HOPELESSLY DEVOTED/LIMITED JUDGMENT: "He felt compassion," Chekhov wrote!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2026

We Blues most likely won't: "Jesus Christ is down here on the waterfront?"

We ourselves don't hold religious or cosmological beliefs, aside from the belief that we humans don't know what we are or where we are or how we happen to be here.  

Other people do have religious beliefs. In the honored film, On the Waterfront, the Karl Malden characterFather Pete Barrytells a collection of angry longshoremen that Jesus Christ is right down there, is among them.   

Telephonically, and by happenstance, we had occasion last Sunday to discuss the film's female undercard. We spoke with a lifelong friend about the performance by Eva Marie Saint.

In that part of the film, the Brando characterTerry Malloyis able to see that Edie Doyle is a better person than he is. Remarkably, he tries to become more like her.   

It starts in the famous scene where the young pair walk in a park. He picks up the glove she has dropped and slips it onto his hand. 

Soon, she tells him how she would have treated him, back in their days in Catholic school when the nuns had treated him harshly:    

TERRY: The way those sisters used to whack me, I don't know what. They thought they were gonna beat an education into me, but I foxed 'em.   

EDIE: Maybe they just didn't know how to handle you.   

TERRY: How would you have done it?   

EDIE: With a little more patience? And kindness?  

We'd call that a very strong moment, and an unusual plea.

As the movie proceeds, Terry Malloy lets the deeply insightful female character help him discover the depth of his conscience. (That key word appears throughout). 

Inevitably, the film was destined to end with a furious fist fightwith the classic masculine solution. But in our view, it's this unusual gender undercard which makes the film so great.

We're recommending kindness today in one part of the conduct of our Blue political wars. Are you able to feel empathy for this new arrival on the front?   

Natalie Harp  

Natalie Harp (born 1991) is an American political aide and former television presenter who has served as special assistant to the president and executive assistant to the president of the United States since 2025.

[...]

Natalie Harp was born in 1991. Her father, Robert Harp, was a real estate broker who founded a consultancy for travel companies; he died by suicide in July 2020. Harp was raised in California. She is a practicing Christian. She and her brother were homeschooled. Harp graduated from Point Loma Nazarene University in 2012, and from Liberty University in 2015 with an MBA.  

By 2017, Harp had become vocally critical of healthcare in the United States after she began suffering from health issues, particularly chronic pain and complications incurred by a medical error involving intravenous therapy for stage II bone cancer. In a 2019 interview on Fox News, she praised Trump for signing into law a federal right-to-try law that she claimed allowed her to access experimental treatments which she credited with saving her life. However, The Washington Post cast doubt on Harp's story, citing experts that noted the law's limited scope and reporting that two months before the law was signed she had already made public comments about receiving the new treatment.   

Trump invited Harp to speak at the 2020 Republican National Convention... By that month, she had become a member of the advisory board for Trump's 2020 presidential campaign.   

And so on from there.

That background isn't much like ours. That said, can you imagine feeling empathy for someone whose father took his own life when she was 28for someone who apparently dealt with a life-threatening cancer condition when she was even younger than that?   

(For that Washington Post article, just click here. We've never seen anyone say that Harp didn't face a life-threatening cancer issue in the period described.)

Today, Harp will become a figure of ridicule due to the release of two letters she wrote to the president in recent years. In one of the letters, she expresses gratitude for the fact that she'd been able to travel to Ireland and Scotland as a Trump aide:   

"I’ll never forget when you made that promise to me after losing my Dad, and I know how happy he is right now that I did get to go to Scotland and Ireland, as he always wanted for me." 

Are you able to feel for that person? To read the letters in full, click here. For excerpts, click this.  

(Chekhov, writing of the male protagonist Gurov in The Lady with the Lapdog, a story widely considered to be one of the greatest ever written: "He felt compassion for this life, still so warm and lovely, but probably already not far from beginning to fade and wither like his own...He felt profound compassion.")  

Harp will be subjected to extensive ridicule. It's the way Homey plays.

Beyond that, she seems to have vastly imperfect political and journalistic judgment, as is true of many others in this dangerous, rage-filled time.   

It seems that Harp's conduct has sometimes, perhaps frequently, been highly unusual. According to Maggie Haberman, the Secret Service had become "alarmed" at one point by the content of her letters to Trumpand given the way the world sometimes works, it's hard to say that their concern was misplaced.   

