FRIDAY: We humans aren't built for this line of work!

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2025

Trump, Christopher do it again: Everybody makes mistakes. Tommy Christopher just made one.

Also, score a win for Donald J. Trump—a very slimy win.

Below, you see part of a transcript published by Christopher as part of this new report for Mediaite. The transcript includes a flaming misstatement made today by the highly erratic Trump.

It's a flaming misstatement by Trump. Christopher let it go:

REPORTER (7/25/25): Would you offer a pardon or clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell?

TRUMP: Well, I don’t want to talk about that. What I do want to say is that Todd is a great attorney.

But you ought to be speaking about Larry Summers. You ought to be speaking about some of his friends that are hedge fund guys. They’re all over the place.

You ought be speaking about Bill Clinton, who went to the island 28 times. I never went to the island.

"I never went to the island," the fellow said.  As far as we know, that statement's correct. As far as we know, no one has ever shown anything different.

On his way to that denial, the sitting president had tossed in a different sort of statement. He said that President Clinton "went to the island 28 times."

He made that claim about Bill Clinton. Christopher let it go.

Our discourse has been hounded by this sort of conduct for at least the 33 years. People are dead all over the world because various people, not excluding mainstream journalists, made bushel baskets of such statements over those many long years, and because other journalists happily repeated the statements or chose to let them go.

What does the record actually show? Within the past week, Clinton has said, for the ten millionth time, that he never went to the island in question. 

As far as we know, no one has prevented any evidence showing anything different. For the record, Clinton managed to present this (repeated) denial without adding a bogus claim about the disordered fellow named Trump.

Trump seems to be borrowing his number—"28 times"—from an actual public record, but it's a public record of something totally different. We take you now to a report by FactCheck.org—a report which was published in August 2019, shortly after Epstein's death:

The Epstein Connections Fueling Conspiracy Theories

In the absence of information about how sex offender Jeffrey Epstein managed to die in prison by an apparent suicide on Aug. 10, outlandish conspiracy theories have cropped up across the political spectrum.

Among the more prominent theories are claims that the Clintons or President Donald Trump is somehow involved. Trump himself shared a comedian’s tweet peddling the baseless suggestion that former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were responsible.

When a reporter asked Trump about that on Aug. 13, the president said he had “no idea” if the Clintons were involved and referenced trips that Bill Clinton had taken on Epstein’s plane.

It’s true that Clinton had ties to Epstein, a wealthy financier who stood accused of sexually abusing dozens of young girls, and that the former president had traveled on Epstein’s plane. But Epstein had ties to Trump, too, and to other politicians who have been named in recently released court documents.

That's the way the report began, with Trump already peddling bogus accusations. Later on, the report detailed the published information about Bill Clinton's rides on that jet:

The Clinton Connection

[...]

By 2002, after Clinton had left office, the former president began to be listed as a passenger on Epstein’s private plane, a fact confirmed by Clinton’s spokesman on Twitter in July. Between Feb. 9, 2002, and Nov. 4, 2003, we counted a total of six trips; two of them were just one-way flights, though. In all, there were a total of 26 flights taken during the six trips, since several trips included multiple stops.

The flight logs for Epstein’s plane were recently unsealed in a lawsuit brought by one of his accusers. Here’s what we found:

Feb. 9, 2002—Clinton hopped a flight from Miami to Westchester, New York, where he lives.

March 19, 2002—Clinton was listed as flying from New York to London and then returning two days later.

May 22, 2002—Clinton flew from Japan to Hong Kong. The next day he flew to Singapore (by way of Shenzhen, China), where he gave a speech. On May 25, he left for Brunei, by way of Bangkok.

July 13, 2002—He attended a wedding in Morocco and then hopped a flight to New York, stopping in the Azores.

Sept. 21, 2002—Clinton left for a nine-day trip to Africa with actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker, visiting Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa. While there, he worked on HIV and AIDS prevention projects, democratization, and economic development. He finished the trip in England, where he addressed the Labour Party during its annual conference. In a 2002 profile of Epstein, Clinton is quoted as saying through a spokesman, “Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service, and combating HIV/AIDS.” According to the flight records, this was the longest trip Clinton took on Epstein’s plane, and it accounted for 11 of the 26 total flights.

