"If you say it's flat, you're telling a lie!"


Anthropology hurts: Yesterday, in its Sunday Magazine, the Washington Post published an essay by Margaret Sullivan. 

Sullivan was The Post’s media columnist from 2016 until late August. For the record, she played a role in Campaign 2000 which has left us somewhat prejudiced against her.

Her essay was adapted from (what else?) her forthcoming book, “Newsroom Confidential.”  Is there anyone in the mainstream press who hasn't managed to publish a book by now about Donald J. Trump and the Trump years? 

Sullivan's essay concerned the difficulties of producing journalism about this profoundly disordered man. Our analysts screamed, then tore at their hair, when they read this early comment to Sullivan's essay:

COMMENT: The Earth is round. Anyone who says it is flat is telling a lie. The journalist's job is to pass along hard data that confirms or refutes a claim made by a politician. "Trickle-down economics" has never been proven to work in any country in the last 40 years. To not point this out in reporting is sloppy journalism at best, and being complicit at its worst.

"The Earth is round. Anyone who says it is flat is telling a lie." That's what the commenter said! 

The analysts screamed and gnashed their teeth as they read that comment. "It's all anthropology now," we gently reminded the youngsters.

We won't even try to explain why the analysts reacted as they did. During these Trump years, we've learned, to our routine amazement, that many people in our own tribe are amazingly fuzzy, in their heads, about the traditional distinction according to which most misstatements or falsehoods don't qualify as "lies."

That commenter was reacting to a major theme in Sullivan's essay. In these passages, she discusses some of the things journalists have learned, or come to believe, from years of covering Trump: 

SULLIVAN (10/16/22): Now, six years later, we journalists know a lot more about covering Trump and his supporters. We’ve come a long way, but certainly made plenty of mistakes. Too many times, we acted as his stenographers or megaphones. Too often, we failed to refer to his many falsehoods as lies. It took too long to stop believing that, whenever he calmed down for a moment, he was becoming “presidential.” And it took too long to moderate our instinct to give equal weight to both sides, even when one side was using misinformation for political gain.


From this new vantage point, it seemed self-evident that the mainstream press was too often going easy on Trump. Well into his presidency, journalists didn’t want to use the word “lie” for Trump’s constant barrage of falsehoods. To lie, editors reasoned, means to intend to be untruthful. Since journalists couldn’t be inside politicians’ heads, how were we supposed to know if—by this definition—they were really lying? The logic eventually became strained, given that Trump blithely repeated the same rank mistruths over and over.


Those who deny the outcome of the 2020 election certainly don’t deserve a media megaphone for that enduring lie, one that is likely to reemerge in the presidential campaign ahead. But the media should go one step further: When covering such a politician in other contexts—for example, about abortion rights or gun control—journalists should remind audiences that this public figure is an election denier.

In the second of those passages, Sullivan describes the traditional distinction to which we've referred—the traditional distinction between the full range of "falsehoods" and the narrower group of falsehoods which can be described as "lies."

By the traditions of the English language and its predecessors, a "lie" has always been a knowing misstatement—a falsehood uttered with the intention of misleading someone. According to this ancient, bone-simple distinction, if a person makes a misstatement they believe to be true, such people aren't said to be "lying."

This is roughly the simplest distinction in the history of the human race. In the Trump years, our journalists have made it amazingly clear that this millennia-old distinction is too complex for them to grasp.

We refuse to discuss this matter further. Only a fool would do such a thing. Sadly, this has long since become clear.

Here within our liberal tribe, we love to denounce certain statements as "lies." For that reason, our tribunes have given themselves blanket permission to do so. 

Indeed, we scold ourselves for having failed to do this in the past! Amazingly, this actually seems to be the best we blue tribals can do.

"It's all anthropology now," we reminded the angry analysts as they sputtered and wailed. For the record, your lizard brain will rush to tell you that we're wrong—and you may find that you're strongly inclined to put your faith in your lizard!

