OTHERS: What do pro-Trump voters believe?

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2022

Our own blue tribe's misleaders: At present, the Republican Party contains a wide array of aggressive Misleaders.

It also contains The Misled.

The rank and file have repeatedly been told, by Donald J. Trump, that the last election was stolen. He has produced no evidence in support of his claim, but he bellows it long and loud.

Consider one result of that endless propaganda campaign, as cited by Charles Blow in last Monday's New York Times:

BLOW (9/5/22): As PolitiFact noted in June, citing a number of polls, roughly 70 percent of Republicans don’t see Biden as the legitimate winner of the presidency.

The PolitiFact essay to which Blow linked can be seen right here. The essay appeared beneath this headline:

Most Republicans still falsely believe Trump’s stolen election claims

Quite plainly, the PolitiFact essay was talking about Republican voters—the Republican rank and file. It wasn't referring to the party's leadership groups, most of whom understand full well that the last election wasn't stolen, that this belief is bogus. 

Donald J. Trump and those leadership groups are the Republican party's misleaders. By dint of their tireless efforts, a solid majority of Republican votes have been grossly misled.

Having come this far together, let's get clear on one point:

According to the PolitiFact essay, a solid majority of Republican voters believe the last election was stolen! As a result, those voters are angry and disaffected, as sensible people would sensibly be in the face of some such act.

Those voters don't know that The Steal didn't happen. In this way, a majority of the rank and file have been grossly misled.

The Republican Party contains the misleaders, but it also contains the misled. In our view, this is one of the most obvious distinctions in the known human world. 

Our view? We think Joe Biden should have had the decency and the courage to draw this blindingly obvious distinction in his blood-red speech back on September 1.

Sadly, the president made little attempt to draw this distinction. Instead, he may have seemed to be sliming that rank and file when he said such things as this:

BIDEN (9/1/22): I believe it is my duty—my duty to level with you, to tell the truth no matter how difficult, no matter how painful.

And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution.  They do not believe in the rule of law.  They do not recognize the will of the people. 

They refuse to accept the results of a free election.  And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself. 

[...]

Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to—to destroying American democracy. 

According to Biden, MAGA Republicans "refuse to accept the results of a free election." 

"They do not recognize the will of the people...They're committed to destroying American democracy," the American president said.

We think it was ugly conduct by Biden which led him to deliver that speech in the way he did. We think it was cowardly conduct by the president which kept him from drawing the bone-simple distinction we've drawn.

Everything which Biden said is true about Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party's leadership cadres. But in what way are the (misled) rank and file "committed to destroying American democracy?"

Because of the ways they've been misled, they think the results of the last election actually have been disregarded! As a result of that (bogus) belief, they're angry and upset, as any citizen would naturally be in the face of a stolen election.

Those voters are angry and upset—and they don't know that their belief is bogus. They're saddled with false belief because of the tireless efforts Trump and his various minions. 

This is an easy distinction to make. President Biden refused to make draw the distinction, as did Jamelle Bouie and Blow.

According to an array of experts, a simple story lies behind this conduct:

We humans love to loathe Others en masse. As an example of what we mean, here's Bouie's explanation for Biden's lack of clarity about who he was talking about when he gave his blood-red address:

BOUIE (9/11/22): One view of Biden’s speech...says that Biden should have made a more Lincolnesque appeal to the better angels of MAGA Republican voters, rather than condemn the entire movement as essentially anti-American.

[...]

Should Biden have used more conciliatory rhetoric? No. He was divisive—just as he was when he called MAGA Republicans “semi-fascist” the week before—but this is a moment that calls for a perfect contrast between the two parties. If Trump is leading an assault on the institutions of American self-government and if that assault implicates much of the Republican Party, then there’s no way that Biden can make his defense of the constitutional order without dividing people.

 There’s no way that Biden could have make his defense? He could have made it by saying this:

"I'm talking about the party's misleaders, not about the misled."

Jamelle Bouie is a good, decent person. That said, he's also a person person—and ever since the dawn of time, we the people have been inclined to loathe Others en masse, or to let our tribe's leadership cadres do so.

Note what Bouie has said. He has said that the rhetoric in Biden's address actually was divisive—but he says that couldn't be helped!

According to Bouie, it couldn't be helped because this is a moment that calls for "a perfect contrast between the two parties." 

No such perfect contrast exists. But we blue tribe voters love to massage basic facts to equip our tales with "perfect victims," and now we insist on being pleasured by "perfect contrasts" too.

According to Bouie, there's no way Biden could have "made his defense of constitutional order without dividing people." Presumably, that statement is technically accurate—but New York Times columnist, please! 

The president could have had the decency, and the courage, to offer the public the simple truth: Millions of people have been deceived about the results of the last election.

It's Donald J. Trump who has led that deception. And of course, many of Biden's old friends from the Senate are numbered among Trump's enablers.

The president refused to call their names—and Bouie cheers the president on, saying he had to do what he did. In these ways, the leadership cadres of our own blue tribe are now misleading us!