Nov. 4, 2003—About a year after the Africa trip, Clinton took what appears to be his last trip on Epstein’s plane. He flew from Brussels to Oslo, where he had a two-day visit with officials to work on his project to prevent HIV and AIDS in developing countries. He then flew to Hong Kong, by way of Siberia, and finished the trip in Beijing.

Shortly after Epstein’s death, Trump sowed confusion about Clinton’s use of the plane...

And so on from there.

For the record, all these trips were taken before Epstein's criminal conduct became publicly known. In 2019, Trump quickly got busy "sowing confusion," as he's done once again today. 

Now for a look at the record:

As you can see, Clinton was known to have taken 26 "flights," but those 26 flights were part of just 11 "trips." 

Several of the "trips" involved multiple flights around the world in support of the Clinton Foundation's work on AIDS prevention, democratization and economic development. In September 2002, the former president took an extended trip through several continents in support of the foundation's missions. 

That one trip accounted for eleven (11) of the 26 "flights." The trip in November 2003—the trip from Brussels to Oslo to Siberia, then on to Hong Kong and Beijing—also accounted for a substantial number of Clinton's 26 "flights."

He was working on AIDS prevention. Today, as only someone like Trump would do, those journeys were converted into 28 trips to the island—and hapless news orgs around the world are letting his statement go. 

Everybody makes mistakes. Thanks to Christopher's bungle, Mediaite joins the ranks of those orgs.

We've been trying to tell you us something for the past quite a few years. We base our assessment on roughly forty years observing this kind of behavior:

We human being simply aren't built for this line of work! 

We aren't smart enough to do this work, and we aren't sufficiently honest. We prove this again and again and again. Then we prove it some more.

We had actually planned to write about Tulsi Gabbard's latest amazing statement. Before we could accomplish that task, this tired old groaner popped up. 

This sort of thing simply never stops. At present, given the speed of the discourse, there's no possible way to keep up. 

We'll score it as Donald J. Trump's latest win as we move down the road to perdition.

113 comments:

  1. Quaker in a BasementJuly 25, 2025 at 3:58 PM

    This is how the Trump/Bannon "flood the zone" strategy works. Tell a big, whopping lie. (Oops! I forgot where I am--not a "lie." A disordered, faulty statement.) Then, tell another and another. If someone points out that any of them are wrong, tell it again.

    News organizations can fact-check Trump's statements all day, every day, but it doesn't matter. He'll be right back the following day making those same statements again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rest assured Trump wasn't taking trips on Epstein's plane for charities unless there was a way of siphoning money off them.

      Delete
    2. Quaker - IMO both sides use the "flood the zone" strategy. Thus people on both sides believe narratives which are different and neither of which may be accurate.

      Delete
    3. DiC - Any example you’re willing to share of prominent Blues flooding the zone, or shall we just accept your assertion?

      Delete
    4. Quaker in a BasementJuly 25, 2025 at 6:25 PM

      David: No.

      Delete
    5. DG - Let's take the narrative that Biden was as sharp as ever. Then there's the narrative that Russia wanted Trump to be elected and provided significant help. Going back, there were the "injecting bleach" and "Nazis are good persons" hoaxes. Then, there are the narratives that Trump has bad motives. All these untrue narratives are still widely believed, because liberals successfully flooded the zone

      Delete
    6. Even if we accepted that these examples were “lies” - which I emphatically do not accept - you have to go back five years to find four concrete examples. A trickle rather than a flood. I could easily give you four Republican examples just in the past week. That’s “flooding the zone.”

      Delete
    7. I agree, DG. As I said, both sides do it. Still, just for fun, can you give us the four Rep examples from the past week?

      Delete
    8. Easy. Obama is a traitor. Hillary’s on tranquilizers. Bill went to the island 28 times. Mamdani should be stripped of his citizenship. (I could go on.)
      Now you give me four from the Blues in the last week. I’ll wait.

      Delete
    9. Believed because liberals watched in real time. Also the fat fuck is a treasonous traitor who we all watched conspired on many levels a fucking autogolpe you rotten POS.