Every misstatement isn't a lie! If a person genuinely believes that the last election was stolen, that person may be grossly misinformed, but he or she isn't telling a lie when he or she makes that statement.

During the childish journalism of the Trump years, no logician has come forward to discuss this blindingly obvious point. Of course, as we've noted again and again, there are no logicians now!

The logicians have all abandoned their posts. They play an array of silly games within their academic preserves. The logicians have left us here on our own—and things aren't going real well!


  1. "...that many people in our own tribe are amazingly fuzzy, in their heads..."

    Plainly brain-dead, dear Bob. All of them. Often enough including yourself, unfortunately.

    ...as for the alleged Commander's lies/falsehoods, we are not aware of any.

    Your current tribal figurehead, however, definitely is a compulsive liar, no question about that. Even your tribal "paper of record" admitted as much last week.

    ...and no, dementia is not a good excuse.

  2. “By the traditions of the English language and its predecessors, a "lie" has always been a knowing misstatement—a falsehood uttered with the intention of misleading someone.”

    A simple glance in an actual dictionary shows that this is simply not true:

    “an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer” (definition 1b under “lie (noun)”)


  3. I too find it discordant often when the media refers to someone,often Trump as voicing a "lie", particlularly about the 2016 election. One commenter here opined that it's not that Trump "lies" but that he is a bullshitter; I think that is a better way of putting it (and that he is a world class one at that). And sometimes he does lie, probably more than almost any other politician. About the election - no one has gone and looked at every vote in every state and verified that each one is valid - that's impossible. The crack through which the argument goes is that there was a lot of voting by mail or in drop boxes. Even with in person voting. I can't read Trump's mind, but as a alwyer for a long time

    1. AC/MA, yes, there has been verification of the votes to ensure that they are valid, to the point of recounting each one. That is what a recount does. And not only is it NOT "impossible," but that is what is done when the votes are counted the first time too. There is no "crack" through which votes by mail or drop boxes were incorrectly counted. This is what was meant by Bill Barr and others who said that they investigated and found that there was no fraud that would cause a substantial change in the election results in any state.

      Your willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he claims there were mistakes is noted. But you should have listened during the 1/6 hearings where Republican after Republican said that they had thoroughly checked the results and that there was no "evidence" (which means votes falling through cracks) of fraud or mistaken counts that would sway the election in any appreciable way.

      When people have checked and rechecked the voting, there is no longer any possibility that Trump's claims could be true. Evidence must form opinions, not vice versa. Otherwise, you are not living in reality.

  4. The media constantly reads the mind of politicians.
    How many times have you heard about a Republican politician who believes cutting taxes will lead to more investment and economic growth?
    There is no way to discern if any politician believes any such thing. The media would be better off stating that a politician says they believe cutting taxes will lead to more investment and economic growth, and leave the mind-reading out of their reporting.

    1. That is fine under normal circumstances. We are not in normal circumstances. We have a candidate (Trump) and a political party (GOP) essentially dedicated to lying (or, if you like, pushing false claims like the Election 2020 lie. It leads them to vow to overturn election results they disagree with.) How the press should deal with this was the actual theme of Sullivan’s piece that Somerby ignored and is worth reading. Plus, you have Bob Somerby constantly mind-reading liberals, telling us about their “performative” mindset, telling us they don’t “really” care about x,y,z…

    2. The Press is an important institution in American society; it is given freedom in the Constitution. The reason for this is that the Press has the ability to speak truth to power more so than other institutions, organizations, or individuals.

      Calling out a politician's lies is an effective way to motivate the public into action, this is why Somerby has such disdain for the word.

      Mind-reading is not needed to accuse one of lying, one just needs to consider the context.

      Some will struggle with context, such as those on the Spectrum. But in Somerby's case, that is being way too charitable.

      In Trump's case, or generally with right wingers, we know they are aware that their claims are contrary to a normal map of reality, and we know they benefit from their lies.