In our view, Biden should have tried telling the truth—telling the truth with something resembling clarity. Millions of people have been misled, and it's easy to name the names of the people and the groups who have agreed to deceive them.

That said, we the humans are wired to loathe—and we love to loathe Others en masse. This is the oldest of all human stories. It eats away at the potential decency of our own (failing) blue tribe.

Biden's old friends have been doing this, but Biden refused to name them. Better to avoid saying, with any real clarity, who he was talking about.

In his column from last Monday, Blow was angry with Biden for the minor concessions to clarity which Biden had actually made. In that column, Blow seemed to be strongly inclined to condemn all Others en masse

In fairness, this is part of our human inheritance. It's been this way from the very start, all through our succession of wars.

Full disclosure: Your lizard is going to tell you we're wrong. 

Blue tribe citizen, please! It's your lizard we're talking about!


115 comments:

  1. There will never be a reliable answer to the question of who won the 2020 election. Democrats used covid as an excuse to implement unprecedented means to steal votes and there is no way of counting the number stolen.
    The best correction to years of Democrat election tampering and witch hunts would be another Trump victory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:18 only wants another Trump victory because Democrats cheat at elections, and not because 11:18 craves Trump's bigotry with all of his heart.
      Now, pull my other finger.

      Delete
    2. anon 11:18 - "Democrat used covid as an excuse to implement unprecedented means to steal votes and there is no way of counting the numberr stolen." In other words, you don't have any evidence that any votes were stolen, only that there was an "unprecedented means" to steal votes. For all you know, Republicans used these "unprecedented" means to steal votes for Trump. What evidence to you have f years of "Democrat election tampering?" Can you name one "democrat" who did any tampering? You sound like an obsessive wing nut, who is unable to distinguish what you want to believe from actual objective reasoning.

      Delete
    3. Yes, the people who insist they don't want to be ruled by "feelings", have a "feeling" that Democrats cheat, and that should be enough for everyone to believe it.

      Delete

  2. "He has produced no evidence..."

    Yes, dear Bob.

    As we all know, endlessly repeating liberal talking points makes them true.

    Just keep repeating every 10 seconds "...produced no evidence...", and everything will be fine. It's a scientific fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Pigboy. If we keep saying 2
      and 2 make 4 maybe you can grasp
      It someday.

      Delete
    2. Math is racist. Please do not invoke it here.

      Delete
    3. Mao, I've asked you a number of times what is the evidence that the election was stolen? (Even the Ninja Turtles in Arizona found out Biden won by more votes than the original count). So far your only "evidence" was some letter about Biden's son's computer that was signed by a bunch of former spooks. In other words, no evidence. The burden of proof is on those claiming the alleged fraud. You can't prove a negative. Where's the evidence that Trump supporters didn't steal a bunch of votes for Trump? He lost, get over it. He turns off a lot of people with good reason.

      Delete
    4. Plenty of evidence, dear dembot. Find a decent non-dembot search engine and use it.

      ...for starters, why don't you try this Jimmy Dore show from yesterday:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mofVQzS2TrA
      ...watch the whole thing...

      Delete
    5. Mao, for starters I did watch this guy Canova with Dore. Sorry, but there no evidence that the election was stolen. He didn't say anything about the 2020 election, only he's disgruntled because he lost some Florida race as an independent in 2018 where he on inconclusive evidence seems to think some votes (whose - he doesn't know?) maybe were misappropriated. Things are hairy out there, with all these conspiracy theories and all these people blabbing away who don't know they are talking about. If the ninja turtles couldn't come up with anything, no one can. You seem enmeshed by conspiracy wishful thinking. As horrible as it must be to you, the dembots are the ones talking sense about this.

      Delete
    6. He did say something about the 2020 election.
      Watch again.

      Delete
    7. I'll take your word for it - life is too short for me to watch it again. If anything was said about 2020 other than speculation, let me know what it was.

      Delete
    8. ...and his point wasn't that some votes "maybe were misappropriated".

      His point was that there is no way to verify the vote count. End of story.

      Delete
  3. Funny how even after one has admitted Somerby lacks any honesty or decency, he can
    still surprise you with his ugly foolishness
    Whenever he breaks out the lizard
    insult he’s on particularly thin ice but
    seems to revel in it today.
    Bob has moved on to the Mass
    Insanity Defense, While he has
    foolishly tried to maintain Trump
    actually believes what he says, he
    now insists all his supporters do
    also. There is no way to know this
    Definitively, but we can be sure BOB
    is not a good faith broker in any
    exchange on the subject. His contempt
    for the President, appealing to the
    Country for enough simple decency
    hold itself together, is truly sickening.,

    ReplyDelete
  4. Biden said nothing wrong. Stop acting like Trump supporters are rational human beings. They are not and should be treated accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Somerby's essay today is excellent. The real villains are Trump, Tucker, GOP politicians, etc., who are knowingly misleading tens of millions of (unbelievably gullible) Americans. Their lies incited the January 6th attack on our capitol and came perilously close to overturning a U.S. presidential election and thus U.S. democracy itself. And even after all of this, they STILL keep spreading this dangerous lie (among many others). Somerby is right: Biden should have made a clear distinction between the liars and the lied to, should have told the "rank and file" that Trump, Tucker, et al, are LYING to them. The election was not stolen. He should have also quickly summarized the key facts demonstrating this -- the facts laid out by the Jan. 6 committee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Mike L, unfortunately Somerby has railed against anyone calling Trump a liar. You see, in Somerby’s view, Trump is delusional and may really believe what he’s saying, so don’t call him a liar, you media and libs.