      Delete
    10. David,

      why wouldn't Russia have wanted Trump to win?

      He was clearly the candidate who was less hawkish towards them, he was praising Putin unprompted, he seemed to be very disruptive, an agent of change, and Russia certainly wanted to hit the reset button with us.

      MAGA acts like 'what a hoax, what a crazy idea'. It's actually the sanest, most commonsense assumption to make, even apart from the overwhelming evidence. that that's what happened.

      Delete
    11. What is the overwhelming evidence that Putin wanted Trump to win?

      Delete
    12. Read the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee’s report which details how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win.

      Delete
    13. It’s on-line, and Republicans controlled the committee.

      Delete
    14. Or check out Wikipedia, which says the report found that the Russian government interfered to help Trump.

      Delete
    15. Or go back to watching Fox, where you’ll be shielded from such inconvenient truths.

      Delete
    16. How would a young girl feel about being treated fairly, when mentored and taught by Pinker, under the circumstances?

      If Pinker is a good decent person (like Colby Hall), wouldn't he feel queasy being around all those lecherous old fools that Epstein collected?

      Why wouldn't Pinker object when Epstein's pseudo-scientific buddies used evolutionary social psychology to justify having sex with underage girls? Epstein kept guys like Pinker around to make himself feel enlightened, not predatory, when he fucked teenagers. Pinker had to know that was happening, because it is all over the internet too. Pedophiles like Epstein think science is on their side. Look at Musk's harem. It is the same as Epstein's theories about genius DNA.

      Pinker isn't a genius. He is an academic celebrity who wrote popular books misusing other academcis work. His last solid academic work was in linguistics, but he attracted more attention by being controversial, so he stopped doing research and began selling himself (much as Trump did before entering politics). That is why Pinker is not respected among academics. He is too narcissistic (like Trump and Epstein) to be a nice guy.

      Delete
    17. I’m out of the loop. Can someone tell me what’s the deal with this cult of Pinker-haters who have come to infest this comment section?

      It seems like what is known is thus: There’s a dispute whether he was ever on the island. That’s it in a nutshell, right?

      Delete
    18. "We also assess Putin and the Russian
      Government aspired to help President-elect
      Trump’s election chances when possible by
      discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly
      contrasting her unfavorably to him.

      All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and
      FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence."

      https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf


      There was an "Additional Views" document written by 6 GOP senators that sought to emphasize the lack of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, but apparently did not dispute the finding that Russia favored Trump.

      Delete
    19. Hector - no doubt one can find items suggesting that Putin preferred Trump and other items suggesting that he preferred Hillary. Here's one of the latter. Putin knew some embarrassing information about Hillary that he chose not to release during the campaign. Presumably he was saving it to blackmail her after she was elected.

      Delete
    20. DiC - Yes, indeed, “Hillary’s on tranqs!” was part of the week’s flood of Red-side propaganda, but you seemingly forgot to give me four examples of equivalent Blue-side flooding. Is your silence an admission that the two sides are not the same? (I think you would make that admission if you were being honest.)

      Delete
    21. sorry, DG, I am not particularly focused on which side does more flooding. I'm interested in the fact that both sides do it. As a result, regrettably, I am skeptical of anything I'm told by either side.

      Delete
    22. Hector, yes totally. But the new releases from Gabbard show that claims in that document that Russia wanted Trump to win were based on disputed, previously withheld intelligence. And that the process that produced the document and its findings involved unusually hands-on direction by Brennan and Comey and deviated from usual Intelligence community norms.

      So it just seems kind of weird. The information in the new releases make the intelligence communities claims that Putin wanted Trump to win seem a little shaky and not really based on anything super solid.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/25/us/trump-obama-russia.html

      Delete

    23. Clinton is super-corrupt and predictable. Clintons were bribed by Russian business and it went smoothly. Trump is totally unpredictable, and his "compliments" certainly mean nothing. I would prefer Clinton.

      Delete
    24. DG - I'm not sure how you could call it propaganda because, as you know, a lot of it is based on actual declassified intelligence reports.