  5. “a major theme in Sullivan's essay”

    Actually, the theme was the way the press covered/covers an “abnormal” candidate like Trump, and by extension, the way the press covers the current state of affairs. There was quite a bit in there with which Somerby might have agreed, such as how the press gave too much fawning, uncritical, bothsiderist coverage to Trump, aiding his win, and Sullivan also suggests ways to deal with disinformation, such as the GOP …uh, falsehoods,…uh …misstatements … uh sincere beliefs…surrounding Election 2020 and the … uh … mistaken belief that Trump actually won.

  6. [Continuing where I left off], you see how people lie, bullshit, state things as fact when it's really speculation, shade the truth, put their thumbs on the scale, and leave out facts or issues that contradict or weaken their position. All politicians, and most people do that when they are arguing something on which they have an interest. Trump takes it to a high level. He's a skilled demagogue. When he says the election was "stolen" it's not so much a "lie." I lie would be when he denies banging Stormy Daniels, when he knows damn well he did (assuming he did). You can say legitimately you think he's lying. When he goes around claiming the election was stolen, it more like BS - on a large scale, and is just as vile, in my opinion, as if he was telling a "lie." People do this - they claim something as true when they lack evidence of it, like when someone here claims TDH voted for Trump.

    1. Or when they claim there is a God or that there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot.
      Claim away, but bring the receipts if you want us to believe it.

    2. So, which is it, AC? Does Trump sincerely believe (…issue x…), or is he a skilled demagogue and world-class bullshitter? Or is he mentally ill as Somerby wants to believe, but has no hard evidence for?

      Being a demagogue means manipulating people by appealing to their fears and desires. Being a bullshitter means you may say untrue things, but bullshitting implies that the bullshitter doesn’t care if the things he says are true. That isn’t the same thing as sincerely believing the untrue thing.

      As far as election 2020, there was testimony that Trump acknowledged his defeat, but proceeded with his election lie anyway. Is that not sufficient evidence that he is aware of the untruth he is pushing and should be held accountable for this dangerous lie?

  7. Mao, so you're not aware of any lies or falsehood Trump has ever told (what a surprise!), apparently he's in the same category as George Washington and Honest Abe, or as the commander once referred to him, the "late great" Honest Abe). Yet, you have no problem characterizing Biden as a "compulsive liar." Par for the course from you, as an obsessive and disingenuous sophist. The example I gave above - where Stormy Daniels relates the story about how she yielded to Trumps charms, and the two went and did it - Trump denies it happened. I wasn't there, so I don't really know - but if what she says is true, Trump's denial would be a "lie." You can't possibly know that it isn't. As if that's the only example; there are surely thousands.

    1. "I wasn't there, so I don't really know - but if what she says is true, Trump's denial would be a "lie.""

      We have no idea what you're talking about, dear AC/MA. Sounds like a meaningless word-salad.

    2. Poor Mao, hasn't had their salad tossed enough.

      You go, girl!

    3. AC/MA, it is a waste of time arguing with Mao. He is a paid Russian troll on a troll farm somewhere.

    4. Likewise, it is a waste of time engaging with ac/ma, who lies in attempting to dominate discourse, and generally argues in bad faith - also is neither a Dem nor a lawyer. In reality, Mao is a safe space for ac/ma.

    5. Mao, yourcomeback is as lame as it gets."Word salad? That's all you got? Anon 5:53 is right, except for the part of you being a 'Russian" troll. It's all shameless, disingenuous propaganda with you.

    6. No, word-salad is all you got dear dembot.

      ...sadly. We would love to talk to a liberal who is not a brain-dead word-salad-generator, but alas.

    7. "We would love to talk to a liberal who is not a brain-dead word-salad-generator.."

      Alas, this too is a lie.
      Why is it that Right-wingers can never tell the truth?