That said, Natalie Harp is a person. On this morning's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough described this aspect of her person as he spoke with John Heilemann:

SCARBOROUGH (8/21/28): By the way, I've spoken to Natalie Harp a good bit, as most people havevery polite, and we have polite, kind conversations. I've been in the White House, and I’ve talked to Donald Trump, the president, and seen her there. Never once assumed anything inappropriate was going on...

Scarborough described an actual person, a person with whom he has routinely spoken in thoroughly normal ways. He seems to say that she traffics in kindness on the personal level, even when conversing with an aggressive critic of the highly disordered person she serves.

That said, her behavior has been unusual. She seems to have extremely bad judgment, much like the powerful person who has positioned her where she is.

Of course, other people have limited judgment too. For all the outstanding work he has done, Scarborough still refuses to tell the truth about the person for whom Harp works. 

Scarborough is hardly alone in that agreement not to speak. Many of us Blues are going to beat up on Harp while refusing to be forthright about the much more powerful man. And by the way:

Heilemann's elaborate claim todayhis claim that Jon Ossoff wasn't making an insinuation when he mentioned "Natalie" in his speechcould hardly have been much more clueless. We may discuss that cluelessness tomorrow.

In closing for today, we'll say this:

Harp's outsized devotion to the sitting president is one thing. Beyond that, her apparent lack of journalistic judgment is amazingly widespread.

Steven Cheung's ugly rage is something much more significant. Our heralded Blue American journalists all know the backstory here. 

They know the source of the destructive rage. Eagerly preserving their access to paychecks, they all agree not to name it.

Still coming: The rage of Trump and Cheung


102 comments:


  1. Boring, Bob. Incredibly boring.

    No one cares about your "Natalie" character, Bob. No one except you and your fellow TDS sufferers. Poor Dumbocrats you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump cares about Natalie.

      Delete
    2. We all care about Natalie, trumptard. She's Trump's emotional support aide. Without her he'd probably go off the rails, attack Iran and spend all his time deciding on the new sod for the White House lawn.

      Then where would we be?

      Delete
  2. Liberals self image is that they are good, nice people. . But their treatment of Harp and of Charlie Kirk and his widow calls that image into question

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David's grumpy because Mao was first to post.

      Delete
    2. Harp’s salary is paid by us, the taxpayers. She has exclusive access to the president of the United States, and his truth social account. I think the public has a right to know what it is she does for the president. It’s not about being nice, it’s about demanding answers. She had previously refused to fill out a security clearance for at least her first year.

      Delete
    3. Trump's Truth Social account is not just social media but he uses it to announce policy and communicate with foreign governments.

      No clearance, no exposure to classified info. Any contractor that broke that rule would lose their govt or defense contracts. Women like Natalie are often recruited by foreign governments and spy agencies because they look and seem so harmless, incapable and uninterested in secrets that get divulged in front of them by the unwary men they target.

      This situation is way worse than Hegseth's use of Signal Chat for defense planning. Why is this acceptable to anyone, Congress, the Secret Service, the right wing? It is a major national security threat.

      Delete
    4. Ha ha ha - dickhead in cal, a GIANT trump humper lickspittle complaining about how how Dems treat Harp? You fucking have got to be kidding. Go away Piggy.

      Delete
    5. I'm sure DiC is equally concerned about how Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss were treated. Right, DiC?

      Delete
    6. Good point Hector. Now point me to the TDH post where he typed out a biography of ruby freeman and urged compassion for her.

      Delete
    7. David has no patience or compassion for mythical welfare queens, but expects it for the fat cats stealing from our coffers.

      Brother, please.

      Delete
  3. "We ourselves don't hold religious or cosmological beliefs, aside from the belief that we humans don't know what we are or where we are or how we happen to be here."

    There is a whole lot known on all of these subjects, especially what we are, where we are, and how we happen to be here. Somerby is essentially saying he doesn't believe the results of modern science and that is ridiculous, especially for someone who once functioned as a teacher.

    This reflects his nihilism, which is a philosophical stance largely adopted by adolescents. It disqualifies Somerby from having anything serious to say about most things adults discuss. And it marks him as a stupid, foolish person. To go through even one day of life, one must make assumptions on the specifics of what we are etc that make a hypocrite of Somerby with his anti-scientific, pseudo-philosophical sophistry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "By the way, I've spoken to Natalie Harp a good bit, as most people have—very polite, and we have polite, kind conversations."