      Try again, Mike.

      Delete
    2. Yes, not least of the reasons for the distinction is we need the votes of a percentage of the lied to. Harder to do that if they think they've been called semi-fascists by an aged, demonic looking finger wagger.

      And regardless of what Biden meant, very easy for Tucker types to make them think he is calling them that without the distinction.

      Delete
    3. Biden said he had a lot of good friends in the Republican Party. And, regardless of what Biden meant, it's very easy for Tucker types to make Republicans think Biden said the opposite.

      Delete
    4. There are more Dems than Repubs. We need to get out the vote, not become centrists. Independents are abandoning Trump. There are as many of them as there are Republicans.

      Delete
    5. In other words, you're born to lose.

      Delete
    6. To be clear, Repubs are the big losers in 2022, except in gerrymandered red districts and rural areas (like Boebert’s).

      Delete
  6. “Those voters don't know that The Steal didn't happen.”

    But it is Somerby’s contention that Trump doesn’t know that either. He’s “delusional” or “mentally ill”. So how can he be deceiving his voters?

    Are “those [right wing] leadership groups “ knowingly misleading their rubes, or are they also afflicted with such mental rot that they can’t tell fact from fiction?

    It’s also not a very impressive view of the “Others”, to think that they can possess so little reasoning ability that they simply believe whatever manifest bullshit their “leadership groups” hand them. This country needs independent thinkers, not lemmings.

    And it seems to me that these nebulous “leadership groups” bear more responsibility for disabusing their sheep of these false notions than Joe Biden does. Whatever he might have said at that speech would have made very little difference, since Republican “leadership groups” are just going to mislead their rubes, no matter what. Again, unless you believe that they are all in the grips of severe mental illness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. And it some point it's fair to ask... does BOB
      really believe all these people believe Stop the Steal? He's really not an honest broker anymore.

      Delete
  7. What emerges from this post is that the blue tribe understands the truth about the election, so they are not being misled by their “leadership.”

    Why must the red tribe be so wrong about this? Or to put it differently, why are the red “leadership groups” doing such harmful misleading about something fundamental to our system of government, namely elections?

    Somerby claims people like Blow are “misleading” the blue tribe when he ascribes the problem to all Republicans voters. I’d say that’s more of a difference of opinion. The important thing is that WE know the election wasn’t stolen. Why can’t they? I don’t see how a civil society can be constructed when you have one group, a leadership group I guess, that misleads their rubes about fundamental, crucial things , rubes who act like, well, rubes, and then accuse US of being a threat to democracy.

    And somehow it’s all Joe Biden’s fault for not making careful distinctions in his speech, even though he was right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you assuming all of the red tribe thinks the election was stolen? "They". Some may not think the election is stolen but still prefer Trump and others may be apathetic towards the issue, no?

      Delete
    2. 4:26: No. I’m going with Somerby’s statement: “ a majority of the rank and file have been grossly misled.”. And I am saying that if they are being misled by their own leadership, then that is on their leadership. It isn’t up to Biden. Their leadership has a duty not to mislead, and they are failing. I’d say it was deliberate.

      Delete
    3. That's fair. Do you not think though that it's a chance for Biden to win a small percentage of them over by simply drawing the distinction so we become their leadership ? All we need is a small percentage of them.

      Delete
    4. He actually did make a distinction. His speech in Philadelphia was full of distinguishing “MAGA Republicans” from “mainstream” Republicans. I can’t see how the true believers in the Steal are going to ever go for Democrats as long as the only source for their beliefs is their lying leadership.

      Delete
    5. God mh, another misreading. Interesting.

      Delete
    6. There will be more 1/6 hearings and that should help. Meanwhile, our goal needs to be to get out the registered Democrats already motivated to vote for our candidates. If we do that, we will win swing districts, hold the Senate and perhaps the House. It is a waste of time trying to convert former MAGA Republicans to like Democratic candidates. Even if they repudiate Trump, they will not be Democrats and it is unhelpful if they elect mainstream Republicans, although that may hasten Trump's defeat and prevent DeSantis from winning the 2024 nomination.

      We need to be realistic about who we can attract to vote for our candidates (Independents and Democrats and some 3rd parties), but not be fooled into thinking that our task is to convert Republicans. That's why Somerby's urging here is not in the best interest of Democrats. Making our party more centrist will cause us to lose frustrated progressives and liberals and deepen the view that Biden is ineffective, when he has been one of the most successful progressive presidents since FDR and LBJ. We need to double down on Biden's good work and not succumb to Somerby's bothsiderism, which is a trap for Democrats peopled by those who have been critical of Democratic efforts all along, while pretending that Trump is not their guy.