    8. Like I've said mao, you are a zealot, disingenuous, sophistic and dishonest, and so often, really stupid. It is foolish on my part to argue with someone with those characteristics.

  8. What are Trump's biggest lies?

    1. 1. Covid will go away soon. Hydroxychloroquinine and ivermectin work to fight covid. Masks don't work. etc.
      2. The 2020 election was stolen.
      3. There was no collusion with Russia.
      4. He is in perfect health.
      5. He made a perfect call to Zelenskey.
      6. Republicans who back him will win so much they will be tired of winning.
      7. He said he would build that wall.
      8. He said he won the popular vote in 2016, except for all the illegals voting in CA.
      9. God is behind him. (and any other sentence with God in it)
      10. Some white supremacists are good people.
      11. Immigrants are rapists and criminals.
      12. He said he would replace ACA with a better health plan.
      13. He said he would restore jobs in the midwest and restore the coal industry in West VA.
      14. Wind farms cause cancer.
      15. He claims his hands are not small.
      16. Those classified documents are his.
      17. Jared produced peace in the Mideast.
      18. His crowd sizes are all the biggest ever.
      19. He didn't rape and/or assault numerous women.
      20. Putin respects him.

      Someone has counted all of his lies as president:


    2. Those don't seem that bad. Accounting for the ones you misstated/falsely characterized.

    3. It is so interesting, isn't it? You can't tell the truth when asked for a list of lies.

    4. @6:29 -- I don't see you refuting anything on the list. Where is your evidence in support of Trump's lies?

    5. Is that something you would like me to do? Please provide sources for all of the claims and I would be glad to.

    6. Yes, I already provided the link to the Washington Post lie counter.

    7. That's a list of false and misleading claims, not lies. So go ahead and provide your source for your claim that the above list are lies and I will go through and refute them one by one.

    8. They are lies because the disconfirming evidence is readily available, including to the speaker of the lie (Trump) and thus he could and should have known that these statements were wrong. And I agree with mh's less restrictive definition of lie, not Somerby's ridiculous and unverifiable one. If we all used Somerby's definition no lie could ever be proven by anyone and the word lie would not exist because it would never be able to be used.

      I have no interest in hearing the justifications for these untruths offered by supporters of Trump. I can find them myself and they have no support and thus are an extension of the lies told by Trump himself. Please don't waste space here.

    9. Interesting to see you are unable to provide a credible source for your claims.

    10. Trump is the source for all of them.

    11. I think Trump is a skillful demagogue, and is essentially slimy. However, your list of "lies" is badly reasoned, for the most part. Most of the things you call "lies" are opinions, stupid ones perhaps, but not demonstrably lies. For example, "he said he would build the wall." That was a political promise - an aspiration. Every president makes statements like that. He probably would have "built" the wall if he wasn't blocked. "God is behind him (did he even say that?) - an opinion. No. 12 - maybe you're right on that one. . No "collusion" with Russia? more true than not. A better case can be made that the whole collusion thing was a "lie."Did rape/assault numerous women? I think, at least the assault part may be true, he's probably lying but it's his word against theirs,. I could go thru on your whole list, but I've already wasted enough time.

    12. "What are Trump's biggest lies?"
      All of them, Katie.

  9. The earth really is round.

    1. ""The Earth is round. Anyone who says it is flat is telling a lie." That's what the commenter said!"

      Somerby fails to factor in: (1) available information that is common knowledge in our society, (2) access to specific information about the subject of the lie.

      When it takes effort to believe wrong information, because it is not part of either common sense or folk wisdom, then the work involved to acquire the wrong information implies motive to deceive. Today, someone would have to join a Flat Earth Society or be extremely contrary in the face of repeated instruction and education about the roundness of the Earth, to say that it is flat.

      In the middle ages, the Earth looked flat to everyday people. Today, one would have to provide arguments explaining away the existence of films of Earth from space, showing that it is clearly round. AND contradict the entire fact base of astronomers and physicists with plausible arguments (which don't exist).