    What else is anyone going to do with the adopted daughter of a dictator who can make your life miserable on a whim?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember when this happened:
      “Joe Scarborough and his co-host Mika Brzezinski traveled to Mar-a-Lago in November 2024 to meet personally with Donald Trump. They stated their goal was to restart communications and reopen a dialogue after seven years of a severely strained and acrimonious relationship”

      And Somerby laid into Scarborough for doing it.

      Delete
    2. Like the mainstream press when it is trying to "balance" the coverage, the goal here is to criticize for the sake of criticizing. So if you do something, you're wrong for doing something, and if you don't do something, you're wrong for not doing something. The press does it because it's good for business; Somerby, as far as I can tell, does it because he enjoys complaining and finger-wagging.

      Delete
    3. That may well be true, MG, but he does seem to be animated by a disdain for liberals, which leads him into these hypocritical reactions.

      Delete
    4. Targets of opportunity, or in this case, necessity.

      Delete
    5. Who are the “targets of necessity” here, MG? Ossoff? Heileman?

      Delete
    6. Oh, I see. No specific target. Just “liberals.” And no rules need apply: hypocrisy is justified as long as liberals are being attacked.

      Delete
    7. Being wrong for doing something while also being wrong for not doing something is an incredibly common occurrence and criticism of such people is legitimate.

      What a silly comment MG.

      Somerby targets "liberals" and "blues" because this is a right wing vanity blog.

      Delete
    8. Like Somerby, you are a very wise and insightful person.

      Delete
    9. Why don’t you go back to being Cecelia, MG?

      Delete
    10. Not sure about wise or insightful, but glad you agree Somerby is right wing.

      Delete
    11. "Why don’t you go back to being Cecelia, MG?"

      I owe Somerby an apology.

      Delete
    12. If you say so. Go ahead.

      Delete
  5. Can somerby find any more ways to write irrelevant nonsense about this issue, or more ways to beat up on “blues” by deliberately missing the point?

    Harp’s biography is completely irrelevant.

    No one is beating up on Harp. They are questioning her taxpayer-funded role and what it says about Trump. In other words to focus of the story isn’t harp, it’s Donald Trump.

    Somerby’s deliberate dumbassery is quite self-evident in today’s post, and it quite clearly shows Somerby’s willingness to spread right wing grievance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How is Eva Marie Saint "the undercard"? Somerby goes out of his way to disparage women, as usual. She won an Oscar for her role in that film, and the story wouldn't have been effective without her. Perhaps Somerby knows nothing about humanity because his hatred of women jaundices his views to the point where he can appreciate nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edie is the author's voice.

      Delete
    2. An “undercard” means “not the main attraction.”

      Delete
    3. The undercard consists of the lesser fighters who have not yet earned their way to the top. Eva Marie Saint, with her oscar had arguably reached the top and deserved to be considered a main attraction for her performance. Somerby is being an asshole.

      Delete
    4. Marlon Brando won the Academy Award for the leading role. Eva Marie Saint won it for a supporting role.

      Delete
    5. The role is written by the screenwriter. The actor or actress is resonsible for realizing that via their performance. Are you suggesting Eva Marie Saint did poorly because she didn't pad her part?

      Delete
    6. She wasn't the main character, so in that sense she can be called the undercard. Period. Nothing to get your undies all in a bunch over.

      Delete
    7. But she was the author’s voice, wasn’t she? How is that an undercard?

      Delete
    8. "Undercard" was a poor choice of word, but that is typical of Somerby.

      His infamous sexism comes leaking out in all sorts of ways.

      Delete
  7. “We ourselves don't hold religious or cosmological beliefs”

    But those nuns at terry malloy’s Catholic school did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their beliefs didn’t stop them from striking a child.

      Delete
    2. My point exactly.

      Delete
    3. The Jewish bible, which Christians are instructed to follow every jot and tittle of, endorses all manner of violence against children.

      Freedom of (or from) religion is a fundamental right; however, religion does not persist without indoctrination, and when that indoctrination is perpetrated on children it is a pernicious form of abuse.

      It is one of the primary root causes of why we can't have nice things.

      Delete
  8. You see, if we blues could just show a little more patience and kindness towards the Trump administration, then something something we will um, er, …. What?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You see, being kind and compassionate means you overlook cruelty and criminality. Is that what Somerby is implying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but only for Republicans.

      For Dems behaving badly, it is open season, as far as Somerby is concerned. And they are to blame and they deserve it, according to Somerby's addled mind.

      Delete
  10. "Father Pete Barry—tells a collection of angry longshoremen that Jesus Christ is right down there, is among them."

    Thus illustrating that religion is the opiate of the masses, keeping workers pacified and softening their righteous anger.

    "Budd Schulberg was not blacklisted. Instead, he chose to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in 1951 as a "friendly witness," testifying about his brief past membership in the Communist Party and naming names of other party members." Elia Kazan also collaborated with HUAC, leading to controversy:

    "The HUAC Testimony and "Naming Names"

    The primary controversy involves director Elia Kazan and screenwriter Budd Schulberg cooperating with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).

    The Snitching Allegory: In 1952, both Kazan and Schulberg testified before HUAC during the Second Red Scare, naming former colleagues as Communist Party members. This ruined many careers.

    Justifying Informing:

    Critics and blacklisted Hollywood figures viewed the film's plot—where Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) courageously breaks the waterfront "deaf and dumb" code to testify against corrupt bosses—as a thinly veiled self-justification for their own real-life informant testimonies.

    Artistic Division:

    The film became a battleground between those who praised its cinematic genius and those who condemned it as a propaganda piece designed to cleanse the consciences of Kazan and Schulberg.

    Backlash from the Labor Unions

    The film's depiction of organized labor drew heavy criticism from contemporary dock unions.

    Negative Depiction of Labor: The International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) vehemently objected to how the film portrayed the docks as completely beholden to a murderous criminal mob syndicate.

    The Arthur Miller Conflict: Playwright Arthur Miller had originally worked with Kazan on a movie about the docks called The Hook. Miller withdrew the script after Kazan pressured him to make the corrupt union bosses Communists rather than simple racketeers, widening the political rift between them.

    A Lasting Legacy of Bitterness

    The anger surrounding the film persisted for decades. When Elia Kazan was awarded an Honorary Academy Award in 1999, several Hollywood stars refused to applaud or stand, proving that the controversy surrounding On the Waterfront and Kazan's choices remained deeply polarizing."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And this is what Somerby chooses to discuss as an allegory to Natalie Harp, urging kindness? Collaborating with HUAC to ruin the careers of other actors, writers and film staff is no small crime. Then Kazan made this self-serving film justifying his own actions in the context of labor unions and dock strife, using a long time lefty cause to excuse his own actions.

      Somerby doesn't explicitly relate this film to Natalie Harp's situation, but I can believe it is self-serving on his part to be defending her. Then Somerby attacks Scarborough's honesty, without examining his own ongoing dishonesty to his readers here.

      And yes, this is all very muddled because Somerby attacks people like Ossof without explaining how any of this justifies what Trump/Harp and the right are doing. Harp is not innocent. Neither is Trump. And Somerby is certainly not innocent, nor does he seem willing to display any self-awareness of his own complicity in advancing this treasonous presidency.

      Delete
    2. Viewed from the left, “On the Waterfront” is nasty.

      Delete
    3. On the Waterfront is a masterpiece.

      Delete
    4. In what way? And so what?

      Delete
    5. They have these regularly scheduled All Praise Dear Leader cabinet meetings that are as weird as they are un-American. This is what creeps the left about Harp. Dear Leader is so fucking weird why are you allowing him to do anything? Vaxx BS, never-ending mid East war, exploding deficit needs more rich people tax cuts to fix, shipping out record numbers of our neighbors, threatening to militarize the election, etc.It's all so weird and terrible.

      Delete
    6. Tough guy Brando had a sexual affair with Richard Pryor.

      Being bisexual is normal, most likely a plurality of humans are on the bisexual spectrum, and there is nothing wrong with that.

      Kids are indoctrinated with heteronormativity to such an unhealthy degree that some grow up to be disgusted by their own normal, natural selves. Many of these people become Republicans, driven by their self hate.

      Delete
    7. Eva Marie Saint married a man and stayed married until he died sixty-five years later. They had two kids and four grandkids.

      Delete
  11. You see, losing your father when you are 28 means you ought to be treated with patience and kindness, which I guess means not questioning what it is you do for the president. Now, if she hadn’t lost her father when she was 28, then all bets are off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Somerby may be implying Harp has daddy issues exacerbated by her father's death. He himself blames all of his problems on his own father's early death and his mother (why?). So Somerby excuses anyone with early childhood issues, calling them lost boys (or lost girls?). This is nonsense, psychologically speaking.

      Delete
    2. Something is wrong with Somerby.

      Delete
    3. 28 is not early childhood. As a full grown adult she needs to buck the fuck up like a regular Nazi.

      Delete
    4. Harp is a piece of shit who actively wants to harm Americans and our way of life so that a handful of wealthy people can get richer and so hate-filled people can get some emotional comfort.

      Harp deserves to be treated without any patience or kindness.

      Delete
  12. This post proves that Somerby loves women, especially unfairly targeted ones who deserve patience and kindness because she lost her father when she was an adult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my gosh! Eva Marie Saint should have lost her father if she wanted Somerby to take her seriously as an actress! Why didn't anyone tell her!

      Delete
    2. She was taken seriously. She excelled — in a supporting role.

      Delete
    3. Saint was the costar in that movie where she played a leading role.

      She won for Best Supporting due to sexism of that time, in contemporary times it would have been for Best Actress.

      Saint is still alive at 102, she was a striking person in her work as an actress. She did better work in North By Northwest, whose famous director disparaged On the Waterfront, probably due in large part to the nasty behavior of Kazan.

      Delete
    4. "She won for Best Supporting due to sexism of that time..."

      What could sexism possibly have to do with it? You understand that there was a Best Actress category, which was won by ... lemme see, lemme see ... yep! yep! another woman? What in the hell does sexism have to do with it?

      Delete
    5. Why are acting awards divided up into men's and women's categories? Why are there so few good roles for women compared to men (not just in the past but also currently)? Why are there so few women in the behind-the-camera roles and as members of the Academy itself?

      "Geena Davis has been a leading voice against sexism in Hollywood. After starring in Thelma & Louise, she expected a surge of female-led films, but industry ratios remained stagnant. In 2004, she founded the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media to use hard data to fight unconscious bias and underrepresentation on screen.Research and FindingsSevere Imbalance: Studies from her institute show that background and crowd scenes feature only about 17% female characters, a ratio that barely changed for decades.Speaking Time: Research highlights that even when women lead films, men often receive triple the screen time and dialogue if the lead is male, though female-led projects tend to achieve a healthy 50/50 balance.Unconscious Bias: Creators often believe their content is balanced until presented with concrete data showing a male-dominated environment."

      How could Eva Marie Saint have won an Oscar for a leadering role if there were few such roles available to women in her time?

      Delete
    6. Somerby didn't take her seriously. The Academy gave her an award, but Somerby calls her the undercard, which is a derogatory term. She doesn't deserve that.

      Delete
    7. "How could Eva Marie Saint have won an Oscar for a leadering role if there were few such roles available to women in her time?"

      Typo aside, this is incoherent slop. Saint was never nominated for another Academy Award in her long career, so the idea that, if only there were more parts for women she would have got one is just risible. Every year, a woman has won an Academy Award for best actress, regardless of how many parts were, or were not, available to them. She was still competing against other women; the fact that she couldn't beat them out simply means she wasn't as good as they were, not that she was some kind of victim of sexism.

      Delete
    8. The year Eva Marie Saint won best actress in a supporting role, Grace Kelly won best actress.

      Delete
    9. Grace Kelly, well known man.

      Delete
  13. Somerby infantilizes all right wingers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Somerby is implying, not directly saying, that Ossof meant to imply a sordid affair when he said that Trump wanted to travel with Natalie. Instead of taking that position, Somerby blames Heilemann:

    "Heilemann's elaborate claim today—his claim that Jon Ossoff wasn't making an insinuation when he mentioned "Natalie" in his speech—could hardly have been much more clueless."

    I think Somerby is being disingenuous and clueless himself. Ossof placed Trump in a difficult position because Trump cannot assert the innocence of Harp's travel without undermining his own virility, established at Harp's expense. Don't forget that Trump does not have relationships with women. He owns them and uses them for his own purposes, including appearing to be a big sexy man. Trump does not care about Harp's reputation but he does care about his own image. So the right is inflating this into an attempted sexual smear and not a geriatric arrangement as nurse.

    Somerby's talking point is to advance Trump's preferred narrative, which is what teases for tomorrow. No one thinks Trump is sexually active, but also no one thinks this is a love affair. Harp appears as instrumental as Trump has always been, telling him what he wants to hear to salve his ego. It is ludicrous to the rest of the world because Trump is such a deformed person, and those trying to grift off Trump make themselves ludicrous in the process, including Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "those trying to grift off Trump...including Somerby."

      Bob's making a ton out of the whole Trump thing. There are so many ads on this site it drives me nuts. And all the endorsement he's been doing. It's crazy.

      Delete
    2. I use an ad blocker.

      Delete
    3. Grift comes in all kinds of forms.

      Delete
    4. Somerby is promoting talking points. Those take the place of other types of products an influencer might be pushing. Information is a commodity.

      Delete
  15. Ossoff has been on the campaign trail for quite some time, relentlessly laying into Trump‘s corruption. And yet not a peep from the right wing about that? And yet two words in one speech caused this volcanic eruption from the right wing? It seems as though a genuine media critic would try to understand why the right wing has reacted this way, not chide liberals for lack of “kindness and compassion”, and then quote from Harp’s biography.

    ReplyDelete
  16. “How would you have done it?

    EDIE: With a little more patience? And kindness?”

    Did Schulberg and Elia Kazan exemplify this sentiment, I mean either before during or after they named names?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Communists were almost as bad as the Nazis. It's OKK to expose former Nazis or former Communists.

      Delete
    2. since when were the Nazis bad, dickface, you fascist fucking freak?

      Delete
    3. Fake news from David.

      Lie harder.

      Delete
    4. And of course, with Epstein, it was okay to expose yourself to teenage girls.

      Delete
    5. The Red Army stopped the Holocaust.

      Delete
    6. @4:07 During the Stalin era, specifically the devastating man-made famine of 1932–1933 known as the Holodomor, most mainstream historians and demographic experts place the death toll in Soviet Ukraine between 3.5 million and 5 million people.

      Delete
    7. We’re a bit off the track here. The original comment referred to Kazan outing American actors and screenwriters, many of whom were Jewish, and now DiC is talking about Stalin.

      Delete
    8. Since you bring it up:

      "Context of the Soviet Union and Jews in WWIIFighting the Nazis:

      The Soviet military was a principal force in defeating Nazi Germany, liberating camps like Auschwitz, and ending the systematic slaughter of European Jews.

      Casualties and Survival:

      Hundreds of thousands of Jewish soldiers served in the Red Army, and many Soviet Jews survived because the Soviet government evacuated or allowed civilians to flee eastward away from the advancing German army ahead of the invasion.

      Stalin's Postwar Actions:

      While the Soviet state did not kill Jews as part of a wartime extermination plan, Joseph Stalin's regime did harbor state anti-Semitism. This intensified late in the war and in the post-war years (such as the suppression of Jewish culture and the "Doctors' Plot" in the early 1950s), but this political and ethnic persecution was distinct from the Nazi genocide during the war itself."

      Delete
    9. Divert, deflect, distract. That’s dickhead’s role here

      Delete
  17. No Dem is suggesting or thinks that Harp is having an affair with Trump.

    As everyone knows, Trump hasn't seen his penis in years, and neither has anyone else.

    Republicans are pimping this story because they want you to think Trump may be having an affair, and therefore his virility and vitality are still intact.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Somerby drops a sob story about Harp's devotion to Trump, except, as the Washington Post notes, it is fake.

    Her treatment predates the law, so she is just lying.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why must Ossoff lack compassion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's a Jew and a Dumbbocratic.

      Delete
    2. His mother is not Jewish though. A bit of a problem among some sects of Judaism.

      Somerby is mad at Ossoff for attacking Republicans and making them look bad.

      Delete
    3. @2:49 is a foreign troll who cannot speak English.

      Delete
  20. Harp has kind conversations with Scarborough. Wonderful. Is this before during or after she posts doctored images of Trump as Jesus or Obama as an ape?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tim Pool is a moderate grifter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, he was paid by Russia to grift for Trump, which makes him a right wing grifter.

      Delete
  22. Still waiting on those Epstein files.

    Only half have been released.

    Trump's name is mentioned 1 million times in the files.

    There is valid suspension that Trump is named a co conspirator in the files, as well as details about Trump assaulting young females.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, why didn’t Biden release them?

      Delete
    2. Fuck you , David

      Delete
    3. Here is why Biden didn't release them:

      "The Biden administration maintained that decisions regarding investigative files should rest with the Department of Justice (DOJ) rather than the White House. Officials argued that preserving traditional institutional norms meant avoiding direct executive interference or the appearance of using the DOJ for political targeting."

      Biden appointed Mueller, who dragged his feet on prosecutions of Trump for other crimes, for the same reasons -- to avoid the appearance of politically motivated prosecutions. That is why the info about Russian interference in the 2016 election has taken so long to be released.

      Delete
    4. "....why didn’t Biden release them?"

      Probably the main reason was there was no clamor for them, Biden hadn't campaigned on their release, hadn't made it seem like their release woud be revelatory, hadn't done a weird, phony release of stuff already in the public domain that just pissed people off, and thus wasn't in a position to beclown himself by asking with a disbelieving air, "Why are people still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?"

      Delete