Supplemental: Rachel rolls her eyes at Jesus himself!


Our own entertainment and pablum:
The goodies and parsons of Salem Village were out last night in force.

Last night, the parsons and goodies sere focused on the videotape of Ray Rice and Janay Rice. A great deal of moral certainty was widely and dumbly expressed.

So it has always been from our many parsons and goodies. Last Friday night, the parsons and goodies were still focused on the trial of Robert McDonnell.

Before we look at the dunking McDonnell received from Rachel Maddow, we wanted to mention a couple of pieces from the Washington Post.

How odd! This weekend, after the trial was over, the Post began to explore the legalities of the proceedings. On Saturday, we were surprised to see Matt Zapotosky offer this thought, right at the start of a front-page report:
ZAPOTOSKY (9/6/14): The prosecution of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell could have far-reaching effects on federal public-corruption cases—making it easier for prosecutors to bring charges against those accused of abusing their official powers, legal experts said.

The convictions of McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, on several counts of public corruption Thursday are historic in their own right, bestowing upon the onetime Republican rising star the unwanted distinction of being the first governor in Virginia history to be found guilty of a crime. But legal experts say the case...could encourage prosecutors to pursue similar charges against officials who take not-so-obviously significant actions on behalf of their alleged bribers and make it easier for them to win convictions.
Weird! As we followed the trial, it seemed that way to us! To us, McDonnell’s alleged corrupt bargain with businessman Jonnie Williams seemed to involve a rather small number of “not-so-obviously significant actions” on the latter’s behalf.

Reading the Post as the trial went along, we thought we saw the occasional thumb on the scale pushing the story the other way. Now that the trial was over, Zapotosky reported that McDonnell’s actions had been perhaps “not-so-obviously significant.”

Later, in a poorly explained passage, he further said it wasn’t clear that McDonnell’s actions on Williams’ behalf really qualify as “official acts” as required by law.

The next day, this new attitude had spread to the Post’s op-ed page. An associate professor at William and Mary argued that the guilty verdict may encourage prosecutors to chase politicians around.

He seemed to think this could be a problem. Along the way, he described a weird jury instruction:
BELLIN (9/7/14): The Supreme Court insists that there is a clear distinction between the felony offenses that upended McDonnell and our tried-and-true system of allowing private entities and individuals to shower government officials with campaign contributions and other gifts. That distinction comes down to the contents of the official's mind. To prove "honest services" fraud or political extortion, a prosecutor must show that someone like McDonnell accepted a particular donation with the understanding that he would perform official acts in return. This agreement to trade gifts for acts is all that separates "politics as usual" from felony corruption.

Critically, the corrupt agreement need not be documented, or even articulated. The prosecution's proof, as in the McDonnell case, normally takes the form of evidence that money went to a public servant and official acts followed. The jury can infer the requisite agreement from the circumstantial evidence. If a jury sees "knowing winks and nods" (the actual jury instruction) in the flow of money from donor to candidate, federal prison awaits.

Consistent with these principles, the McDonnell jury's 90-page instructions informed it that it could not convict the ex-governor for the things it likely found most distasteful: his soliciting personal gifts, exercising terrible judgment or prompting underlings to help a guy who paid for a family wedding. Rather, the verdict rested on whether, in all these perfectly legal actions, the jury perceived the knowing winks and nods that are all the law requires to turn donations into federal felonies. That should send chills down the spines of public officials across the country. Which, admittedly, might not be so bad.
Really? That’s the actual jury instruction? The jury is supposed to look for “knowing winks and nods?”

According to Professor Bellin, it “might not be so bad” if chills get sent down the spines of the nation’s public officials. On balance, though, Bellin seemed to think this trial might take us in a dangerous direction.

Where might the danger lie? Let’s use Maddow’s discussion from last Friday night to help answer that question. First, though, let’s review a few other aspects of Maddow’s clowning about the McDonnells that night.

Last Friday, Maddow remained in glory mode over the fall of the McDonnells. If you watch the tapes of her two segments on this topic, you’ll see some of the instincts which make her a nightmare as a journalist and as an alleged progressive.

Go ahead! Watch the tape of Maddow’s first segment. She starts with footage of a McDonnell family friend expressing shock at the verdicts.