      But the evidence leads to a round earth. The Flat Earthers insist that people prove their view of a flat earth is incorrect. That isn't the way science works. It is up to the Flat Earthers to refute the evidence showing the earth is round, not vice versa, when there is no evidence for a flat earth that doesn't equally fit the conclusion of a round earth.

      Somerby's analysts are hugely mistaken when they insist that this not be called a lie. The Flat Earth Society initially began as contrarians who enjoyed arguing a proposition they knew was not true. That fits the definition of lie. Around 2015-16, they began to be infiltrated by people who believe the moon landing was faked, and similar conspiracy theories. They are true believers. But, as noted, I think it is fair to call this a lie, no matter what hysterics Somerby's analysts fall into.

    2. In the third century BCE, Eratosthenes, a Greek librarian in Alexandria, Egypt, determined the earth's circumference to be 40,250 to 45,900 kilometers (25,000 to 28,500 miles) by comparing the Sun's relative position at two different locations on the earth's surface. Because of differences in translations or interpretations of his records, and his own methodological errors, the exact figures are in dispute. Today, the earth's circumference is usually accepted to be 40,096 kilometers (24,901 miles). If you take the lowest estimate attributed to Eratosthenes, his error was less than one percent—a phenomenal calculation.

  10. In 2016 and 2020 Trump said the elections
    would be rigged but he would accept the
    results if he won. This is the stance much
    of Trump’s party is taking in the upcoming
    elections. Might this destroy the Country?
    Sure. To accept Bob in an abetting this
    intellectual violence is to aid in those
    destructive efforts.

  11. When something is empirically true in the world, such as that the world is round or that Trump lost the election, the beliefs of any given person do not change the truth of that phenomenon (the outcome of the election or the roundness of the Earth). Believing doesn't make anything so, or not so. It has a separate existence distinct from what people believe.

    That is why this is such a futile argument that Somerby keeps raising. He seems to want to not only adopt a counter-factual belief about Trump, but then urge people to act upon his false belief. All the sophistry in freshman philosophy texts cannot erase Trump's lie about an election that was truly lost. Behaving as if it were stolen doesn't change a thing in the real world. Neither for Trump nor for Somerby. Somerby's insistence that we all accept the conclusion that Trump may not be lying about his election, doesn't change the election result.

    When Trump followers blindly accept Trump's lie about the 2020 outcome and engage in insurrection on Trump's behalf, saying that they were misled or wrongly believed an untruth, or even insisting the election WAS stolen, changes nothing about the illegality and wrongness of their behavior. Because the election remains Biden's victory and that is true independent of what insurrectionists believed, whether the president was right or wrong himself.

    Our beliefs are constructed. If we are lucky, they closely parallel what is true in the world, the reality external to ourselves. If we are unlucky, our beliefs will diverge and we will find ourselves in conflict with reality. When that happens, the consequences can be very harsh, because reality doesn't change with our beliefs. An unyielding reality has no pity for those who cannot use evidence to form their beliefs. And that may be sad, but reality is a bitch.

    Witness those who believed that covid was a hoax, avoided vaccines and masks, and wound up dead, along with family members whom they advised to follow their lead. The disease didn't care what they thought about it. Smart, educated people try their best to stay on the right side of reality by seeking truth. Those who believe what fits their biases or desires, will have a rude awakening at some future point, which may or may not leave them damaged. This is how the world works. Not Somerby's fantasy that if he spins a bunch of arguments while posturing as a mediocre philosophy major he can confuse enough people to vote for Trump (or not vote out of nihilism or apathy). I have no doubt whatsoever that Somerby does not truly believe what he writes here. It is either a joke or a paid exercise, but either way, his lack of sincerity is glaring and he is the last person anyone here should take seriously about anything with real-world consequences, including who you vote for.

  12. In 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to the 2016 election electoral votes.

    After President Trump’s victory in 2016, 67 Democrats boycotted his inauguration, with many “claiming his election was illegitimate.”

