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.

73 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

  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
  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
  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. 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
  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