Guess what? There’s always a family friend expressing shock at a guilty verdict. In the videotape Maddow played, this family friend ended up making a religious reference. In response, Maddow smirked and snarked in the manner her kind has perfected down through the many dumb years:
REPORTER: This is all too real, says this family friend. They're now focused on trying to bring comfort and support during a very dark time.

MCDONNELL FAMILY FRIEND: It’s unbelievable. Compare it to Christ. Christ didn’t do anything. And they went after him.

MADDOW (smirking): Yes. Yes, they did go after Christ. Noted! Noted, sort of without comment.

That’s local coverage from the NBC station in Washington, Northern Virginia, NBC 12.

We set aside for the moment the issue of going after Christ. I should also tell you that they do also go after and catch a member of Congress or a governor about every two years now in our country.
Quite routinely, Maddow bows low to the twin gods, Smirk and Snark. Over the years, this kind of progressive makes it hard for progressive interests to get a fair hearing from the various people who get snarked at this way.

Maddow is painfully tribal. By now, we’ve become convinced that, aside from her obvious skills, there may be a wire or two hanging loose inside her head—the kind of wires that permit human feeling for those who aren’t in your narrow tribe.

People like Maddow don’t have such feeling. This makes it hard for other progressives to stop the downward spiral into disconnection some conservatives hope to create.

Maddow smirked and snarked about that reference to Jesus. If you watch the full segment, you’ll see her clowning about the number of years to which the McDonnells may get sentenced.

She started that part of her clowning like this:
MADDOW: One thing I learned this week is that the guidelines for sentencing in federal cases are publicly available. You can look at the sentencing guidelines yourself with the Google.

You can build your own federal sentencing guidelines matrix for your favorite federal convict.

So, in the case of Bob McDonnell, you go here to the United States sentencing commission guidelines manual. It’s posted online. It’s publicly available. Just Google it.

You skip down to chapter 2, part c. That’s offenses involving public officials. And then you at home can calculate what the offense level was and, therefore, how much time he might get offered.
At present, there’s little question that Bob McDonnell is Maddow’s “favorite federal convict.” If you watch that chunk of the segment, you’ll see Maddow go on and on, clowning and prancing as she pretends to figure out his probable sentence.

In her second segment about the trial, Maddow conducted a worthless interview with one of the McDonnell jurors. She started with a tiny eye-roll about a religious statement by McDonnell himself, then wasted time from there.

We liberals were getting some pretty thin gruel from Our Own Rhodes Scholar! In closing, we want you to consider where Maddow went after she rolled her eyes about that initial Jesus remark.

In the ridiculous passage shown below, Maddow listed the major officials who have been convicted of corruption in recent years—at least, “the ones just off the top of my head.”

This is a very dumb set of comments. We were struck by one official Maddow left off her list:
MADDOW: We set aside for the moment the issue of going after Christ. I should also tell you that they do also go after and catch a member of Congress or a governor about every two years now in our country.

In the past decade, we’ve been on a pretty tight two-year schedule of locking up members of Congress and/or governors every other year. We seem to like to do that in odd-numbered years.

So start, say, 2005. It was John Rowland, the Republican governor of Connecticut. He resigned while being investigated for corruption. He got convicted and sentenced to a year in prison. Incidentally, John Rowland is out of prison but back in court on other corruption-related charges.

Also in 2005, corruption charges against Duke Cunningham, Republican member of Congress from California. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for bribery and corruption.

In 2007, it was Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney. He was the first elected official convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. He was accused of selling his office for luxury vacations and fancy meals and sky box seats. Bob Ney, sentenced to 30 months in prison.

He actually got more than the prosecutors had asked for. The judge in the Bob Ney case told him at the sentencing, quote, "As a member of Congress, you have the responsibility above all else to set an example and uphold the law." And then the judge sentenced him to more than the prosecutors asked for, is what the prosecutors asked for, plus an extra three months.

Then two years later, it was Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana. He was 2009’s poster boy. He was the guy with the cold hard cash—bundles of large denomination bills wrapped up in aluminum foil and stuffed into his freezer. William Jefferson was sentenced in 2009 to 13 years in prison. One of the longer sentences in this cast of characters.