      Delete
    25. Part of what Gabbard released was a declassified House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report from 2020 that reviewed classified intelligence reports and said:

      "In contrast to the rest of the ICA, the judgment that Putin developed "a clear preference" for candidate Trump and
      "aspired to help his chances of victory" did not adhere to the tenets of the ICD Analytic Standards. The Director of CIA ordered the postelection publication of 15 reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, three of which were substandard containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible and those became foundational sources for the ICA judgments that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.

      That's not even all it says. It also says the report Hector mentioned "misrepresented these reports as reliable, without mentioning their significant underlying flaws. One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin "aspired" to help Trump win."

      And a lot more stuff. So it seems a little weird. It doesn't seem like super overwhelming evidence.

      Delete
    26. Would you guys like to wait until the bloggers you read teach you how to spin this before discussing it further? HCR will be telling you how to answer these uncomfortable findings probably sometime this weekend. So we can pick it up then. Or however you want to play it. Your choice.

      Delete
    27. It may feel better to just wait and get the party line. You want to do it that way and just come back after HCR teaches you how to spin it?

      Delete
    28. Your choice, bro. I got my Nugent tape. I'm good to go either way. I'm good to go either way.

      Delete
    29. I can just kick back and jam to Nugent until the word comes down. It's bad when he gets into that funk!

      Delete
    30. So Hector, yeah, quote you gave above to justify a claim that overwhelming evidence showed Putin wanted. Trump was actually based solely on "one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports".

      They lied to you. Which is so not cool!

      Delete
    31. But we can hook up later in the weekend or next week after the spin gets doctored if you would like.

      Delete
    32. And then we can move on to some of the other findings. It doesn't stop there. They lied to us and now they are caught. The only question is how the narrative management will be employed. Once that's all in place everything will be back to normal.

      Delete

    33. There are two ways to deal with it, I think. One is to ignore everything: "something's wrong with Gabbard", end of story. The other is to find the scapegoat (John Brennan, for example), sacrifice him (but not too severely), and forget happily about the whole thing. This is like WMD/Judith Miller.

      Delete
    34. I'm fine if you want to go with ad hominem until it becomes clear how to spin it.

      Delete
    35. 12:34 You're right, it's a lot like WMD, only worse. I agree about Brennan. I can see him being scapegoated. It's interesting that they're probably up right now trying to figure out how to spin it. I could also see the ignore it all, gaslight and disparage gabbard. She didn't do herself any favor by making it look on the surface like a conflation.

      It's going to be very interesting to see how they spin it or ignore it. It's a historical moment. It's a huge moment in the history of our country.

      Delete
    36. What's so bad about the Republican Party being so pro-child rape?

      Delete
    37. Quaker in a BasementJuly 26, 2025 at 2:20 AM

      "Let's take the narrative that Biden was as sharp as ever. Then there's the narrative that Russia wanted Trump to be elected and provided significant help.

      Slow your roll there, Billy Pilgrim. You're unmoored in time. "Biden was as sharp as ever" is 2024. "Russia wanted Trump elected" is 2016.

      You're confused.

      Delete
    38. What is he supposed to be confused about, 2:20? He didn't promise to list them chronologically. Perhaps it's you who is confused?

      Delete
    39. The fact that Trump would rather impose tariffs on penguins in an uninhabited piece of tundra than on a despot waging war against an ally doesn't in the least perturb the MAGAs who posit nonsense about his relationship with Putin, as if they became buddies only after the 2016 election.

      Delete
    40. Normalizing relations with the Russian Federation is one of the best things he's done so far. Fuck the creepy death-cult of war-mongering Democrats.

      Delete
    41. Once again: There was only one victim due to Russian interference in the 2016 election and that was Hillary Clinton. All the rest is gaslighting bullshit to divert attention from Trump raping grade school age girls.

      Delete
    42. It makes sense that Hector and DC went totally dark. What are they going to say? "No, this week a bombshell release of recently unclassified documents didn't prove the intelligence community lied to the American public about Putin aspiring to help Donald Trump in 2016??"??

      I'll see you fellas in a few days after. Heather Cox Richardson gives you instructions on how to spin it. 🙋🙈🙉🙊

      Delete
    43. "No, the report that the intelligence community released in January 2017 and the leaks they made to the press that claimed Russia aspired to help Trump win did not rely on raw and disputed intelligence that had been previously withheld due to serious tradecraft concerns,?"