      Delete
  8. “It’s also not a very impressive view of the “Others”, to think that they can possess so little reasoning ability that they simply believe whatever manifest bullshit their “leadership groups” hand them. This country needs independent thinkers, not lemmings. ”

    Republicans have a wealth of experience with “The Others” on the morning after an election saying that Republican presidents are illegitimate. Democrats spent eight years saying it about Bush and were tearing up DC businesses and doing tv panels on treason before and after Trump was elected. In fact,

    What else is new? Republicans are invariably told that elections in red states are nefarious.

    Now The Others are saying the same about the Supreme Court.

    You may keep the mayhem to assaulting the police and cars on roadways and to tearing up city businesses, rather than rioting at the Capitol, but you make up for that by illogical fanatical arguments justifying rank bias and censorship in the media and all other institutions and with the cancel culture targeting of individuals for heresy based upon your extremist quasi-religious dogma.

    Get over yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Democrats spent eight years saying it about Bush"

      If that were true, you would have complained about it at the time.

      Delete
    2. Police officers were assaulted by Democrats?
      If it's on video, post it, so we can all enjoy it.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 2:54, I read hundreds of comments about Republican election fraud and rigging here a year. Very seldom have I ever commented on it. It’s a tenet.

      Anonymouse, you know perfectly well that the police had everything thrown at them. Over fifty Secret Service agents were injured when rioters attempted to go onto the WH lawn during a protest.

      Go gaslight someone else.

      Delete
    4. So, it sounds as though Cecelia disagrees with Somerby’s premise. Because Somerby is saying the red tribe are being misled about the elections, and then she complains about “well Dems said the same thing…” She either needs to own up to her tribe’s deceit or disagree with Somerby, rather than responding to a commenter with her bothsiderism. And by the way, Hillary called Trump and conceded in 2016. Just like Trump did with Biden…not.

      Delete
    5. Bitching about the Electoral College (and how it has, by intention or not, degenerated into the White Man's affirmative action) , is a far cry from sending rioters
      to the Capitol to overturn the Election, or corrupt Senators and Congresspeople there to overturn the
      choice of the voters. That's the crap Cecelia is peddling here.
      And well She knows it. Do some of the people pushing Stop the Steal know they are trying to cheat?
      Some do, like Cecelia. Some don't. Is it really a
      relevant distinction? Depending on a specific
      person and if they are worth having anything to
      do with, perhaps. But largely it is for bullshit
      artists like Bob.

      Delete
    6. mh, I’m afraid there’s another choice that never never ever occurs to you people. Invariably the most obvious choice…

      There are people who truly do try to dupe and to gaslight other people and there are people who dont need that sort of persuasion because they’ve already made up their own minds.

      Please sit down before you faint at having to entertain the notion of something so apparent to anyone else.



      Delete
    7. Cecelia,

      The first time a Democratic candidate loses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote will be the last time that's ever allowed to happen.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 3:52pm, it’s not at all crap, you’ve been doing it for years over presidential, state, and local elections that you turn into conspiracy theory odes to race baiting.

      Anyone who champions voter ID is guilty of election rigging in your book.
      Rigged elections by Republicans is to Democrats what the doctrine of original sin is to Christianity.

      I’ll clue you in on something else. If Mitt Romney ran for president in 2024, two seconds after he declared his intention, the narrative would be that Mitt is worse than Don.

      Get a clue.

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 4:02pm, that would not be in the interest of any Republican.

      I know that it was a quip, but even quips shouldn’t be utter nonsense.

      Delete
    10. "The first time a Democratic candidate loses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote..."

      Meh. That's not possible, dear dembot. Beautiful California will churn out as many votes as necessary, and then some. It's practically limitless.

      Delete
    11. Misled? No. They are willingly hateful and believe whatever enables their hatred. In short, sociopaths.

      Delete
    12. The violence was initiated by the police.
      In their defense, there was quite a bit of chatter at that time, about holding them accountable to the citizens.

      Delete
    13. @4:19, that didn’t sound like a quip to me. It sounded true.

      Delete
    14. It’s a simple thing. All Cecelia has to do is admit that the election wasn’t stolen, just like Somerby says, and that Republican leadership is misleading their followers. But she can’t do it.

      Delete
    15. I’ve said that I’ve seen no evidence that convinces me that the election was stolen.

      Other people, believe otherwise, just as some anonymices believe that Trump colluded with Russia despite the Mueller Report and that the Steele Dossier is gospel.

      Delete
    16. Ok. Then why is your leadership lying about it, misleading the rank and file? That is where Somerby places the blame. And how is Biden’s rhetoric supposed to undo the gross misleading that Republican leadership engages in?

      Delete
    17. No one here has said the Steele dossier is gospel — some parts were substantiated, others not. It is unhelpful to distort what people say. Mueller showed collusion but wouldn’t charge it because he was a Republican working under Trump & Barr. That doesn’t mean there was no collusion. Your inability to understand such nuances makes you one of the misled. FYI I am not a mouse.