But then two years later, it was Rod Blagojevich, the Democratic governor of Illinois, sentenced to an also impressive 14 years in prison after he was convicted on 17 corruption charges including soliciting bribes to sell an appointment to Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat.
Then, every two years, two years later, this time 2013, back to Illinois, for Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for redirecting his campaign funds to buy things like expensive Michael Jackson memorabilia.

And those are the ones just off the top of my head. I mean, those are just the household name corruption and bribery convictions that resulted in members of Congress and governors going to prison.

But those household name ones, it’s interesting. They do for whatever reason seem to happen every two years, 05, 07, 09, 2011, 2013.

And now, we had just found out in 2015, six days into 2015, right on schedule, we’re due for another. They’re going to be sentencing the next American governor to go to prison on multiple felony corruption charges. It’s going to be Bob McDonnell of Virginia, convicted along with his wife on 11 felony charges of corruption yesterday in Richmond.
Somehow, Maddow stopped short of telling us everyone’s sign. Inanely, she said “we seem to like to do this in odd-numbered years,” at least as long as we stick to “the ones just off the top of [her] head.”

For the record, Maddow skipped a high-profile conviction in the year 2008, that of Alaska senator Ted Stevens.

She may have skipped the Stevens conviction because the conviction was voided and the indictment was dismissed in 2009. This was done at the request of Attorney General Holder, with federal judge Brendan Sullivan “calling it the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he'd ever seen.”

We mention this for a reason. When Maddow clowns her way through corruption trials, the possibility never seems to enter her head that prosecutors can exercise bad judgment, just like office-holders.

She assumes guilt from the start, then clowns her way forward from there.

She entertains us with pictures of white Ferraris, or with tales of high colonics. She behaves like a perfect fool, in much the way Richard N. Cohen described in 1988, as quoted by Howard Kurtz:

Network executives "believe you lower the common denominator, frame everything in entertainment terms, make it pablum, make it glitzy, and it will sell...The currency of the realm ceases to be journalism...

“They're left with a huge game of pretend.”

Watch the tapes of Maddow’s two segments that night. That’s basically what you’ll be seeing.

Is there a chance the McDonnell trial could encourage other bogus prosecutions? The Post began to wonder about that possibility this weekend. Our own Alfred E. Maddow seems disinclined to worry.

On the brighter side, Maddow is paid $7 million per year for these entertainment functions. Before our current series is done, we’ll review the two photo spreads she has commissioned from The Houses of Journalist County.

Maddow now lives in those famous houses. Night after night, we’d have to say she also exhibits “the currency of the realm.”


  1. So, what are Bob's views on the Rice matter (any aspect of it)? Interesting how he slides off of that topic. Instead, let's go after Rachel Maddow's coverage of a corrupt (so found by a jury) governor and his wife.(With Bob's implications of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial error because: Ted Stevens!) Next we'll be hearing from Bob about some imagined Rick Perry witch-hunt (he'll examine Rachel or Chris or someone of that ilk and ignore the overwhelming coverage within TX, where local journalism doesn't take Perry's situation lightly). Who needs Drudge or Fox? Bob makes their work superfluous.

    1. "Bob makes Drudge and Fox's work superfluous."

      That is a dumb statement.

    2. Really? When was the last time Bob has wondered about the house Bill O'Reilly lives in? Or how he got his job? Or how much money he makes? Or how much he mugs and clowns? Or Hannity? Or Kelly? Or Van Sustern?

    3. O'Reilly is not liberal. Maddow is.

    4. 8:20 - Ya - it's dumb. The critics of Bob here, I don't think they really think things through. They don't intellectualize what they are saying or thinking. They say the dumbest things! A commenter below didn't agree with something so he used faulty, really dumb logic and profanity in response. These are really dumb, poorly thought out responses. The guy above thinks because Bob exclusively criticizes liberal media and doesn't cover other news stores and that he does the work of Fox? That doesn't make sense. You seem to think the same. If Bob criticizes something, it's not delegitimated if he doesn't criticize something else. Cmon man. What's a matter with your brain? Put your thinking cap on. Are you on pot or what? Or maybe these Bob critics are just absurdists. Oh well. I'm proud to be an American where as least I know I'm free.

    5. Maddow does the work of Fox and Drudge for them. Fox and Drudge want people to think liberals hold conservative rank and file in contempt .., that they are elitists who look down on them. That's the impression she gives off. It's bad for liberals. We libs have a hard time differentiating between the conservative rank and file that get played and the powerful people who play them.