      They gonna say that?

      Next thing, they're going to try to say that John Brennan and James Comey didn't play an unusually direct role in shaping that report, departing from standard analytic processes, and that the report wasn't produced by a small hand-picked team of five analysts whole under pressure from the Obama administration.

      🙉

      Delete
    44. We'll just wait for the official narrative management to come down from the mountaintop and then we can get back to making smug accusations about other people consuming propaganda and being shielded from inconvenient truths. amirite?

      Delete
    45. And then we can continue to pretend.we're all confused about why everyone hates the Democratic party and why they are as unpopular as they ever have been and are nearly broke. Good times!

      Delete
    46. If God didn't want illegal immigrants taking jobs from white people, He wouldn't have had Donald Trump give the businesses which hire illegal immigrants another huge tax break.
      No need to wait for the party line. Republicans love it.
      As do most great Americans.

      Delete
    47. How ironic would it be, if the RINO who doesn't support child rape turns out to be the same Republican voter who isn't a bigot?
      They say God works in mysterious ways.

      Delete
    48. Even the low information voters know the Republican Party is THE party for child rapists.

      Delete
    49. 'So Hector, yeah, quote you gave above to justify a claim that overwhelming evidence showed Putin wanted Trump was actually based solely on "one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports".'

      Don't know where the quote you provided is from or what it refers to. The quote I gave was one of the summary judgments of the bi-partisan report, was not a fragment and was for the most part made with a high level of confidence.

      Delete
    50. Ah, now I see where the quote came from.

      I will concede the evidence in the public domain is not 'overwhelming'. I will withdraw that term and say rather that it was the consensus opinion of the intelligence agencies and a bi-partisan Senate Committee that Putin favored Trump.

      But I still think the 'Putin was neutral' side has to answer the question of why Putin would NOT have favored Trump. Trump was much more Russia-friendly than Hillary, much more disruptive to the US-European alliance against Russia, so you've got a pretty steep hill to climb there.

      The other big negative for the 'Putin was neutral' side is the obvious conflation of Gabbard's press release which made it seem as if the pre-election claims regarding Russian cyber-security interference were contradicted by the post-election claims of Russia's overall interference (of which cyber-security was just a component).

      If she has such a strong case, why is she cheating from the get go?

      Delete
    51. Can't resist adding this. The declassified House report states as its first key finding that:

      "Putin’s principal interests relating to the 2016 election were to undermine faith in the US democratic process, not showing any preference of a certain candidate."

      The statement certainly seems plausible. Yet ask yourself: what better way to "undermine faith in the US democratic process" than to maintain against all evidence that the vote-counting in the most important election of that process was irredeemably corrupt?

      So getting Trump elected and subverting democracy were not necessarily mutually exclusive goals.

      Delete
    52. We all know it was the consensus opinion of the intelligence agencies. We didn't know until this week that that opinion was based on unclear, implausible, potentially biased evidence that was produced in an unusually rushed process in which Brennan and Comey used a small team of hand-picked analysts and played a more direct role than is typical. Do you know how huge a deal that is?

      Delete
    53. If you're wondering why Putin may not have favored Trump, the information is out there. I'm not really a Putin was neutral person so I only have a cursory knowledge of why. But it is natural to shift the burden of proof and ask others to prove a negative when faced with direct evidence refuting one's claim. In general, absence of evidence for X s not evidence for -X.

      Delete
    54. (Meaning Putin may have favored Trump. It's just that there's no evidence that he did.)

      Delete
    55. Nobody knows why Russian goons hacked DNC servers and then strategically released hacked emails right up to the election to damage Hillary. Nobody can figure it out. Russia, if you're listening, maggots are really fucking dumb bastards. You needn't worry.

      Delete
    56. "But it is natural to shift the burden of proof and ask others to prove a negative when faced with direct evidence refuting one's claim."

      a) My current claim is that 'Putin-favored-Trump' was a consensus view of the intelligence agencies and a bipartisan Senate committee. That claim is an historical fact and so is untouched by the information Gabbard is releasing.