    After the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the election and claimed the election was stolen from her.

    In September 2017, Hillary Clinton said she would not “rule out” questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election.
    In March 2019, Clinton smiled in agreement when former State Sen. Hank Sanders (D-AL) said the election was stolen from her.

    In May 2019, Clinton said the 2016 election was “stolen” from her.

    In September 2019, Clinton dismissed Trump as an “illegitimate president” and said “he knows” he stole the 2016 presidential election.

    In October 2019, Clinton said that Trump knows that he is “an illegitimate president.”

    In December 2019, Clinton nodded in agreement that she won the election.

    In July 2020, Clinton said Trump is scared for Americans to see “how illegitimate his victory” was.

    In October 2020, Clinton claimed that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “we still don’t really know what happened.”
    Former President Jimmy Carter said he believed that “a full investigation” would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said “I believe” Russian interference altered the outcome of the election.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) dodged answering whether Trump was “a legitimate president.”

    Rep Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the “legitimacy is in question” of Trump’s presidency.

    Then-Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said he did not believe President Trump is a “legitimate president.”

    Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) “applauded” John Lewis and said that he was “right on target.”

    Then-Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) said that John Lewis’ remarks on Trump not being legitimately elected “are reasonable.”

    Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) said “there absolutely is a cloud of illegitimacy” to Trump’s presidency.

    Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said that Trump’s election was “illegitimate” and that Trump “is an illegitimate president.”

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) justified his decision to object to certification saying Republicans engaged in “deliberate voter suppression … in numerous swing states.”

    Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) refused to attend President Trump’s inauguration ceremony because Trump’s election victory was “tainted” by “foreign interference and voter suppression.”

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) refused to say if Trump was a “legitimate president.”

    1. Yes, and I agree with these statements myself. I believe that history will show that Hillary Clinton was robbed in 2016 and should have been the President, not Trump. Time will tell.

      But please note that none of these statements is illegal or unconstitutional. There has been no insurrection plotted by these individuals and no violence because of them. There were no alternate elector lists created, no threats against state vote counters or officials or those engaged in certifying Trump as the victor. The life of the Vice President was not threatened in any way. After the vote certifying the election, there were no lawsuits and no pressure campaigns on anyone. Hillary Clinton wrote a book about her election campaign, in which she analyzed her contribution to her loss in great detail. Other analyses suggested that Comey's late statement affected the polls to such an extent that it is fair to say he single-handedly cost her the election, but the Mueller investigation also revealed Russian meddling in the campaigns, not least stealing Clinton's email and posting them on Wikileaks at crucial points during the campaign. These two unusual activities constitute evidence of interference that justifies the statements made by various Democrats, but even so, none of these Democrats has committed any illegal acts as the result of their beliefs about the election.

      The same cannot be said about Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is what is meant when Democrats say that they accepted Trump's victory and did not contest his election. And Republicans know this. The presentation of this list is a lie perpetrated by conservatives because it suggests a bothsiderism that does not exist. Democrats committed no illegal acts to contest Trump's election. Trump DID. And that is a huge difference, one that goes to the heart of what it means to be a democracy.

      So, yes, I believe this belongs on the list of Trump's lies.

    2. And? If your point is that this is no different from what Trump is doing (and his accomplices), you're delusional.

    3. Russia can't "post" anything "on" Wikileaks. No one can.

    4. Don’t play dumb.

    5. Roger Stone arranged it with Julian Assange, according to FBI.

    6. Really? What is your source for the claim Roger Stone arranged it with Julian Assange, according to FBI?

      Be specific. Where does the FBI say "Roger Stone arranged it with Julian Assange"?

    7. https://apnews.com/article/presidential-elections-robert-mueller-russia-elections-roger-stone-ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7




    8. Stone had been in contact with Assange trying to find out what Wikileaks had on the DNC. Reporter Michael Isikoff was one of the first reporters to admit that this belied the colluding with Russia claim and that didn’t help Mueller’s investigation.