    6. Yes indeed, 9:12 AM. I know many otherwise discerning conservatives who have been played into watching Maddow
      so they can be fooled into thinking liberals hold them and their values in contempt.

  2. Stewart tried to tell maddow as well. He didn't do a good job of it. But he was trying to tell her the same things bob says here: she acts a little bit horrible on her show and tries to be cute and funny but really isn't. Ie. she could do so much better. You like her show? You feel one can't critique it without critiquing the other things you mentioned? Don't get that logic. Have a good one.

    1. "... she acts a little bit horrible on her show and tries to be cute and funny but really isn't Ie. she could do much better."

      You probably need to re-read the post. Here's a clue: the goodies and parsons of Salem Village.

    2. Can you explicitly state your point? I was understating? That's what Stewart was trying to tell her the way I saw it. Bob too. Bob is too harsh in his critique? Thanks,

    3. 6:52, you come here every day and say the same thing "Stewart said the same thing. Stewart said the same thing. Stewart said the same thing."

      Well, I'm calling bullshit. No he didn't.

      Good lordy, Bob's had a bee up his ass about Maddow ever since she signed on to a gig he can't even dream of getting. And now he's got another one about -- of all people -- Meredith Vieira.

      Let me ask you this. This is supposed to be some great media criticism blog, right?

      Well is Maddow half the time and Vieira the other half your definition of great media criticism?

      Or are you just going to swallow whatever load Somerby puts in your mouth?

    4. Gross - load in mouth? What are you, 14?? Grow up. I'm talking about Stewart. If you disagree, fine. Would love to know why. Jay Rosen ran it down pretty well. Stewart was trying to tell her something!!!! Do you disagree with that? Anyway, no hard feelings - you may be right in your claims (you didn''t provide a basis for any of them so I would know how to judge.) But as always, do your own research and draw your own conclusions. I would watch that Maddow Stewart thing again. He was nicely trying to tell her she does a horrible, horrible job. He's really smart about these things.

      Best regards,

    5. Well is Maddow half the time and Vieira the other half your definition of great media criticism?

      by the way - this is a straw man argument.

      all the best,

    6. No one on the liberal side *wants* Maddow to be horrible!

  3. "So, what are Bob's views on the Rice matter (any aspect of it)?"

    1. His usual targets in the press were focused on the elevator tape showing Ray Rice coldcocking his fiancée rather than focusing on NEAP scores or something else; and
    2. A great deal of moral certainty was widely and dumbly expressed by the usual press targets.

    1. One of the best athletes on the planet knocking a woman out cold leaves a great deal of leeway for moral debate. Bob's Irish, after all.

    2. Yeah, when a professional football player coldcocks his wife in public, there is just so much ambiguity and gray area to consider.

      Perhaps she was a "thug" and had it coming. Got any surveillance tapes from the hotel gift shop?

    3. Also, poor, poor Roger Goodell.

    4. Rice was just extending his fist into the air, and look what the vicious media is doing to the poor man.

    5. Somerby has said nothing about this. Please take this somewhere else.

    6. Why was he angry enough to punch her out? Did she spit in his face?

    7. @9:31You mean Bob and Rachel Maddow? I've been wondering the same thing for years.

    8. @ 9:07

      From the second grapg of Bob's post:

      "Last night, the parsons and goodies sere focused on the videotape of Ray Rice and Janay Rice. A great deal of moral certainty was widely and dumbly expressed."

      Perhaps you were reading, or not reading, another post.

    9. He then went on to talk about different things. He expressed no opinions about Rice. He said others were talking about it.

      Please discuss this elsewhere.

    10. In fact, he used Rice to pass snarky (but Bob hates snark, at least when Maddow employs it) commentary on the media. Sorry bub, but it's fair game. It's particularly fair game given that Bob's dismissive attitude on this ties in to his dismissive attitudes towards other criminal situations that he just waved away with laughable interpretations of events. McDonnell just "took a ride." Zimmerman just "went for a walk." Maybe Rice was practicing hailing a taxi, and his fiance got in the way. Or he was trying to punch the elevator button to speed up their ride. Or he was swatting a fly. Or a bee was about to sting her, and he was trying to squash it. When it comes to Bob minimizing the import of poor behavior (from anyone other than Rachel Maddow, all of whose behavior is, by definition, poor), nothing would surprise me.