      Gabbard's information, if accepted as true, calls into doubt the validity of the consensus, not its existence.

      As for the rest of your comment, it doesn't seem to address my contentions on burden of proof.









      Delete
    57. Who favors whom is, by itself, a meaningless speculation. In this case, it's only purpose is to smear the president.

      It would be assholish but not criminal to scream "Putin favors Trump!" The problem is that this psyop was was performed by state intelligence services, directed from the very top. That is criminal. Serious abuse of power at a minimum.

      Delete
    58. How do we know it was a psyop? Two reports came to different conclusions. On what basis do you favor one over the other?

      Delete
    59. Hector, respectfully, i'm not sure if you understand the situation correctly. What two reports are you talking about?

      Delete
    60. A report came out in early 2017 that made claims about Trump and Putin, and this report informed our entire country for years.It probably informed the Senate intelligence report that you mentioned. Why would it not? It made an enormous impact on the politics of our country. And this week we found out that important parts of it were based on weak and discarded intelligence and it was created under unusual intelligence protocols, one of them being that the content of it was steered by the highest levels of each institution. I know I'm not explaining that very well. And there's a lot more to it than just that. But I encourage you to research it if it interests you. There may be significant political consequences that come out of it. Or some people may think so. I do. But I don't think it would be a good idea for us to debate it.

      Delete
    61. The 2 reports I'm talking about are :

      a) the Senate Intelligence Committee report, finalized in 2020 but produced in stages prior to that, and

      b) the report apparently produced by minority members of the House Intelligence Committee in September 2020, which seems to be the basis for much of what Gabbard is now proclaiming.

      4:41 says we now know important parts of the Senate report were based on "weak and discarded intelligence." I say we know nothing of the kind.

      All we know is that report b) believes the intelligence was weak and discarded and that the authors of report a) would deny that.

      We don't have access to the underlying intelligence, which would help us evaluate the competing claims. That's why the burden-of-proof argument is so important.

      Delete
    62. No, this whole controversy is about the intelligence Community Assessment from 2017. It's the report you linked to originally. The recently declassified minority report from 2020 examined the raw intelligence that went into the 2017 intelligence assessment and other raw intelligence and criticized its conclusions and the way it was put together. It was probably the basis for many of the conclusions in the Senate intelligence report you keep bringing up as it was the basis for your belief that there was overwhelming evidence that Putin supported Trump,

      Delete
    63. I'm not making any kind of argument. Just trying to help you understand the simple basics of this issue. ✌️

      Delete
    64. Let me say also that the second report did have access to the underlying intelligence. They had access to all of it and more. And it was not pretty. That is the big issue. The first report informed and influenced how our entire country thought about this issue and had political ramifications that dominated our country and media for years.

      Delete
    65. "No, this whole controversy is about the intelligence Community Assessment from 2017."

      When you say No, what is it you're saying No to?

      Delete
    66. Were you saying the 2020 Senate intelligenc Report and the 2020 House Intelligence Reports were both drawing conclusions about the 2017 Intelligence Assessment?

      Delete
    67. We now know important parts of the Intelligence Assessment were based on "weak and discarded intelligence." I wasn't referring to the Senate report. I think those are the actual terms the house committee took from the raw intelligence they reviewed. The Senate report did not review that raw data or have access to it.

      Delete
    68. We do know that for a fact. It's beyond any and all dispute. That's why it's a big deal. All you have to do is read the document. (Unless the House Intelligence Committee doctored and invented the intelligence they put in their report.)

      Delete
    69. The intelligence Community produced a report in 2017 and one of the things it said was that Putin aspired to help Trump. Something that at one time convinced you there was overwhelming evidence to back that up. (Which makes sense. Why would you doubt what these powerful agencies are telling you? They're also saying it on TV You have no reason to doubt it. ) We now know, beyond dispute, without any question that that claim from that report that had such enormous and widespread political ramifications, was based on ...

      I'll let you read the report and describe it yourself.

      Delete
    70. I don't think either the House or Senate reports, by themselves, allow a layman to come to an independent judgment of their assertions.