    9. He had to say something.

    10. None of those links even make the claim that Stone arranged the leaks with Assange. Don't you get tired of being pathetic and making unprovable claims? You probably didn't even read the correspondence between the two. It's really incredible how pathetic and stupid you are.

      Once again, you have not supported your claims with any credible source. Lame!

    11. Democrats these days appear to just think they can say anything they want and it magically will be true. This pathetic retard posts these links I guess just hoping that no one will look at them? I don't even understand the psychology. They just pray that somehow they will magically become true? That they will magically turn from not backing up their argument into backing it up? Or they're drunk or what?

    12. You obviously don’t understand much. Got an example you would like to site?

    13. The person who lied about the 2016 election was Donald Trump. Though Trump’s Speech was pretty bonkers, no attempt was made to block him taking office. Zero. None.
      No riot was led by Hillary Clinton, who conceded the night of the election. Yes, some of us do point out the the Electoral College had become the White Man’s affirmative action. That’s because it has.

    14. Almost as stupid and pathetic as someone trying to equate those quotes from Dems with what Trump has done.

    15. None of those links claim Stone arranged the release of the emails with Assange, the original claim from the retarded fool commenter above. Why would that person lie? Why would they make a completely false claim and then give four links, four!, None of which come remotely close to backing up their false claim?

    16. Here's an example. On Thursday last week Biden claimed he was making “some progress” against inflation, even as consumer prices were up 8.2% over last year and eating everyone alive. He's just saying words hoping that somehow magically they will become true.

    17. Learn about Assange and Stone's relationship:


    18. If we're going to call out lies, let's call out the biggest one. The one about how there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot. We've been waiting almost 6 years for any proof, and we got bupkis.
      Time to put that one to bed for good.

    19. The burden of proof is on you. So where is it?

    20. Just because you deny something, doesn't make your denial true.

    21. What did I deny?

    22. I'd say the problem of making stuff up is about 100 times worse on the right. Worse in terms of content, quantity, and consequences. As for collusion, when all the evidence is taken together, I would say it's more likely than not that there was collusion. I don't know of a more plausible/realistic explanation for Manafort's sharing of internal campaign data with someone linked to Russian intelligence. But this entire debate about Russia has become so myopic that it misses the forest for the trees. The Trump campaign was ready and willing to collude! They TRIED to collude! They set up a meeting with Russian operatives in the hopes of getting hacked emails. Stone, if we assume he wasn't successful (a big assumption), he at least TRIED to collude with WikiLeaks. At the very least, he tried to find out from them what they had and when they were going to release it. If I remember correctly, someone within the Trump camp, possibly Trump himself, told him to do this. If someone tries to do something "wrong" but fails, does that make them innocent? And in a certain sense, Trump "colluded" with Russia in plain sight. He suggested that Russia (illegally) hack Clinton's emails and said the press would greatly reward them, thus benefiting his campaign. Shortly thereafter, they did exactly that. Does it really matter that he did this in public instead of in private? Does the fact that it was done publicly make it any less egregious that a U.S. presidential candidate encouraged a hostile foreign power to help him win the presidency by illegally hacking his opponent? Just imagine if Biden knew that China had launched an aggressive campaign to interfere in the 2024 election to help him get reelected, and during a press conference Biden encouraged China to hack into Republican servers. Your side would burn the fucking country down if Democrats did even HALF of the crazy shit that Trump and his enablers have done. Because of how often Trump does and says stuff that by traditional standards is beyond the pale, we've become numb to it. But this doesn't make it any less outrageous and unacceptable.

    23. Jesus, another moron who believes Trump and Russia decided to communicate with each other via his televised news conferences ... who believes Russia was sitting up late at night waiting for instructions from Trump on what do ... by watching his televised press conferences.

      Do you know how stupid that is?? I guess not.