      Delete
    18. mh, not every Republican leader believes it was stolen any more than every Democratic leader believes that Trump stole the election from Hillary simply because she swears to it.

      Those that do…do, for a variety of reasons, some sincerely and others because it’s in their interest.

      I’m a conservative, I don’t have to think that my party’s politicians are all my parish priests.

      Delete
    19. "Anyone who champions voter ID is guilty of election rigging in your book."

      Yes, republicans work to reduce the vote while dems work to make it easier to vote. This is not debatable.

      Delete
    20. Cecelia you must often think back on the times the Dems refused to certify the Presidential election, refused a peaceful transfer of power, and failed to Impeach a President who led a violent mob to storm our Capitol. Such a rich and tawdry
      Fantasy life you lead. Clues like yours nobody needs.

      Delete
    21. Anonymouse 7:25pm, I think you’re trying to make a point that it’s anathema that any Republican supported ANY of the formal contentions at all about the election. You then seg into a foregone conclusion that when Trump said to go and peacefully demonstrate at the Capitol. he meant to go in and physically fight with the Capitol police.

      I can give a salute to your assumptions and still understand that you are a both an intellectual and (particularly) a political- naif.

      Delete
    22. Cecelia, no one believes that Trump meant for his crowd to go peacefully demonstrate at the Capitol building, not even Republicans and not even his own staff who testified against him. Didn't you watch the hearings?

      Delete
    23. seg = segue, which means transition to

      Please don't introduce stupid teenage texting abbreviations into an adult discussion

      Delete
    24. Anonymouse 9:31.pm, what testimony from former Trump staffers established that Trump wanted his followers to fight with the Capitol police rather than to protest the proceddings?

      Delete
    25. The testimony that he wanted the metal detectors taken down so those with AK15s in the trees could join the rally and march. And you’re right, he did tell his spporters to fight — that was in the video shown. And Mark Meadows told his assistant that things would be very bad. Several others testified they knew there would be violence ahead of time — all Republicans.

      Delete
    26. ...he meant to go in and physically fight with the Capitol police.

      you mean after his lawyer declared "trial by combat"? Yes.

      How do you explain Donald J Chickenshit sitting on his fat ass for more than 3 hours watching the horror on TV and not lifting a goddam finger to do anything to stop it, Cec.

      The next time you answer in good faith will be the first time.

      Delete
  9. Why does Somerby think of the misled as such passive beings? They can undeceive themselves as readily as the rest of us. They are responsible for their beliefs — and especially for their actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This view of right wingers, or at least the majority of them as Somerby says, as mindless emotional children feeds the narrative that only Democrats/liberals have agency. That this ignores the culpability (and therefore agency) of Republican “leadership” groups in choosing to grossly mislead their followers goes without saying. Democrats have to answer for their own words AND the lies of Republicans. It’s a catch 22.

      I suppose you could say that Somerby is expressing sympathy for the misled “Others”. He apparently thinks most liberals don’t feel that way. He keeps admonishing them to be more like Lincoln and talk about “the better angels of our nature.” But every time he mentions that, I bring up the fact that that didn’t stop Lincoln from mercilessly prosecuting a war against the south, because there were principles he was unwilling to compromise on. And I’d say that Republicans nowadays are pretty close to stepping over an acceptable line. Some already have. Commitment to democracy is a non-negotiable thing. And every citizen has to be committed to it, else it fails. That is why Somerby going on and on about Biden’s “mistake” is so galling. From his post, the takeaway ought to be that we should all be outraged at the Republican leadership for grossly misleading their followers, not at Biden.

      Delete
    2. mh, are you really suggesting that Somerby would quarrel with anyone who said that Republican pols were misleading their constituents when he did say precisely that?

      People in general ( politician or pleb) are only too glad to believe what they wish to hear and politicians of all stripes are only too glad to say it, or to at least, not argue with it.

      Bob’s contention is that Biden should have made it clear that he was excoriating fellow pols- Republican leadership- and not Joe Blow who Biden represents as president (whether they’re on board with that or not).

      That most people understand these things is why Pres, Biden had to do yet another cleanup act on what he had said.

      Delete
    3. Fellow pols are not the people who committed felonies on 1/6 (at least they haven't been charged yet, while hundreds of rank and file MAGA supporters have). Fellow pols are not on those fake elector lists but they too have likely committed crimes, especially those who passed the lists along to the pols in Congress. The idea that only leaders are guilty is ridiculous. But I have no doubt that Somerby would love to shift the blame to the pols, given how difficult it is going to be to prosecute them, as opposed to the ones who physically attacked officers defending Congress in session.

      Biden did not limit himself to the pols because the pols weren't the only MAGA extremists threatening democracy. Look at Roger Stone, who has never been elected to anything but has engineered much of the misleading and insurrection coordination behind the scenes. Similarly, Steve Bannon, who is not a pol in any sense of the word, but is definitely a threat to democracy and an extremist of the white supremacist variety. And I really wouldn't exempt Eric Trump or Donald Jr. or Kimberly Guilfoyle, although none of them are pols in any sense of the word.