      But I did find this interesting article describing a recent (June 2025!) Trump CIA review of the CIA's own conclusion that Putin had favored Trump in 2016:

      "A CIA review released Wednesday is critical of how the agency arrived at the assessment that Russia sought to sway the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump — but finds the overall conclusion was sound.

      The initial assessment, which has been condemned by Trump and his allies, was done too quickly and featured excessive involvement by intelligence agency leaders, according to the review commissioned by CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

      But the review did not call into question the conclusions of the assessment, finding that it exhibited “strong adherence to tradecraft standards” and that its “analytic rigor exceeded that of most IC assessments.”

      So I guess I have to ask: why is Tulsi Gabbard overruling her own CIA's assessment made just one month ago? It seems like blatant interference in intelligence tradecraft by a political appointee. Should someone make a referral to Pam Bondi?

      Delete
    71. Link to article cited above:

      https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/02/cia-review-of-2016-russia-election-probe-finds-no-major-flaws-00438159

      Delete
    72. That would be a very unique and original interpretation. All you would have to do is read both documents to understand why it may not make much sense.

      Some layman may have difficulties coming to an independent judgment about the House report. There is some technical complexity, I guess. I would read it before making that judgment. It contains raw intelligence and commentary at the time from the intelligence officers who were directly involved in producing the assessment. They don't require an independent judgment. They are cold facts. All this will become clear to you if you decide to actually read the documents. It will become very obvious to you when you do.

      But I wish you the best in puzzling out the nuances and potential significance of the report released this week if you do indeed decide to take the time to research it.

      Delete

  2. Clinton and Epstein are good decent persons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steven Pinker is innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's all I needed to know, Spacey and Clinton had a gay lovers relationship. Prove me wrong LIBTARDS!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there any intellectual or moral value, whatsoever, to be found in this comment?

      Delete
    2. Is there any value in this blog?

      Delete
    3. I find value in it, which is why I read it.

      Delete
    4. To me its value is the commenter who defends Steven Pinker.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, not supposed to admit it, but DiC gets under my skin and I lash out a bit.

      Delete
    6. Anyone have the list of Republican Congresspeople who criticized child rape this week?
      So far, i have no one.

      Delete
    7. "Prove me wrong LIBTARDS!!!"

      I can't prove you wrong but I can utter a curse three times that will strike you dead:

      Gulf of Mexico.
      Gulf of Mexico.
      Gulf of Mexico.

      Delete
  5. Someone with a deep understanding of modern science should know already that it is damaging to young girls to lure them into sexual relationships (or sex acts) in their teens. That is the main reason why it is illegal for adult men to seduce, coerce or rape girls below the age of consent.

    Epstein is being described as an intelligent man educated in science. That he would engage in the illegal acts he committed while fully aware of both the consequences for himself and for the victims, is the part that it is difficult to understand.

    All of the rationalizing on Epstein's behalf is just as bad. Ditto for Clinton (who appears to have stopped his associations with Epstein after finding out what he was about) and Pinker and any of the other scientists who attended his dinners and participated in the sex activities. There was no other reason for any of those young girls to be there at all. No one has said that any of this was done by Epstein alone so there were accomplices, who should have known better. Trump is a deeply stupid man. It is unsurprising that he would hang around with Epstein, a smarter but equally self-entitled sexual predator.

    It is fascinating how Somerby can write a political opinion column every day without ever mentioning Epstein or Trump's connection to him, or that what they did was wrong. The way Somerby ignores the Epstein scandal is his way of disappearing the FACT of Trump's misbehavior with women. Somerby wants to chide liberals for being oblivious to something or other (unclear what) while he himself blatantly ignores these crimes against women, and that turning away is more serious than anything he thinks we Blues have done. And that makes Somerby's soul deader than dead, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pinker is innocent.

      Delete
    2. Expecting a good faith argument from Somerby, is like expecting a good faith argument from Newt Gingrich.

      Delete
    3. Are you Bob's ex? Did he dump you?

      Delete
    4. Man, give it up, you Somerby haters.

      What explains your obsessive nuttiness? I don’t think either that Bob has ignored the Epstein situation. Maybe he’s just sick of the distraction and the media-craziness that surrounds it.