      (He wasn't even referring to the hacked emails, he was referring to the emails she admittedly deleted.)

      Do you realize YOU are making stuff up? I guess not.

    24. Regarding your first paragraph, that's not what I said. Now YOU'RE making stuff up. I said Trump publicly recommended to Russia that they hack Clinton's emails. And that's what he did. So you'd be fine if Biden did something similar? Sure. And it doesn't matter if they were deleted emails. What, once you delete your emails, then they're fair game for hackers? I will concede I momentarily confused the deleted emails with the hacked emails. Who cares? That doesn't affect my larger points.

    25. I forgot to mention one of the most important aspects of the Russia scandal: from the very beginning, Trump and his enablers lied about it CONSTANTLY. And then they obstructed the investigation at every turn. They are horrible, shitty human beings, who should never have been anywhere near the seats of power in our country.

    26. The Mueller report and the Senate both looked at the statements Trump made at his press conference and draw a different conclusion than you do about whether or not it is collusion with Russia.

      So your accusation here that it is collusion is another great example of the weird Democratic pipe dream magic fairy dust where people like yourself think you can just call it collusion and all of a sudden it is. "I just feel like it's collusion! Therefore it is!". Or like the original commenter making a completely false claim about the FBI saying that Stone and Assange were acting together and, as evidence, posting four links that say nothing of the sort! It's so strange. You people think you can just make something up and it will magically become true. You're so stupid and naive.

    27. And you're apparently not so bright yourself, since I very deliberately qualified my use of the word "collusion" when discussing Trump's press conference. Your side is so hung up on whether or not the word "collusion" applies to what happened because it gives you an easy "win." Meanwhile, you ignore all the egregious conduct by Trump and his enablers. Btw, the press conference aside, one of the lead attorneys on Mueller's team said they did find evidence of collusion. It just wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And if I remember correctly, the senate report contains a statement from the Democrats that worked on the report saying the report contains evidence of collusion.

    28. 1:36,
      If it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.

    29. My comments about your accusations of collusion were referring to your qualified use of it in reference to the press conference. Mueller and Senate both addressed the press conference and didn't conclude it was collusion as you did, because it feels good, not for any substantial, legal reasons.

      Arguing any aspect of Russian collusion with Trump at this late date is more pathetic liberal daydreaming.

      Of Trump is so horrible,.why would liberals need to overstate and misstate the evidence re. collusion which is a settled legal issue? Settled years ago. What's up with tha

    30. Get back to me when Donald J Chickenshit testifies under oath to the Mueller investigation.

    31. That investigation closed years ago dumb shit.

    32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    33. 3:46:

      No kidding, asshole.

    34. 1:36,

      I wonder why Donald J Chickenshit lied to the American people during the campaign saying he had no business interests in Russia, when he knew Michael Cohen had:
      On or about January 16, 2016, COHEN emailed [Peskov]’s office again, said he was trying to reach another high-level Russian official, and asked for someone who spoke English to contact him.

      On or about January 20, 2016 , COHEN received an email from the personal assistant to [Peskov] (“Assistant 1 “), stating that she had been trying to reach COHEN and requesting that he call her using a Moscow-based phone number she provided.

      Shortly after receiving the email, COHEN called Assistant 1 and spoke to her for approximately 20 minutes. On that call, COHEN described his position at the Company and outlined the proposed Moscow Project, including the Russian development company with which the Company had partnered. COHEN requested assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to build the proposed tower and financing the construction. Assistant 1 asked detailed questions and took notes, stating that she would follow up with others in Russia.

      The day after COHEN’s call with Assistant 1, [Sater] contacted him, asking for a call. Individual 2 wrote to COHEN, “It’s about [the President of Russia] they called today.”

  13. Well, here’s an opinion for ya: Bob is snapping back to his once legitimate claim to be a media critic (the “lies” issue) because he can’t bring himself to confront Trump’s lawlessness and demagoguery. Or how the media covers said.