      This should give you an idea of how ridiculous Somerby formulation is. NONE of the miscreants who have engaged in attacks on democracy should be exempted for any reason other than innocence under the law. And I see no reason why my interpretation wouldn't be closer to Biden's meaning than Somerby's self-serving attempt to get a proportion of the MAGA supporters off the hook.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 9: 29pm, get MAGA supporters off what “hook”?

      Are you suggesting that Biden was only talking about those Trump supporters who rioted?

      Last I heard, we are free to believe any shit we want about the federal, state, and local government entities unless we disrupt proceedings in the Capitol or burn down police precincts and city blocks.

      Delete
    5. No, and I didn’t say that. Biden listed the activities he meant in his speech. The ones I mentioned are the ones that Somerby’s alternative “leadership cadre” would exclude but were intended by Biden’s definition.

      Delete
    6. Oh, you mean these “activities”?

      Biden: “MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they're working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself. MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards.”

      sheesh…

      Delete
    7. Anyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party more than two decades ago.

      Delete
    8. Relax Cecelia.
      No one is taking away your white grievance.

      Delete
    9. Cecelia,
      You're also free to make a good faith argument anytime you want. Have you ever thought of taking advantage of that freedom?

      Delete
  10. I know several people who “know” the election was stolen before Trump made it a issue. I have no clue what you do about that but I know a lot of people are not talking to other people in my circle if friends.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why does Somerby think it is ok to call Republicans “the other” but not “they”?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymouse 6:06pm, you’re getting collusion confused with obstruction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obstruction was proven, therefore you cannot claim a goddam thing about the underlying crime of collusion. Get back to us when Donald J Chickenshit answers questions under oath to the Mueller investigation like he repeatedly promised to do. It always amazes me how the MAGATs always separate the two as though his obstruction had nothing to do with his fear of the investigation. The two issues are inextricably linked, Sister Cec.

      Delete
    2. That makes no sense at all, Anonymouse 6:46pm.

      Depending upon the circumstances, I could be innocent of a crime and still obstruct the investigation by asking an prosecutor to wrap it up quickly or to fire him in outrage that he’s going after ME.

      I wouldn’t be too smart or savvy in doing that and probably have a life of entitlement, but neither act indicates guilt.

      Mueller didnt reckon the time, the money, and the fierce attention this investigation got in order not to indict. He would have done that and then let other people decide how that applies to a sitting president.

      He didn’t have enough to make an obstruction charge stick. That’s what happened.

      Delete
    3. Mueller did not make a judgment on obstruction one way or the other. Trump was not found guilty of it. Mueller also did not refer to any of the activities described in part one of the report as collusion. He said right away that he was asked to investigate collusion but because collusion was not a crime he instead investigated conspiracy. He then repeated over and over that he did not establish any conspiracy.

      Delete
    4. Mueller was never in any position to charge Trump with crimes.
      It was Bill Barr, who was responsible for making the decision to charge Trump or not. Remember, it was Barr who lied about what was in the Mueller Report in order to justify his decision.

      Delete
    5. What was his lie? Be specific.

      Delete
    6. Mueller was never in any position to charge Trump with crimes. That's why "obstruction was proven" is a false claim.

      Delete
    7. I think Mueller detailed at a minimum 8 separate and distinct acts of obstruction of the Mueller Special Counsel investigation committed by Donald J Chickenshit.

      Yeah, you can obstruct the investigation, refuse to answer questions under oath, lie about and threaten witnesses, dangle pardons to your co-conspirators, fire the FBI director and threaten to fire the special counsel, etc, yeah, you can do all those things, but you can't then say you were found innocent, because it is bullshit.

      Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficu lt issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

      Delete
    8. You forget the part where Mueller said the Report did not conclude that the President committed a crime.

      Delete
    9. What was Barr's lie? Be specific.

      Delete
    10. Mueller said it was not his job to draw such a conclusion. That is a huge difference from saying he committed no crime (Barr and Trump's assertion, which WAS a lie). Barr determined not to charge Trump and that is on Barr, since it WAS his job to charge Trump based on the very clear evidence of obstruction, even if he found the collusion evidence less compelling (which others did not).

      Delete
    11. What was his lie?

      Delete
    12. Look above, I just posted the exact words written in the report. Can you read?


      ... it also does not exonerate him.

      Mueller started from the premise, based on an OLC memo written decades ago, that he could not indict a sitting President.

      Mueller dropped the ball and choked. And then Barr inappropriately intercepted the report and decided on his own that obstruction should not be charged.

      But the whole fucking point of appointing a Special INDEPENDENT Counsel is to remove the investigation from the political arena. You don't want the administration investigating itself, which is exactly what Barr ended up doing. The fucking AG appointed by the person under investigation, after the person under investigation FIRED the previous AG.

      Delete
    13. That's a quote from the Mueller Report. What was Barr's lie? Be specific.

      Delete
    14. This memo concludes that the evidence was not sufficient for an obstruction offense. Did you read it?

