to hold on to Trump supporters after a verdict that may have been shocking to them. By suggesting that no one will change their support after Trump has been found guilty on 34 felony counts, he is giving permission to wavering Trumpies to hold their course. But who in their right mind can now vote for a presidential candidate who is a convicted felon, and why is the Republican party sticking with Trump? There is no answer to that question that doesn't involve power dynamics, bribery, threats and strong-arm tactics applied by Trump and his MAGAs to a wavering right. Because that is what a dictator does. And Trunp has clearly turned the Republican party into a perversion of a political party that seems to have no will of its own any more.
And that is what Somerby means when he says no one will change their vote. They cannot, given Trump's grip on the right wing. But voters are not dependent on Trump for jobs or favors, so they can and should switch their votes to Biden while this is still a relatively free country.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@10:37 What a dictator does is imprison his opponents.
DeleteSee 10 World Leaders Who Allegedly Jailed Their Political Opponents and Critics https://www.ranker.com/list/world-leaders-who-jailed-political-opponents/kellen-perry
Yunacovitch, Mugabe, Putin, Khamanei, Hugo Chavez, etc.
This is the kind of horseshit David litters this comment board with. Pure rightwing fever swamp propaganda horseshit, that the "decent" David feels compelled to share with us. Go fuck yourself, David.
DeleteDo you have any evidence or proof that President Biden had anything to do any of the felonies Donald J Chickenshit has been indicted on? You miserable racist fuckface.
@10:32 here's some evidence
DeleteProsecutors Met With Biden Admin Before 3 Trump Indictments
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutors-met-with-biden-admin-before-3-trump-indictments/ar-BB1irUaf
Evidence of what, David? You lying sack of shit racist prick. Go ahead, dig into that story a little deeper, fuckface.,
DeleteThis is the kind of comment that reveals David for the propagandist he is. There is no similarity at all between the American justice system and the way dictators in certain countries treat their political enemies. If there were, Trump would have been put in jail long ago. Today, there is little likelihood Trump will even be placed on house arrest for crimes he manifestly committed. And there would have been no delay in his other trials.
DeleteDavid's silly comment shows the huge difference between our justice system and what happens in real dictatorships.
David is repeating comments that were debunked a few days ago when he first put them up here.
DeleteI no longer bother opening DiC’s links because they invariably contradict the point he is making. Complete waste of effort. He is easily the laziest spoon fed troll that shows up here.
DeleteDiC: Promoting that story from stateoftheunion.org again? What do you know about the site? Why do you find it to be a credible source? According to the site's own description, it was founded just last year and its "editorial team" includes a bunch of names who are suspiciously absent from Google search results.
DeleteBut whatever! The story supports your biases so it must be right, eh?
"That said, what exactly is the crime which lies at the heart of this growing societal meltdown?"
ReplyDeleteTrump's crimes are not what lies at the heart of this "growing societsl meltdown". They are more of the same lawlessness displayed by a person who has no respect for anything except his own greed and self-interest. Our societal meltdown is exemplified by the willingness of too many Republicans who opportunistically have been using Trump to further their own interests, whether as businessmen or politicians or individuals who think Trump will lower their taxes or hurt their enemies (immigrants, gays, minorities of all kinds) and put women back in the kitchen. That is the societal meltdown -- the backlash against the social progress of the last several decades. Trump cares nothing about that, but he has made promises to such people in order to promote his own power.
The hope for the majority of our country, the people who have supported and enacted social change for the better, is that Trump's movement is failing, not solely because of his rotten core, but because most people do not support conservatism. In a democracy whose institutions are allowed to function, the majority would prevail and the right would be dragged unwillingly into a more progressive future. The right has fought this by attacking those democratic institutions in order to rig elections their own way, just as they have done with the Supreme Court and voter suppression and our do-nothing Congress during Trump's term. Trump is a criminal and no one should still be supporting him. That they are shows the rot on the right.
The rest of us are willing and able to fight to preserve our democracy. That is why Trump will be routed and his MAGA candidates down ballot will lose big time in November. Meanwhile, guys like Somerby who are carrying water for Trump should rethink their allegiance. They are on the wrong side of history.
Somerby, in particular, has nothing to say to good decent people, thinking people, who might wander over to his blog. The left is not to blame for our societal problems -- guys like Somerby, who have sold their souls for a handful of beans are the ones to blame for Trump and the ghouls who are trying to feed on the corpse of America as we struggle to come back from the pandemic, deal with conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, and provide a better future for our citizens. Shame on Somerby!
Yes, @10:51, Democrats claim to be enacting "social change for the better." But, they're failing at this goal. Cities long governed by Democrats are generally doing badly. High crime rates. Poor educational results. High taxes. Corruption.
DeleteMy state of CA, which is controlled by Democrats, has the highest poverty rate in the nation, despite all its natural advantages.
David, you can’t even list correct statistics. According to this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate#U.S._Census_Bureau_table, California’s poverty rate ranks 26th, nowhere close to highest. Why do you do this?
DeleteThanks for the correction, @11:17. CA has the largest number of people below the poverty line, but not the highest rate.
DeleteShame on Somerby for not mouthing the party line like a good, unthinking, liberal should! Right?
DeleteCA has the largest number (not the highest rate) but it is closely followed by TX, which is controlled by Republicans. Not coincidentally, TX is a large state too.