    11. Look at Kevin Drum's post today about the certitude of opinion after viewing a video that tells us nothing more than we already knew. Somerby is not commenting on what Rice did but on how the press has reacted, and he said very little at that. Do not imply that Somerby has said anything about Rice or domestic violence.

    12. 1) I don't read Kevin Drum except under duress, and this ain't duress

      2) That's kind of the point. Murder, shootings, wife beatings, Bob seldom has a comment on any of it unless he can use it to beat at his favorite pinata, no matter how much he must bend the issue to use it as a rod.

      3) I'll do as I please.

    13. Well, I disagree that the video told us "nothing more than we already knew."

      And apparently, so do the Baltimore Ravens and the NFL.

      I am amazed, however, at the lengths Bob's well-trained rubes will go to minimize that which they want to minimize in order to cluck their superior tongues attached to their superior heads at the preferred targets.

    14. Bob appears to be too distracted by proving how all journalists live by focusing on the digs of a game show/talk show host, and by showing how poor Gov. Ultrasound really did nothing worthy of conviction of 11 felony counts to get around to the Rice case now.

      But when he does, perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps not for a couple of weeks, he will ring his hands over how "progressives" are failing us on the issue of domestic violence by calling attention to this case, which really isn't much at all.

      Just some professional athlete drawing his fist back and clocking his fiance, now wife, with full force, then dragging her unconscious body out of the elevator.

      Nothing to see there, move along. It is the Somerby M.O.

  4. You don't think the McDonnell family friend's comment
    "Compare it to Christ. Christ didn’t do anything. And they went after him."
    deserves a little snark? I think comparing the ex-governor to Jesus is far enough over the top to offend almost everyone.
    You like the Dylan quotes. I refer you to
    "I said 'you know they refused Jesus too', he said 'you're not him'".
    115th Dream? I can't remember if that's the song, but I've always loved the line.

    1. Distraught relatives deserve compassion, not mockery. They haven't done anything but care about family.

    2. Distraught relatives are not "friends."

    3. I roll my eyes at Bob claiming Maddow's eye rolling was at Jesus.

    4. Unlike the mind-reading 12:55, I have no idea how "distraught" this "McDonnell family friend" was when he compared Ultrasound to Jesus.

      But I do know that I, as a Christian, am deeply offended by such a comparison and a trivialization of the message for which Christ suffered and died.

      Which was quite a different message than McDonnell, self-proclaimed Christian, was selling to the people of Virginia.

  5. Way to misprepresent the Ted Stevens case through oversimplification
    Bob! You are getting better all the time.

    1. He didn't make up the fact that Maddow left it off her list or that the circumstances are different than the other cases.

    2. I don't believe 11:01 said Somerby made anything up.

      I will. He said "it never seems to enter her mind." Sorry, not matter how good or bad anyone believes Somerby to be, he can't know what does, or even what seems to, enter someone else's mind.

  6. Why did no one catch Bob's error. He said Brendan Sullivan was a federal judge! Wrong!!! Brendan Sullivan is a defense attorney--and a very good one--with Williams and Connolly, a D.C. firm.

    Why are the commentators and Bob so damn dumb! Sullivan represented many politicos over the past 2 decades. You dummies!

    1. "We the people are dumb." Brendan "Bob" Somerby

      Brendan Sullivan was Steven's attorney. Emmet G. Sullivan was a potted plant.

  7. Laura, please use my testimony. In the elevator on the way back from the casino, my man Ray cold cocked my worthless
    butt for doing something that offended his manhood. After being knocked cold and drug out of there like a side of beef, the whole thing ended up on national TV. I apologized and Ray Ray married me anyway. Now he has lost his job for what he did to me. Can you please conjure up a spell which gives me the money he would have made and an anullment?

  8. Somerby, in my view is right about Maddow expressing a little too much happiness with the outcome of the trial in the first segment he linked. But clearly she did not clown. Bob uses many negative adjectives. Not once does he assert a factual error was made.

    And notice how quickly he dismissed the second segment, the interview with the juror as "worthless" in which she "wasted time."
    I found the interview respectful and interesting.