      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22187584-barr-unredacted-memo

      Delete
    15. Are you Googling "what did Barr lie about"? lol

      Delete
    16. Barr's lies are numerous:

      Here is just one: He claimed with a straight face that Donald J Chickenshit "fully cooperated" with the investigation. Bwahahaha!! That's a real knee slapper.

      Whether the White House Cooperated with the Mueller Inquiry

      Special Counsel Report: The report stated that because core obstruction-of-justice issues turn on actions and intent, the Special Counsel’s office “sought a voluntary interview with the President,” and he declined. It further noted that the President refused to provide written answers to questions “on obstruction topics” or “events during the transition.” (Special Counsel Report, Vol. 2, p. 13) According to the report, regarding certain questions on the Trump Tower Moscow project, the President “did not answer those questions about Trump Tower Moscow directly.” (Id., Vol. 2, pp. 149-50)

      Barr Statements: “The White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” and “the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.” (Barr Press Conference (April 17, 2019))

      Delete
    17. 9:36, you're lying.

      Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficu lt issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

      Delete
    18. The claim was the Barr lied about what was in the Mueller Report - what was his lie?

      Delete
    19. You forget the part where Mueller said the Report "did not conclude that the President committed a crime."

      Delete
    20. If you think all of these crimes occurred (even though Mueller said his report did not conclude he committed any crimes) , why hasn't he been charged in the last two years?

      Delete
    21. This is why it's best to read the actual reports rather than biased blog posts.

      Mueller specifically said he did not establish that the Campaign coordinated with Russia in their election interference activities.

      The OLC memo that concluded that Mueller did not establish an obstruction offense.

      Delete
    22. Typical that these conservative trolls cannot parse a double negative. Mueller said he could not say he was not guilty. Think real hard about what that means. Mueller was a Republican and not done with his career, but he didn’t want to lie, so he said trump was guilty in as confusing a way as possible. It was craven but it is there.

      Delete
    23. What Mueller said was he couldn’t conclusively say that Trump was not guilty of obstruction and that based upon an ongoing legal debate, Mueller would not say Trump was guilty even if Mueller had concluded that this was the case.

      Two years later into an investigation and you couldn’t make this tripe up.

      We had Somerby swallowing every word of it and anonymices still hate him

      Delete
    24. Despite what Digby and Driftglass told you sheep, Barr did not lie about the Mueller Report and never said anyone was exonerated. Barr said that Mueller did not establish conspiracy. Turns out, Mueller said he did not establish conspiracy. Sleep tight.



      Delete
    25. How childish. Just because someone doesn't tell a literal "lie" about something doesn't mean they weren't utterly misleading and dishonest about it. Barr made a completely misleading presentation about the report, at a time when the report had not yet been released and therefore Barr's summary of the report is all the public had to go by. It was so clearly misleading that Mueller felt compelled to write an extraordinary letter to Barr stating that, "The summary letter the Department [i.e., Barr] sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."
      Here are some of the ways in which Barr misled the public about Mueller's report:
      "The actual text of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report tells a very different story than what was in summaries produced by Attorney General William Barr in letters to Congress and in a press conference prior to the report’s release.... Following are examples...
      1. Whether the President Is Exonerated on Obstruction of Justice
      Special Counsel Report: The report makes the statement: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” It further states, “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
      Barr Statements: The Attorney General omitted the Special Counsel office’s allusion to their lack of confidence in exonerating evidence as well as repeated findings that there was substantial evidence supporting the key elements of obstruction. Instead, Barr offered his own conclusions about the obstruction case against the president, stating, “I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
      2. How to Interpret the Evidence of President Trump’s Obstruction of Justice
      Special Counsel Report: The report presents facts regarding eleven episodes of potentially obstructive conduct and analyzes whether, in each case, the facts established the three legal elements of an obstruction charge: (1) an obstructive act; (2) nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding; and (3) corrupt intent. In many instances, the report details substantial evidence that each of these elements were established. (Id., Vol. 2, §§ II.B, II.D, II.E, II.F, II.H, II.I, II.J, II.K.) In addition, the report emphasizes that “it is important to view the President’s pattern of conduct as a whole” including “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”
      Barr Statements: Barr’s summary gave the impression that Mueller equivocated on obstruction by laying out the evidence on “both sides of the question.” Barr then went on to present his view that “the report identifies no actions that . . . constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."