DeleteThe highest rates are in red states, along with the worst educational outcomes and arguably the silliest governors and worst state legislatures. Look at the mess DeSantis has made of FL.
David,
DeleteThink of it the way the electoral college works. California has the highest number of people below the poverty line, but regardless they have just as much political power as the few people who live below the poverty line in Wyoming.
It may not seem fair to you and I, but those who wanted the country to bend over backwards for slaveholders, made the rules.
Actually, if we’re talking about the Electoral College, the vote of one person in Wyoming is equal to the votes of 3.7 people in California.
DeleteIf we’re talking about the Senate, the vote of one person in Wyoming is equal to the votes of 67 people in Calufornia.
Delete"Shame on Somerby for not mouthing the party line like a good, unthinking, liberal should! Right?"
DeleteNot right. There is much greater diversity of opinion on the left than on the right. Talking about liberal "party line" is not only ignorant but very hard to pin down. That's why Somerby's belief that there is such a thing as liberal media, blue America and so on is fatuous.
On the right, supporters of Trump tend to label whatever they disagree with as liberal, when it may or may not be, factually speaking. For example, anti-vax beliefs like those of RFK, Jr. originated among upper middle class parents on the left, not with MAGA covid-deniers. The confusion about who is legitimately anti-vax is undermining RFK Jr's campaign. But many liberals eschew that belief. So, what is party line on vax? Depends on who you talk to. You will find considerable intra-lefty disagreement on almost every topic, because it is part of being liberal to explore views instead of following an authoritarian leader like Trump demands.
So, you are mostly throwing eggs at the commenters you dislike here when you stay ridiculous things like this.
Trolling has three personality components: narcissism, sociopathy, and Machiavellianism. These seem to be more important in motivating your trolling than ideological conviction of any sort. That's probably why there is so little coherence to the things you actually say beyond the insults you aim at the liberals here.
Yes! Only a narcissistic, Machiavellian sociopath could possibly criticize the bizarre crank groupthink here which insists that Somerby is a corrupt foreign agent poisoning the minds of credulous liberals!
DeleteThat was me.
DeleteIt's not "groupthink". It's just one psycho-lib, her name is Corby.
DeleteI agree it is one troll posting under different nyms or not using one.
DeleteI know which comments I didn’t write, so I know for sure there are multiple liberals here.
DeleteSomerby and his trolls are fighting a losing battle, let them flail. It likely does little harm and it is amusing and instructive to observe.
Delete12:52 gets it right, their comments and similar ones are the only legitimate reason to visit this shell of a blog.
Nobody should try to explain statistics and numbers to DiC. He’s a goddam actuary. Or was when his mind was intact. Just remember this: everything he posts is easily refutable. Maybe there needs to be an age limit or cognitive test for commenters on this thread.
DeleteWhat Party Line would that be Pied? Just because something is not what everyone else is saying ( Bob was certainly on his own, for instance, with is "legitimate political discourse" take) doesn't make it correct.
DeleteCome on. In this particular instance, the Party Line is that the charges are simple and straightforward.
DeleteBTW - I’m wondering how many of you agree that Somerby is to blame for the ghouls feeding on the corpse of America?
DeleteIt’s weird to me that people here say shit like this, but then cry and cry if there’s any pushback.
DeleteSomerby is one of those ghouls.
Delete"CA has the largest number of people below the poverty line." Well no shit. CA has by far the highest population.
DeleteGoogle Trends "Donate to Biden" vs. "Donate to Trump"
ReplyDeletehttps://prnt.sc/nKCjrBHwBnc-
No one has ever claimed that Trump's MAGAs don't support him. The question is should they? To my knowledge Biden wasn't convicted of anything that would drive up his support among felon-lovers this week.
DeleteTrump doesn't need their money. He's a super rich and successful businessman. I know, because I watched the documentary, "The Apprentice", which proved it.
DeleteFor narcissistic greedy bastards, there is never enough money. It isn't about what they need but what they can take from others.
DeleteThe issue for me is not whether people should support Trump, but rather, 'Are they?' I am interested to see if the conviction ends up helping Trump.
DeleteYou won't know until November. Polls are not votes.
Delete12:42 PM Thanks for info.
DeleteThe trial was important because it was about a wealthy White male trying to get away with crimes, and he failed. This is a significant shift, and if it becomes a trend, society will have progressed.
DeleteSomerby is focused on the salacious aspect and the electoral impact; this is because those aspects further Somerby's goal of muddying the waters in order to maintain hierarchies, and to find emotional comfort for his bitterness.
1:03 - Wait a minute. I thought Somerby’s motive was greed, that he was being paid handsomely by Putin. Now you’re telling me that his motive is to “comfort his bitterness” by “maintaining hierarchies.” So now I’m confused — which is it?
DeleteNo one said handsomely or that it was about greed with Somerby -- although I fully believe it is greed with most Republicans. Somerby seems to be living well off of what his mother left him when she died. He doesn't do this for the money. He does it to feel important and because he is bitter about his inability to make it as a journalist or cable host or as more than a B-level stand up comedian, like the ones he denigrates on Gutfeld's show.
DeletePP, even you can understand the someone can have more than one motive for doing something. You do feign confusion almost as well as Somerby, but even a toddler knows there can be two reasons for doing something.
Also, there is more than one anonymous commenter here, at least one of them has been replying sarcastically. You are perhaps being a tad too literal again.
So you agree that those saying that Somerby writes what he does because he’s paid by Putin are full of shit. You think, instead, that Somerby is motivated by bitterness and jealousy.
DeleteThat’s funny. I don’t pick up hints that he’s motivated by bitterness OR jealousy. Perhaps you should consider the charitable reading that he is motivated by the (almost-surely) vain hope that his words might do some good.
No, I said he can have mulriple motives.
DeleteFrom Daily Kos -- an explanation of what the trial was possibly about to jurors (from a Defense Attorney):
ReplyDelete"For me, during the Trump trial- which I considered more an election fraud case than anything- that shift moment came when Michael Cohen was asked about Red Finch.
Defense counsel asked Cohen about stealing from Trump payments intended for a tech firm, Red Finch, intending to show jurors that Cohen could not be trusted. Cohen had admittedly lied in Trump’s service, repeatedly, so that made him a liar and how could jurors trust a liar to tell the truth? Now Cohen was also admitting to stealing- he paid Red Finch only $20,000 of Trump’s $50,000 payment and pocketed the $30k. That made him a thief as well as a liar, and wasn’t he really just out to extort President Trump all along?
“You stole it from the Trump Organization?” Blanche asked about the $30k, to which Cohen replied, essentially, ‘yes.’
On redirect, winding up for the pitch, Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Cohen, what, exactly was the purpose of Red Finch, anyway? Cohen then explained that Red Finch was an online tech company Trump hired to artificially boost Trump’s ranking in an online opinion poll.
The opinion poll wasn’t even marginally important- it was a poll soliciting public opinion about “history’s most notable business leaders.” Trump owed Red Finch the $50,000 fee for fraudulently skewing the results of an opinion poll in his favor. When Cohen told jurors about the arrangement, the curtain was pulled back to reveal a green haze of sleaze.
Trump paying Red Finch $50,000 to lie for him, to present fraudulent proof that people liked Trump more than they did, was an ordinary business expense no amount of cross examination could wash off.
When the truth about Red Finch came out, there was nothing defense lawyers could do to fix it. Here was a man so steeped in fraud, so accustomed to lying to the public, he was paying a tech firm to skew the results of an opinion poll on his behalf. Having opened the door, defense counsel couldn’t move to strike it from the record, and even if they had, the green sleaze oozing out from under Trump couldn’t be unseen."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/5/31/2243950/-Trump-lost-his-case-when-he-hired-Red-Finch-to-lie?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
So, although the trial was ostensibly about falsified business records in service of a coverup of Trump's unreported campaign donations (in the form of the catch-and-kill operation and Cohen's hush money payoff to Daniels), it also revealed the corruption at the heart of Trump's campaign, which extended beyond Trump did to keep voters from knowing about Stormy Daniels, and pervaded his campaign. Jurors were restricted to the evidence presented, but this casual admission of poll rigging showed what Trump was about.
Somerby needs to stop focusing so narrowly on the charges, claiming they are too complicated to understand, and instead look at the bigger picture too. No one looks only at the elephant's toes when gazing at such a beast. No one should look only at the legalisms and miss what Trump was actually doing -- cheating in the 2016 election.
I doubt anyone here thinks Somerby is sincere about these daily complaints, most of which echo Republican talking points. They are his way of contributing to Trump's cause. Because if Trump can pay Red Finch to rig a minor opinion survey, and pay standup comic with Youtube channels to spread right wing opinion, he and his Russian oligarch buddies can pay Somerby to support his campaign on meaningless blogs like this one, and bots and fanboys to shill for Trump. That is how they operate.
This is a lot like when Trump paid people to attend the announcement of his presidential candidacy back in 2015, and when he paid people to attend his rallies and appearances, including most recently that Chik-fil-A drop-by. He is dishonest in his campaigning and apparently didn't care when his cheating resulted in breaking laws.
DeleteJust last week, Trump faked waving at fans at a Nascar race, and that they cheered when his plane flew overhead, but in fact, the crowd was not cheering Trump, they were ignoring him when he pathetically waved and saluted, and they were cheering for a rock band when his plane flew over, which no one in the crowd even noticed.
DeleteThis kind of desperation suggests the Trump campaign has inside information that the campaign is not going well.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I wouldn't vote for any politician who is not a convicted felon. Those are obvious sell-outs.
“I doubt anyone here thinks Somerby is sincere about these daily complaints”
ReplyDeleteThis echoes Trump’s method of argument. “Everyone knows” the election was stolen or the trial was rigged. “Everyone knows” Somerby is a shill.
The advantage of “Everyone knows” argumentation is that you can dispense with the need for supporting evidence.
There’s a second advantage. It lends itself to the Big Lie technique. Just repeat it over and over and over again.
DeleteYeah, Trump and I are like twins in the way we talk.
DeleteThe supporting evidence is Somerby's own blog, which anyone can search at leisure using his handy Search function, if you don't remember well enough what he has been writing daily.
And it isn't as if you would have to guess which parts I am talking about. There have been daily complaints about Somerby's shilling in the blog comments, for those of you trolls who are too dense to understand what is objectionable about Somerby's writing.
You’re right. The Big Lie is repeated incessantly.
DeleteYour heroic White Knight defense of Somerby, a damsel in distress tied to railroad tracks, is noted, along with your apparent lack of self awareness.
DeleteYour metaphors are mixed.
DeleteNo
DeleteImmediately after the verdict, right wing blogs erupted with political violence, suggesting that the judge and jurors be attacked. Some of this is captured on No More Mister Nice Blog:
ReplyDeletehttps://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2024/06/if-democrats-wont-politicize-trumps.html
"
This should be a huge story. Democrats right now should be explicitly blaming the Republican Party for creating a climate of fear.
After Trump became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, his supporters responded with dozens of violent online posts, according to a Reuters review of comments on three Trump-aligned websites: the former president's own Truth Social platform, Patriots.Win and the Gateway Pundit....
“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.
On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting."
More:
“Dox the Jurors. Dox them now,” one user wrote after Trump’s conviction on a website [Patriots.Win] formerly known as “The Donald,” which was popular among participants in the Capitol attack. (That post appears to have been quickly removed by moderators.)
“We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal,” wrote another user on the same forum. “1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to washington and hang everyone. That’s the only solution,” wrote another user. “This s--- is out of control.”
... One Jan. 6 defendant who already served time in prison for his role in the Capitol attack also weighed in on X, posting a photo of Bragg and a photo of a noose. “January 20, 2025 traitors Get The Rope,” he wrote, referring to the date of the next presidential inauguration."
A responsible presidential candidate would discourage such expressions among supporters, but as we have seen before, he encourages them, using his followers as a threat against anyone who opposes him.
This is wrong. To the extent that Somerby encourages the disinformation being spread on the right about the meaning of the trial and the legitimacy of Trump's guilty verdict, Somerby should be ashamed of himself. He has helped create the climate in which such threats occur.
Trump has behaved reprehensibly every. step. of. the. way. Lying incessantly, attacking the judge, the jurors, the witnesses, our entire justice system -- poisoning the minds of his gullible followers. Undermining the rule of law. Lying about Biden sending the FBI to kill him. Every step of the way. Crickets from Somerby about all of this. He's got his chew toy and refuses to drop it.
Delete
DeleteHorrors, horrors.
As a fellow shape-shifting alien Reptiloid, I too am saddened and outraged.
Clearly, Somerby is guilty of wrongthink.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSpamming Somerby's blog is my mission in life. And I am equipped with never-ending supply of word-salads. What an ass Somerby is.
I am Corby.
You can be whoever you want. Just don't vote for Trump. Biden is a much better choice, even for you.
DeleteI am voting for Biden.
DeleteMichelle Obama's mother died today. That didn't stop Trump supporters from leaving ugly comments on Twitter, following the announcement of her death. The Root describes these:
ReplyDelete"Former President Donald Trump needs to come get his people. After Barack and Michelle Obama announced in a statement that family matriarch Marian Robinson had passed away, supporters of the Republican presidential candidate wasted no time turning the former First Lady’s tribute into some kind of political rally...
Trolls left all kinds of racist, homophobic and sexist comments under a tribute Michelle posted on X, formerly Twitter. And while we know Trump’s MAGA fan base is known to be morally depraved, this was low even for them."
https://www.theroot.com/trump-trolls-leave-racist-comments-under-michelle-obama-1851513851
Scrolling through examples of the comments, I was struck by how much they resemble the kind of thing Cecelia writes here. Crudeness and hostility coupled with a complete lack of empathy. These people are proud of their mean-spiritedness.
That is perhaps why they cannot understand what Trump was being tried for, why it matters, and why they react to Trump's guilty verdict with aggression instead of shame. Yes, the upcoming election is about Trump's "character" but it is also about the character of the voters. This is despicable behavior in the context of an old woman's death.
So, did you post those comments, Corby? I bet it was you.
DeleteWho says the upcoming election is about Trump's "character"? That will probably be a major mistake if that is what Dems want the upcoming election to be about. Voters traditionally care about issues affecting their daily lives and how they perceive they are being treated by their leaders.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:39pm, that is despicable conduct, there’s no excuse for it.
DeleteI’m aware that there are hundreds of thousands of people on X, so it’s not too surprising that there would be such messages.
That’s why if it had been the mother of a famous conservative that undoubtedly generated some shameful responses, I wouldn’t ever link that to you.
Too unfair. Too petty. Too low a move.
I don’t have to engage in that sort of contrivance. You denude yourself daily.
"That's despicable, so I am going to try to engage in similar behavior but in a slightly more subtle way".
Delete-Cecelia 2024
"Voters traditionally care about issues affecting their daily lives and how they perceive they are being treated by their leaders."
DeleteThanks for the laugh.
Anonymouse 1:47pm, so whose death did I accuse her of celebrating?
DeleteYou just can’t leave it alone.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:34pm, you hopped in here to insult me, but I’m intruding?
DeleteYou folks are so false and contrived. It’s why you can read this, then call me crude, and think you make sense or sound sincere.
“ …Hey, David, you racist fuck. Trump's a gangsta now, don't you know. I own 3 pair of gold sneakers cause that's what us ghetto blacks love. go fuck yourself, whiney bitch troll.”
No one is going away, dear. We’re going to be here pushing back against your bullshite till Bob boots us or he or we go belly up.
Count on it.
Like I said, Cecelia is one with the mean-spirited trolls who couldn't pass up the chance to spit on Michelle Obama's mother's grave. Quoting other people's remarks doesn't excuse anything you've said Cecelia. You are what YOU are.
DeleteCecelia is nice, and I like her.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:05pm, and you killed Bambi’s mother.
DeleteNo, she isn't nice. She is annoying. Her is likely him.
Delete12:55 - Yes, yes, yes! And that’s a recurring Somerby theme: The more we argue about Trump, the less we talk about issues that might move the voters.
ReplyDeleteI’ve never heard Somerby say that directly. I do hear him talk lots about Trump. He tells us to listen to conservatives more and nitpicks journalists instead of exhorting us to talk about such issues. I think you are making this up.
DeleteIn 2020, Biden was an uninspiring candidate, Trump's defeat was largely an anti Trump vote, released by a sudden diminishing of voter suppression.
DeleteThe solutions to our problems are well known and straightforward, and they are primarily impeded by people like Trump, so one of the best ways forward in this context is to expose Trump's corrupt nature.
@1:53 I wish the solutions to our problems were known at all. E.g., I don't know how to solve:
Delete-- How to reduce world CO2 emissions so that atmospheric CO2 stops rising?
-- Enormous and rapidly growing national debt of US and other nations
-- Cities that are going bankrupt because of inadequately funded retiree pensions and health benefits
-- High crime rates in inner cities
-- China's worldwide aggressive behavior, expending their influence
-- Getting peace between Israel and Palestinians
-- Preventing Russia from taking over Ukraine and moving into other countries
David, how do you get the 2 in CO2 to be a subscript? Can you also do an exponent, as in E = mc2?
DeleteBob talks about Trump almost to the exclusion of any other topic, Piper. There are discussions in the media and by Democrats about other issues, but Somerby completely ignores them, so he can pretend to complain that the media and liberals talk about nothing other than Trump. See how that works, piper?
Delete@2:29 the subscript happened automatically. I didn't do anything.
Delete1: Don’t vote for a candidate that calls climate change a Chinese hoax.
Delete2. Don’t vote for a candidate or endorse an economist that believes lowering taxes on the 1% richest fixes anything, or believes in Laffer type economics.
3. Don’t vote for a candidate who did nothing to advance reform of healthcare during 4 years in office, 250 of which were spent at his golf resorts at the expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars.
4. Don’t vote for a candidate who foments racial division and makes zero effort to work with politicians outside his party.
5. Don’t vote for a candidate too busy golfing to promote movement of high tech industry to the US.
6. Don’t vote for a candidate who supports being the unconditional big brother to a country led by a corrupt far right wing Zionist. Let them handle their own problems. We are not their forever piggy bank.
7. Don’t vote for a candidate that tried to leverage Ukraine to harm a political opponent and got impeached for it. And don’t vote for a candidate who declared Putin’s invasion of Ukraine brilliant.
But you will pretend to be concerned about all these issues, forgetting also that a bilateral agreement on immigration reform should be on your list, that was nixed by your preferred candidate. This is because you are a poorly informed troll who comes here more often than not spewing misinformation
Now I see. When we compose a comment, Blogspot uses a san-serif font. After we publish the comment, it's in a Roman font. Some of the digits are just small. They aren't true subscripts. 0123456789.
Delete@2:57 I like your idea of letting Israel handle their own problems. We should stop strong-arming them into a peace agreement.
DeleteI don't like the word "Zionist". That's an anti-semite's word for "Jew."
David, a Zionist is one who believes that diaspora Jews should settle in Palestine. A Zionist could be either Jewish or Gentile. A Jew who doesn’t think diaspora Jews should settle in Palestine isn’t a Zionist.
DeleteUnfortunately the Zionists succeeded in displacing the Palestinians. Many Jews and many Gentiles think that was a bad idea.
Biden beat all of the other Dem candidates. That isn’t lackluster. Voters facing a pandemic chose experience.
DeleteThat's funny. Bob himself (the royal "we") seems to have little problem focusing on Trump rather than typical political issues. Then he has LOADS of times covering and recovering his high school assignments on Greek Poetry. And when he DOES turn to issues, he seems to give the most superficial Republican talking points (The Boarder, Hunter) a very sympathetic spin. I KNOW Bob is SUPPOSED to be reviewing the issues threw the eyes of the Press (he hardly sticks to this, though), but surely somewhere someone is saying something about Biden's stock market, his support of the Ukraine, his support of Abortion rights, etc.
DeleteAs a "recurring theme" it's a little weak.
DiC: "I like your idea of letting Israel handle their own problems."
DeleteDoes that include the military assistence from the US they rely on?
QiB, nope. It’s a quid pro quo as far as their military assistance, intelligence info, and M. E. base of operation.
DeleteCecelia, we can do without Israel’s assistance, and we should withhold our assistance from Israel.
DeleteDIC go talk to your go-to lawyer, Alan Dershowitz , a self-described Zionist. Many West Bank settlers identify as such. Could you be more ignorant?
DeleteCeCe: I see. So there are limits to "letting Israel handle their own problems." I thought so.
Deletehttps://www.nysun.com/article/why-i-am-proud-to-call-myself-an-american-zionist
DeleteQiB, same with France and the UK.
DeleteCecelia is right. To translate her point from Neocon to English: Zionist entity in Palestine is (pretty much) an American outpost and military base in the middle of the Arab world.
DeleteThe question is: do Americans really want an empire, do they want to struggle for world domination?
And even if we would fanaticize that they do, does the usefulness of this outpost overweigh the damage to American prestige, caused by maintaining it?
Anonymouse 7:20am, I think you answered your last question years ago.
DeleteIt’s your routine to do this dance up to the point where your fellow Democrats cover their faces with their hands and pretend not to know you.
@Cecelia,
Deleteyou don't know me, and your shot-in-the-dark assumptions are all wrong.
For what it's worth, what I wrote @7:20 AM is more in line with what's known as the "paleo-conservative" way of thinking, than with any Democrat nonsense. Nevertheless, they are my own thoughts; I don't belong to any club.
Anonymouse 8:03am, well, then say your spiel to the point where everyone but paleo-conservative walk away. Don’t be surprised when you find that you’re not in the company of paleos, just garden variety antisemites.
DeleteArabs are Semites. Zionists are Europeans and Americans. And one doesn't need a company to analyze geopolitical phenomena.
DeleteAnd in any case, all I've done was rephrasing your own 7:33 PM. Does it land you in the company of these "antisemites" you speak of? And if so, is it a problem for you?
Focusing more on positive than on problems is good for morale. OTOH one needs to look at problems in order to fix them. Somerby focuses on liberal problems. Does he do more good or more harm to his side?
ReplyDeleteWhat liberal problems? That the media is owned by corporations, which skew Right, because the Republican Party promises them corporate tax breaks?
DeleteProsecuting Trump in NY might be a liberal problem if it helps Trump get elected
DeleteTrump having broken the law and been convicted by a jury of his peers in a fair trial might be a right wing problem if it helps defeat Trump.
DeleteYou prosecute because he committed crimes, not to help or hurt a campaign.
Delete"Prosecuting Trump in NY might be a liberal problem if it helps Trump get elected."
DeleteThat's only because prosecuting Trump in NY wasn't political at all.
Here's a transcription of Trump's 40-minute tirade after his conviction:
ReplyDeletehttps://braddelong.substack.com/p/reading-donald-trump-may-31-2024?r=buqc&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
It was announced as a press conference, but Trump took no questions. Instead, he declared that the United States is a "nation in decline" run by fascists and is being invaded by people released from prisons and mental hospitals "all over the world." He insisted that his trial and conviction was engineered by Biden and the White House, the judger Merchan had denied him the ability to call witnesses, and that Alan Weisselberge was sent to prison for "having a car."
So yeah. He's a whining, paranoid lunatic. Go ahead and tell me how this is going to make him even more popular with voters.
QiB - I think all the hoopla is camouflaging Trump’s real and substantial cognitive decomposition.
DeleteThat was me.
DeleteQuaker -- as you say, Trump described several classes of people who he claimed were included among the illegal immigrants coming over the Southern border. Given Trump's speaking patterns, It wouldn't surprise me if Trump were exaggerating or lying. But, he might be accurate.
DeleteDo you have evidence or a link showing that these classes of people did not illegally enter the country?
Mentally ill people have trouble functioning at all, much less doing something difficult like immigrating without detection across the US border. If you have ever met someone who is in a mental institution, you would know that they are there because they cannot navigate every day life in normal surroundings. They cannot feed themselves, clothe themselves, interact appropriately with others, stay out of danger, take care of themselves.
DeleteHow is someone like that going to be able to travel from their country of origin and go to the Mexican border, wait for the right opportunity and then cross without being detected, all without hurting themselves, being taken advantage of by local criminals, or being caught? At least some such people would be caught and would show up in the statistics for those apprehended trying to enter illegally, but they do not.
Trump makes this stuff up to scare people. This is Trump's way of hyping up fear in his base, as when he talks about Hannibal Lecter.
"Throughout his campaign this year, Mr. Trump has frequently brought up Hannibal Lecter, once calling him “legendary” and another time referring to him as a nice fellow."
Trump's way of speaking about this is so silly that it surprises me that right wing adults don't see how laughable it is.
DeleteDo you have evidence or a link showing that these classes of people did not illegally enter the country?
And here we have Dickhead in Cal asking someone to prove the negative. What a fucking asshole.
@7:48 You could come a fair ways to finding the truth if you did a very diligent search of public information to see if you could find any mention of these classes of people. Is it OK to call someone a paranoid lunatic because of what he said, if you don't know whether what he said is true or false?
DeleteI'd guess that this information, if it exists at all, might likely be found on conservative sites.
Your hero, donald j chickenshit, is the one making the accusation. Let that fucking lying sack of shit provide evidence, asshole. It is not up to everyone else to try to prove the negative, you fucking moron.
DeleteI found some info at politifact. Trump's statment about he prisoners comes from a conservative site. It's based on an alleged unreleased report from DHS. Politifact contacted DHS. They didn't confirm or deny the report.
DeleteHowever, a large number of criminals are coming over the border. Polificact reported
CBP publishes data on how many people with criminal convictions or who are wanted by law enforcement have encounters with immigration officials at U.S. borders. Criminals encountered are not let into the country, "absent extenuating circumstances," according to the agency.
CBP reports that so far in fiscal year 2022, which ends Sept. 30, officers at ports of entry have encountered more than 15,500 foreign nationals who have criminal convictions or are wanted by law enforcement. At parts of the border that are not ports of entry, nearly 11,000 meeting that description have been encountered by Border Patrol.
These are the ones that Border Patrol encountered. Presumably a number of them eluded the Border Patrol
Criminals encountered are not let into the country,....
DeleteThanks, Dickhead, you have shown that the orange clown with an ugly combover is a lying sack of shit.
A verdict of guilty on 34 counts and anonymices are still 10 times more freaking angry than anyone who wasn’t thrilled by the judgment.
DeleteSomerby is the one who is angry, Cecelia. His preferred outcome didn’t materialize. He’s just got a case of sour grapes.
DeleteI think the problem is different news sources. Conservative news says Trump’s accusations are valid. Liberal news says they’re crazy.
DeleteWhat reality is I do not know
"Do you have evidence or a link showing that these classes of people did not illegally enter the country?"
DeleteYou'd like me to prove a negative for you? Sure. I'll jump right on that. Meanwhile, stop moving the goal posts. The presence of criminals at the border wasn't the assertion. Trump's assertion was that countries all over the world are emptying their prisons and mental hospitals and those people are turning up at our border. This is Trump's imagination at work.
I mean, I can tell you that flying purple lizards are responsible for an increase in airline flight delays.
DeleteProve it's not true.
"Facts First: There is no evidence for Trump’s claim that jails “throughout the world” are being emptied out so that prisoners can travel to the US as migrants, nor for his claim that foreign leaders are also emptying out mental health facilities for this purpose. Last year, Trump’s campaign was unable to provide any evidence for his narrower claim at the time that South American countries in particular were emptying their mental health facilities to somehow dump patients upon the US."
Deletehttps://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/politics/fact-check-trump-biden-border-speech/index.html
"The claim’s wording and the countries included have shifted, but multiple news organizations have fact-checked different iterations and reached the same conclusion: There is no evidence that countries are emptying their prisons or mental institutions to send people to the U.S."
https://www.cfpublic.org/politics/2024-04-10/donald-trump-venezuelan-crime-drop
Washington
CNN
—
"There is no evidence for former President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that 'the Congo' has emptied prisons to allow violent criminals to come to the US border as migrants – and the governments of both the Democratic Republic of Congo and the neighboring Republic of Congo say Trump’s assertions are entirely false."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/16/politics/donald-trump-congo-release-prisoners-immigration/index.html
"For his 2024 campaign, Trump has ratcheted up his rhetoric, demonizing immigrants even further with unsubstantiated claims that a surge in unauthorized border crossings under Biden is the result of countries around the world 'emptying out their prisons, insane asylums and mental institutions and sending their most heinous criminals to the United States.' Immigration experts we talked to said there’s simply no evidence that is happening. One expert told us Trump’s claim appeared to be 'a total fabrication.'”
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/12/the-whoppers-of-2023/
"This is poppycock. Immigration experts know of no effort by other countries. As someone who came to prominence in the late ’70s and early ’80s, Trump appears to be channeling Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s 1980 Mariel boatlift. About 125,000 Cubans were allowed to flee to the United States in 1,700 boats — but there was a backlash when it was discovered hundreds of refugees had been released from jails and mental health facilities."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/14/trump-crazy-new-claims-fact-checked/
I can do this all day.
Anonymouse 9:08pm, Bob doesn’t come off as angry in this. M However, if he was angry, he’d be angry up in his house. He’d be voicing his anger, on his blog.
DeleteOn the other hand, you’re seeking him out. You’re going to his place not just to tell him that he’s wrong, but that he is of bad character and is despicable. Not only that he’s bad. but everyone who agrees with him is bad too. You’re the angry aggressor. You congratulate yourself for being that just as rabid partisans always do. .
Cecelia is good, and she is not angry.
DeleteCecelia is a child.
Delete"Trump's statement about the prisoners comes from a conservative site. It's based on an alleged unreleased report from DHS." DIC, you had me at "conservative site". As usual, QiB does the mop up. Trump's fantasies about jails being emptied are best kept guarded for now, as they may provide him comfort in the future. If and when the documents and January 6th trials are over, the only questions remaining will pertain to concurrent sentencing.
Delete"right wing adults"
DeleteNow I've heard everything.
DiC: "I found some info at politifact. Trump's statment about he prisoners comes from a conservative site. It's based on an alleged unreleased report from DHS. Politifact contacted DHS. They didn't confirm or deny the report."
DeleteAs usual, you don't share what you're reading. This seems to fit what you're describing:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/sep/29/fact-checking-claim-about-venezuela-sending-prison/
The source for the claim is an unnamed, unauthorized person "within DHS" speaking to Breitbart News. The story raises the charge that prisoners and mental patients are released in Venezuela and nudged to join the "caravans" headed to the US.
While other conservative outlets reported the Breitbart story, none provided additional sourcing for the claim.
Trump has taken this claim--unsupported, at best--and blown it up from a single country to "countries all over the world."
A single outlet posts an anonymous tip. It bounces through a few other partisan outlets. A handful of GOP House radicals put it into a letter making demands of the DHS. Trump grabs it and turns it into a global phenomenon.
And we're supposed to buy it?
That “press conference” was a tad alarming.
ReplyDeleteFrom Josh Marshall:
ReplyDelete"Sen. Susan Collins released a statement yesterday denouncing the Manhattan trial verdict and in the course of that claiming that District Attorney Alvin Bragg “campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump.” I and others have looked in vain for any evidence of this. My assumption going in was that this was false and all research supports that contention."
"The verdict came in a flash. The aftermath will be forever.
ReplyDeleteThat said, what were the actual crimes in question? If we lived in a modestly rational world, wouldn't we know that by now?"