    1. Here are the six questions Darlin' Rachel asked the juror and the juror's answers. I'm paraphrasing but I don't think unfairly.

      1. How difficult was this for you? There was a lot to take in.

      2. Did the judges instructions clarify things for you? Yes

      3. How did you assess the McDonnells' marriage? There was strain.

      4. Could the McDonnells have conspired? Yes.

      4. Why didn't you convict on the counts of lying to banks? There wasn't enough evidence.

      5. Did you want Mrs. McDonnell to testify? It could have been interesting but she wouldn't swayed me.

      If you found this interesting, then you're easily entertained. I'll bet you could have written the answers from the questions yourself without listening to the juror.

      I forced myself to listen to both parts of that TRMS, and TDH is right about the clowning, smirking, and snarking. But in his outrage about Darlin' Rachel's performance, his downplays the major problem with her show. It's as he notes, but only in passing, "thin gruel." For instance, Darlin' Rachel figured out that the federal sentencing guidelines suggest a sentence of 8-10 years for Bob McD. This is better than the lazy reporters who multiplied the number of counts in the indictment by the maximum sentence to say that the McDonnells were possibly facing decades in prison. But this is a minor point, and it's not worth 4 minutes of airtime, including her pretending to add numbers to 30 and divide by 12. The whole show is like that, without substance to the point of gossamer.

    2. Many people can't divide 30 by 12. Humans can't. They cannot reason. I learned that in multiple posts (too many for me to count) from Bob, who would never waste time by repeating such vast imponderable but essential questions.

    3. If you want to find no substance, you will find no substance. Talk about a negative that is impossible to refute -- and, therefore, a negative that is irresponsible to state! If it's "thin gruel," I suppose you mean Rachel should have found a more articulate juror who was willing to go on national TV.

      If you want us to see your vision of Rachel, give us something, anything, to work with. "Snark" and "clowning" and "smirking" do not cut it.

    4. urban legend,

      Are you fucking kidding me with this? When I say it's thin gruel, I mean the answers to the questions Darlin' Rachel asked didn't actually require a juror to answer them. How difficult was this for you? Sheesh!

      Darlin' Rachel has a career in sportscasting where she can ask coaches why their teams lost and get the answer "We didn't score enough points."

      Do you understand the size and heft of the stick the government wields here? Do you understand the latitude that the prosecution operates under? (This is independent of whether the McDonnells deserved the thrashing they got.) I didn't, and if you did, I guarantee that you didn't come by that understanding from Darlin' Rachel. Here's what I learned with no help from her.

      The gov does not have to show that everyone you were indicted with were parties to the criminal agreement or that if you agreed in part, that you agreed all the means and methods. They don't have to show that you were there to help initiate the conspiracy or that you knew all the details. The size of your role and the strength of your connection is immaterial to your membership in the conspiracy. The gov doesn't need to show that the conspiracy was successful -- a failed conspiracy is as bad as a money maker. One of the crimes alleged was depriving the public of honest services, but the gov doesn't have to show that any person was actually deprived of anything. Even if you as a private citizen owed nobody a duty of honest services, you can still be guilty of honest services fraud. (That's what will put Mrs McD in the slammer.)

      Bribery is the exchange of valuables for official actions, but it includes solicitation, so nobody has to actually accept anything of value or do anything in return. Solicitation does not require that anything actually be expressed. Circumstantial evidence and logical inference is sufficient. You needn't actually take any bribes for yourself, directly or indirectly. It's enough for the swag to be directed to someone else. The gov need not correlate valuables with actions. A pattern of favorable actions is enough, and future unperformed actions can be considered if you're essentially on retainer for favors yet to be performed.

      It doesn't matter whether you also had a lawful motive for accepting the valuables; it doesn't matter that whatever you did, you were going to do anyway, and it doesn't matter if what you did was legal or beneficial.

      It doesn't matter if what you did wasn't part of your official, legally-defined duties; it doesn't matter whether you actually had the authority to do what you promised; it doesn't matter if what you did accomplished anything. A single step toward doing something is as culpable as the whole journey.

      To give these charges a federal hook, the acts must have affected interstate commerce in some way. But the effect can be minimal, and it can even be positive.