      Delete
    26. 3. Role of the DOJ Policy on Indicting a Sitting President
      Special Counsel Report: At the top of the obstruction of justice report, the Special Counsel’s office’s described considerations guiding its obstruction of justice review, highlighting as the first item the fact that the Department of Justice has a policy against indicting a sitting president.
      Barr Statements: The Attorney General omitted any reference to the role the indictment policy played for the Special Counsel in his obstruction of justice inquiry. Instead, he said, the fact that the Special Counsel did not draw legal conclusions “leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” and that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” He further noted, “Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.”
      4. Whether the White House Cooperated with the Mueller Inquiry
      Special Counsel Report: The report stated that because core obstruction-of-justice issues turn on actions and intent, the Special Counsel’s office “sought a voluntary interview with the President,” and he declined. It further noted that the President refused to provide written answers to questions “on obstruction topics” or “events during the transition.” According to the report, regarding certain questions on the Trump Tower Moscow project, the President “did not answer those questions about Trump Tower Moscow directly.”
      Barr Statements: “The White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” and “the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.” (Barr Press Conference (April 17, 2019))  https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/stark-contrasts-between-the-mueller-report-and-attorney-general-barrs-summary/
      And Barr also misled Congress about Mueller's LETTER:
      "During one of those congressional testimonies, Bill Barr was asked by a member of Congress — I’m paraphrasing here — “Has anyone on the special counsel’s team voiced any displeasure to you with the way you characterized the report?” And Bill Barr just straight up leaned into the microphone and said, “No.” Well, it turned out that weeks before, Bill Barr had gotten a letter from Robert Mueller saying, “You’ve misstated my conclusions and work in your in your four-page letter.”  https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/06/cnn-analyst-discusses-bill-barrs-impact/
      Regarding obstruction of justice and collusion/conspiracy, listen very carefully to what one of the lead attorneys on Mueller's team says about each of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpGi5PBTcJ8

      Delete
    27. Mike I,
      Sure. If you're going to count all the lies Bill Barr told about the Mueller Report, you can make it look like Bill Barr lied about the Mueller Report. But what if you don't count all the lies Bill Barr told about the Mueller Report? Doesn't that make what Barr wrote in his briefing about the Mueller Report true?

      Delete
    28. Trump Cult legal theory is that if the criminal successfully obstructs the criminal investigation, then the crime never occurred. LOL

      Delete
    29. I'm glad we all now agree that Barr never lied about the Mueller Report.

      Arguments stating he did, generated from low IQ partisan blog propaganda, water down any serious discussion that should be had.

      Let's not be afraid to stick to the facts.

      Delete
    30. The funniest lie Barr told about the Mueller report was that he claimed Mueller said Trump fully cooperated with the investigation. Bwahaha! Wouldn't you agree? The entire second volume of the Mueller report was dedicated to documenting 11 actions taken by Trump to OBSTRUCT the investigation and along comes coverup Billy claiming Trump cooperated. Bwahahaha, one would have to be a real idiot to swallow that horseshit.

      Delete
    31. I am always amused by people saying over and over that Barr lied about what was in the Mueller Report.

      Wouldn't citing the actual lie be helpful?

      Delete
    32. No anymore, Magat. Go play with yourself.

      Delete
    33. 7:28 is Bob Somerby.

      Delete
  13. Somerby really doesn't understand why Biden made the speech he did. Somerby appears to be treating it as a campaign speech and not a plea to the nation to protect our democracy by opposing those who are attacking it in specific ways (which Biden enumerated).

    Some of the misled rank and file are engaging in violence by making death threats and breaking laws for poll watching or supporting illegal activites, in person or financially. Those people are as guilty as Trump and the so-called leadership cadre. But we only know those people by their actions, because otherwise they are indistinguishable from the misled (who Somerby appears to want to protect). Our democracy is in danger when MAGAts terrorize voters and others engaged in legitimate democratic processes (such as vote counting or school board participation or issuing library cards). It doesn't matter whether it is Kevin McCarthy doing it, or some guy down the street in my hometown. Both do damage and need to be stopped. Stochastic terrorism is as dangerous to our democracy as gun-related terrorism is, and both need to be addressed.

    Further, if the MAGA extremists are going to stop what they are doing, the Republicans need to exert pressure on them, not just Democrats and others. That means that the rank and file need to step up and take their blinders off and take responsibility for what their party is doing. And if they fail to do that, they are MAGA supporters, because MAGA only thrives when Republicans cave, as they have done since 2015. So it is RIGHT for Biden to call out all Republicans. But Somerby seems to think this is only about placing blame and not about actively opposing this assault on democracy.

    That is perhaps why Somerby thinks he has the luxury of not addressing the parts of Biden's speech that he agrees with, exploring ways to deal with MAGA extremism, and can join the forces against Biden and those of us who want to save democracy, and thereby weaken the efforts of those who consider our situation highly threatened by current Republican behavior. That is a huge mistake, one that Somerby might regret if he were actually liberal. But since I suspect he is not (based on his strange inability to see what Biden said and what is going on), he will no doubt not pause in efforts that aid and abet those who are undermining the voting rights of all citizens in our nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, Anonhmouse 9:19pm, Trump supporters terrorize Democrats into not showing up to vote although the FBI is engaged in going to the homes of suspected protesters and rousting them with questions (based on anonymous tips) and the imprisoned rioters have been in solitary confinement with no bail for greater than a year.

      That’s not even a “nice try”.


      Delete
    2. What a load of horse manure.

      Delete
  14. The guy who counts people’s comments should tell us how many Cecelia has contributed today, as a public service.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What guy? I’ve never seen him.

    How sense does it make to count comments when the majority are labeled “Anonymous”?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Neither Republican politicians, nor Republican voters know anything about economics.

    ReplyDelete