When Somerby says "in a flash" he implies that the jury did not deliberate enough before deciding on Trump's guilt. I personally don't consider 9 hours to be a short time, given that all 34 of the counts were for the same behavior, repeated. But Somerby has no way of knowing how seriously the jury went about its task. I find it unlikely the jury did not take its role very seriously indeed and put effort into making a good decision, based on the evidence and law of the case.
The jury understood the crime. The judge and lawyers all understood the crime. Trump told the judge that he understood the charges against him. There is no mystery remaining about the nature of the crime Trump committed. Somerby's persistent befuddlement is a fraud. If he is not cognitive capable of understanding the explanations of the crime, that is on him not a manifestation of anything wrong with the trial or our society. Perhaps it is Somerby who has incipient dementia, if we are to take him seriously.
Personally, I believe Somerby is being disingenuous when he keeps complaining that the crime is too complex (or whatever he is still whining about). Trump is now guilty and it is time to move on. Somerby's portentous moaning about the lingering after effects of this verdict is perhaps wishful thinking. I believe that Trump will sink into the slime bog along with Newt and Roy Cohn, once his time in the limelight is done. And we will all say good riddance and go about our business living in the future. Somerby's "you'll be sorry" will be a faint whisper on the breeze, along with Trump's numerous other threats and his followers will figure out that there are not mentally ill migrants with machetes under their beds after all.
"Somerby is being disingenuous when he keeps complaining that the crime is too complex." I had this exact thought after today's post.
DeletePrepare for the return of The Fanny!
DeleteElie Honig, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, NOT a Republican wrote
ReplyDeleteBoth of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess. Sure, victory is the great deodorant, but a guilty verdict doesn’t make it all pure and right. Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. “But they won” is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to “win,” now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later.
The following are all undeniable facts.
The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.
District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.)
Most importantly,the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.
The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.
But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.
The New York State committee on Ethics heard the complaint regarding the Judges $15 donation and ruled it was a frivolous matter, dismissing the complaint. Before the trial.For Honig to leave this fact out is either misleading or incompetent.
DeleteAttacks on Trump were a very small part of Bragg's campaign.
How many Trump opponents here are willing to acknowledge that
ReplyDelete1. the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process
2. No state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything
3. This case was brought only because the defendant was Donald Trump
THE ANSWER IS THAT ONLY tRUMP WOULD FUCK A PORNSTAR WHILE HIS WIFE WAS PREGNANT, PAY HER OFF,AND CALL THE PAYOFF A LEGAL RETAINER, ALL SO AS NOT TO MESS UP HIS ELECTION CHANCES. OF COURSE ITS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.
DeleteMaybe Honig can submit an amicus brief to the App Div on Trump's behalf,
DeleteWhat exactly do you know about the law at this stage in your life? You are a retired actuary and couldn't even muster up enough mathematical acumen recently to be able to tell the difference between a raw number and percentage of a population. A jury that included two attorneys concluded after much testimony that Trump broke the law; the effect of this illegal activity in a closely contested election may have been significant to the outcome. Go read up on John Edwards before telling us how remarkably unique this case was irrespective of who brought it. If I make a citizen's arrest on a child molester are you going to be wringing your hands that I was out of line and that the crime was not as serious because the perpetrator wasn't apprehended by a cop? What matters is that Trump broke the law in a closely contested election that he might have lost otherwise. So get the fuck over yourself, you're not convincing anyone here; you are trolling. He's been adjudicated against successfully on other matters, is a member of a criminal family that stole from their own charity, has been impeached twice, and is judged by panels of historians as one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States. You come here routinely with misinformation that is easily debunked on Google and have the temerity to think that your experience in judging the law, acquired from right wing web sites, entitles you to debate this issue ad infinitum. That "they wouldn't do this if it wasn't Trump" is precisely the issue. Your cult will likewise be reciting this when the classified document case and overturning an election case are brought to trial. We do not have miscreants as former presidents to set as precedents for this behavior, so yeah, only Trump gets singled out here. You can pray all you want at the alter of this criminal but don't be so ignorant as to assume your argument, set against the totality of moral decadence that you apparently subscribe to, is convincing anyone here of anything other than that your persistence is a manifestation of your own moral bankruptcy.
DeleteThank you for your responses.
DeleteDiC: You seem to be arguing that Trump should not be charged because he is a uniquely audacious violator of the law.
DeleteDIC@ 11:14. You're quite welcome.
DeleteThe charges against Trump have been explained over and over again ad nauseum. If people still don't understand the charges, the media or their own? And by the way, if the Justice Department is weaponized agains Biden's political opponents, then why is Democratic Senator Bob Menendez beibg prosecuted by the Justcie Department? Also, why is Biden's son being prosecuted by the Justice Department if it is weaponized?
ReplyDeleteMenendez has gone a bit too far, even for a Democrat. Gold bars, really?
DeleteAnd Biden's son is prosecuted (albeit not too enthusiastically) because a judge threw out the cover-up "plea agreement" as way too ridiculously flagrant. And incidentally that "plea agreement" was concocted by the Biden regime's functionaries.
Whataboutism
Delete“….even for a democrat….” . Go ahead and compare the indictments and criminal judgements found in Democratic vs Republican administrations since the Nixon administration. You can leave out Trump if you like. Then get back with us.
DeleteMy co-worker's aunt gets $93 an hour from home. she has been fired from work for 3 months. The previous month her pay check was $20750 just working from home 3 hours a day. see this link........
ReplyDeleteGOOD LUCK.:)
https://getincome9.blogspot.com/