      Delete
  6. It is fascinating that Somerby can write a post about the Epstein scandal and that you can then write a comment to that post saying that “Somerby ignores the Epstein scandal.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Trump's distortion of Clinton's Slope Game flight record into 28 trips to the island is yet another example of how easily falsehoods spread when journalists fail to challenge them. Mediaite’s lapse here underscores the urgent need for more rigorous fact-checking in political reporting.

    ReplyDelete

  8. "who went to the island 28 times"

    Correction; should be: "who flew Lolita Express a least 26 times, and was identified by a witness visiting the island at least once, with Ghislaine Maxwell and two young girls".

    Happy now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you imagine the reaction if it was Trump who had taken those flights?

      Delete
    2. They don't need it; Trump is guilty by definition.

      Delete
    3. And Clinton, anything he does, even when he rapes women, it's all for a good cause: fighting AIDS and "climate change". And helping poor Haitians. He's so nice.

      Delete
    4. Watching Right-wingers feign disgust with child rape, is the silliest thing you'll see on the internet today.

      Delete
    5. Clinton is an outlier, in that most Democrats in the pockets of corporations are just Republicans, without the child rape.

      Delete
    6. Quaker in a BasementJuly 26, 2025 at 2:13 AM

      @11;15 Imagine? We don't have to! We're seeing it unfold in real time!

      The reaction is, "Nothing to see! Move along!"

      Delete
    7. What exactly is there to see about Trump and Epstein that is comparable to Bill Clinton flying all around the world on his jet? You can't really say it's a birthday card now. So what exactly are you talking about? Be specific.

      Delete
    8. What it is about Trump and Epstein ? How about whatever the Trump regime is intent on hiding from the public. It can be assumed to be damning when Trump and his enablers are willing to lose a chunk of MAGA world as well as right wing media outlets including Joe Rogan over it.

      Delete
    9. Clinton is an outlier. When he was President, he was an inliar.

      Delete
    10. At least he wasn't caught raping children and flying around the world on a pedophile's plane like Donald Trump was.

      Delete
    11. 9:34,
      In your opinion, why do Republicans enjoy raping children so much?

      Delete
    12. Most of these witnesses are terrifically unreliable.

      Delete
  9. Democrats Get Lowest Rating From Voters in 35 Years, WSJ Poll Finds

    Republicans preferred on most issues that decide elections despite unease with Trump over the economy, tariffs and foreign policy

    https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/democratic-party-poll-voter-confidence-july-2025-9db38021?mod=hp_lead_pos7

    womp womp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The WSJ is a reputable media corporation, so this is a as real as Trump's love letter to Epstein on his birthday. By the way, we know Trump wink-winking about his "secret" with Epstein (it's child rape, people) is real, because there is no way in the world Trump will sue the WSJ, unless his lawyers know nothing about discovery.

      Delete
    2. The WSJ is slightly less full of shit than other Murdoch propaganda arms.

      Delete
    3. Way to go Dems. Everything you're doing is working out so well!

      Delete
    4. The only president with a lower approval rating at this point in his first term is none other than Donald Trump. The upcoming midterms will be much like the last except that, having made an enemy of Musk, Trump's Republican enablers will be running against Musk's choices in key states primaries.

      Delete
    5. How the Democrats were able to get the entire Right-wing of America to embrace child rape is something our grandchildren will be studying in school one day.

      Delete
  10. This blog is worthless. I’m going to stop trolling here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The FCC Chairman of the party of "free speech" has some thoughts.

    FCC Chair Brendan Carr: "President Trump is fundamentally reshaping the media landscape, and the way he's doing that is when he ran for election he ran directly at these legal broadcast media outlets. For years government officials allowed those entities to dictate the political narrative."

    CNBC: When the FCC's Anna Gomez writes that 'you're imposing never been seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment in direct violation of the First Amendment,' you say what?

    FCC CHAIR BRENDAN CARR: I think it's time for a change.

    Next time you fucking hideous fascist maggots try to speak about "free speech", kindly go fuck yourselves. Starting with Matt Taibbi.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rarer than a Republican voter who doesn't support child rape.

    ReplyDelete