      This is where we are in the public policy on political corruption. Too far? Not far enough? Par for the course? How about a news program examine these questions instead of having its host mug for the camera as she pretends to divide by twelve to gloat about how long the McDonnells will spend in prison?

      We may not realize it, the McDonnells Jesus-bothering friends may not, most of Virginia's citizens may not, but It's all pretty much in line with what the 4th Circuit has held, so my guess is that the McDonnells are gonna need help from the Supreme Court to bail them out of this.

      They may get it or they may not. If we rely on Darlin' Rachel, we'll be in the dark in either case.

    5. Um, except for the fact that only a juror could answer how difficult it was for "you."

      "Darlin' Rachel." I wonder who coined that? I count eight of those. Did I miss some?

      I guess you've got her dead to rights. You certainly win on number of words needed to plead your case.

    6. Um, except for the fact that the question was a waste of time. Who cares how difficult jury service was?

      So you object to my epithet for Rachel Maddow. Too bad.

      Now as to all those words. Did you read them? If so, how difficult was that for you?

    7. What if the juror's answer had been "No Rachel, it was a piece of cake compared to birthin babies. But you wouldn't know nothing about that." Or she could have said, "Well, I'd rather have been at home watching Meredith Vieira live just like me, but on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd have to give it a 6.5."

    8. urban legend, you ask for something, anything to work with, and that snark doesn't cut it. deadrat complies, and you respond with snark.


  9. You are disgusting @ 10:41. That comment was sexist and probably racist. Plus it rolls its eyes at the reverence with which many Americans, and particularly those in Baltimore, hold their NFL players. And I wrote it.


    1. deadrat, can't you use your influence to keep KZ from shouting?

    2. Alas my influence is limited to gentle snark relentlessly applied, and KZ is immune to it. Just be glad that KZ is back to posting comments about casting spells. It is his best work.

    3. As your replies to them are of Somerby like quality.

  11. My life is back!!! After 8 years of marriage, my husband left me and left me with our three kids. I felt like my life was about to end, and was falling apart. I contacted you and after I explained you my problem. In just 24hours, my husband came back to us and show me and my kids much love and apologize for all the pain he have bring to the family. We solved our issues, and we are even happier than before DR OTIS DARKO you are the best spell caster i really appreciate the love spell you casted for me to get the man back to my life i will keep sharing more testimonies to people about your good work Thank you once again DR OTIS DARKO at incase you are in any problem you can contact this man for help he is always there in his temple to help you solve your problem Contact Email is: CONTACT HIM TODAY VIA THIS EMAIL ADDRESS:

  12. Attention:

    My Name is Jane Mercy, I wish to share my testimonies with the general public about what this man called Dr Otis Darko spell temple, on what he has just done for me , this man has just brought back my lost Ex husband with his great spell, I was married to this man called Mathew we were together for a long time and we love each other but when I was unable to give him a child after 2 years, he left me and told me he can’t continue anymore then I was now looking for ways to get him back until a friend of mine told me about this man. My friend gave his email to me and asked me to contact him but I didn't want to because I doubted at first but later reconsidered because it's so rear for a man to be as powerful like she said. So I contacted her through this email ( ) You won’t believe this when I contacted this man and told him my problems he cast the spell and my ex came back begging on his knees and asking me to forgive him. Not only that after a month I miss my monthly flow, when I went to my doctor, he confirm that I am pregnant so I told myself that I will testify to the whole wide world about the wonders of the powerful man if I give birth successfully. I am so happy today because I am a mother of a bouncing baby girl, thank you once again the great Dr Shakes Spear for what you have done for me, if you are out there passing through any of the following situations :

    (1) If you want your ex-back.
    (2) If you always have bad dreams.
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich.
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) Herbal care
    (10) if you are unable to satisfy your wife sex desire due to low err action.
    (11) If your menstruation refuse to come out the day it suppose or over flows.
    (12) If your work refuse to pay you, people owing you.
    (13) Solve a land issue and get it back.
    (14) Did your family Denny you of your right?
    (15) Do you have a low sperm count?
    (16) Are you contesting for any political position in your country?
    (17) Case solves E.T.C

    You are free to contact him at ( ) ..... CONTACT HIM NOW FOR ALL ANSWERS TO ANY KIND OF PROBLEMS: