A WEEK IN THE LIFE: Tucker explains how Nixon went down!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2023

The ghosts of Shaker Heights: Last night, Tucker Carlson went so far that the bosses at Fox News have apparently made a decision.

They've apparently decided to withhold the transcript from the web site of Tucker's highly rated TV show, Tucker Carlson Tonight.

The transcript of Tucker's opening monologue doesn't appear at the web site, where it normally would. In its place, a transcript appears for a different part of last evening's show.

What did Tucker say last night? Right at 9 p.m. Eastern, he repeated his declaration from last Thursday night:

President Biden is being taken down by "permanent Washington"—in this case, "by his own political party." According to Tucker, that explains why Biden suddenly finds himself in the throes of the classified documents scandal.

It's all the work of "permanent Washington," Tucker said again and again. Indeed, you can see the monologue, and read the transcript, simply by clicking this.

As it turns out, Fox News did prepare a proofread transcript of last night's opening monologue! The transcript simply hasn't been posted at the program's site.

What did Tucker say last night? He started by saying this:

CARLSON (1/19/23): If you're a normal person, it's a pretty weird experience watching Joe Biden's presidency get euthanized by his own party. On one hand, there's an undeniable thrill to it. You have to admit that. Biden is the most destructive president in American history. More things have broken under his watch than under any other president.  

Joe Biden deserves to be driven from office and disgraced, but for this? Breaking federal classification rules, some of the stupidest and most dishonest laws Congress has ever passed? It's like arresting El Chapo for expired plates. It's missing the point, but it looks like that's what's going to happen. 

It seems like every day, one of Joe Biden's lawyers shows up with more sheaves of classified documents like a dog who has found another dead chipmunk under the house. This bunch was in his office at Penn, the one paid for by the Communist Party of China. These were found next to his sad, little midlife crisis sports car in a garage in Delaware and so on. You keep waiting for the White House physician to announce another document trove has been discovered after a routine colonoscopy. It could happen because at this point, you know exactly where this story is heading.  

Permanent Washington does not want Joe Biden to run for president again. This is how they're sending that message. Even CNN has decided to become interested in Joe Biden's misdeeds two years into his presidency. They're doing segments in how classification laws protect this country from its mortal enemies like Russia. So, you know for certain the order has gone out. Biden is done.

That's the way Tucker got started last night. At 9:07, he began explaining how far back this sort of thing actually goes, "permanent Washington"-wise.

As you can see from the tape and the transcript, Tucker's historical exposition started with Richard Nixon. More specifically, it started with what President Nixon said, or possibly didn't say, to Richard Helms about the murder of President Kennedy.

According to Tucker, President Nixon believed that the CIA was involved in that murder. Unwisely, Nixon shared this belief with Helms, then the head of the CIA.

On that basis, "permanent Washington" knew that Nixon had to be "forced to resign." Tucker spent four minutes explaining this, not failing to explain the secret roles of Bob Woodward and Gerald Ford.

From 9:07 through 9:11, Tucker explained these past events. As he explained, the chyron beneath him said this:

NIXON WAS REMOVED FOR QUESTIONING THE DEEP STATE

"None of it's secret," the confident Fox star said. "Most of it actually is on Wikipedia." he actually said, even adding this:

"It's so obvious, yet it's intentionally ignored and as a result, permanent Washington remains in charge of our political system." 

(For a different discussion of those past events, you can just click here.)

At any rate, according to Tucker, permanent Washington remains in charge. And at present, permanent Washington has created the classified documents scandal in order to take Biden down! 

Everyone is involved in the plot. Even CNN!

That's what Tucker told red tribe viewers last night. As he did, our blue tribe tribunes were continuing to cluck about George Santos.

Tucker's monologue was the latest event in a week in the life. So is our tribe's collective shrieking about Santos—about the money he stole from the dog; about where his mother actually was as of September 11.

Santos is an utterly meaningless backbench member of the 435-member House. We'd be inclined to assume that he has some major psychiatric problem, but our journalists don't discuss such matters, nor do they ever consult medical or psychiatric specialists concerning cases like this.

That said, Santos is enjoyable to talk about on a tribal basis. From the standpoint of profit-driven "journalism," these discussions constitute extremely good tribal product. 

It's fun and easy to talk about Santos, and it's very good business. In part for those reasons, the beat goes on, then on and on, just as it ever was.

Almost surely, you can't run a giant nation this way—with people like Carlson telling wild tales; with people like Nicolle Wallace scheduling daily echo sessions involving her "favorite reporters and friends."

Our blue tribe tribunes spend the bulk of their time talking to themselves and to no one else. Then too, there are the ghosts of Shaker Heights, those who will not be discussed.

At present, the nation's red tribe tends to run on crazy belief. Our own blue tribe tends to run on the bogus belief we're the extremely good and decent people, especially on matters involving the topic called race.

We say it and say it and say it and say it. That doesn't mean that it's true.

The ghosts of Shaker Heights appeared online at roughly this time last week. The report in question appeared in the print edition of last Sunday's New York Times—in the Real Estate section!

The report was written by Debra Kamin, who we'd say is very plainly a good, decent person. That said, she isn't an education writer, and we'd have to say that it showed.

The ghosts of Shaker Heights are a bunch of the kinds of kids our blue tribe never discusses. (More precisely, we never discuss them unless they get shot, and in that circumstance only if they were shot by a policeman.)

We've been following education writing for the past fifty years. We don't think we've ever seen a serious journalistic attempt to discuss the topic in question, or the children we turn into ghosts.

According to Kamin's report, the ghosts of the Heights are found on the low end of a large "achievement gap." Every once in a while, newspapers like the New York Times publish an article like the one in question—an article which may convey the fleeting impression that our blue tribe actually cares about the kids of the Heights.

In fact, we don't seem to care, though that doesn't make us bad people. It simply makes us people people, but it suggests that we might consider toning down our excessively high self-regard concerning our obvious moral greatness concerning matters of race, as opposed to the snarling racism of The Bad People Found Over There.

The article which appeared in the Times concerns the nation's public schools. Within our blue tribe, we praise ourselves for our racial greatness—and we relentlessly disappear the kids discussed in that Times report.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our own blue tribe largely runs on such acts of performance. We perform the role of moral exemplars as we conduct self-contained gab sessions with our "favorite friends."

Our tribunes will continue to talk about Santos. It's excellent cable news product. 

They won't discuss the ghosts of the Heights. Also, they won't discuss the reasonable questions about immigration raised by Carlson in the midst of last night's pseudo-discussion of the way Richard Nixon went down.

Tucker will continue to do what he does. So will our favorite friends.

Can a major nation function this way? We'd have to say the answer is no. Experts say it isn't clear that there's any way out of this mess.

The ghosts of the Heights were one small part of the most recent week in the life. The report appeared in the Real Estate section, and the ghosts then disappeared.

How we knew: We think it's obvious that Debra Kamin is a good, decent, caring person. 

In our view, it's also obvious that she isn't an education writer. In our view, that became clear when we read this passage:

KAMIN (1/15/23): At least 73 percent of Black eighth graders in the [Shaker Heights] district were reading at or above grade level in 2011; by 2021, that number had dropped precipitously to about 27 percent, according to Ohio’s Department of Education.

On their own, those numbers don't tell us anything about the ghosted kids of Shaker Heights. Thanks to decades of not caring, editors at the New York Times show no sign of knowing such things, nor do they seem to care.

100 comments:

  1. tl;dr

    "According to Tucker, that explains why Biden suddenly finds himself in the throes of the classified documents scandal."

    Oh, dear. But that's perfectly obvious, dear Bob, ain't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can't bother to read Somerby's essay, you don't get to comment on it.

      Delete
    2. But he can and did comment. This is symbolic of this Anon's logic. Things they want to be true ARE true in their mind. And then they build a jenga tower of logic and further speculations and assumptions on these embedded falsehoods, creating an unstable mess.

      Delete
    3. He didn't comment -- he is promoting his own agenda, not responding to Somerby's essay. Somerby didn't explicitly agree with Tucker Carlson, despite spreading his message for those who may have missed it.

      Delete
    4. "He didn't comment."

      Sorry, I'm a pragmatic realist. Did the comment count at the top go up after he posted? Yes.

      You can redefine words for yourself but others don't have to accept that.

      Delete
    5. Splitting hairs and nit picking using a different sense of the word comment. Somerby would be so proud of you.

      Delete
    6. That's what comment means. What definition are you using?

      Delete
    7. I use the definition in which the verb comment takes an object, in which someone is commenting on something said by someone else.

      It doesn't make any sense to me to consider things like ads and fart nonsense to be comments on what anyone else has written here. The purpose of comments is to discuss the post and to provide feedback on what others have written. Comments that do not do that are not really comments at all. That includes the troll noise, which generally is either clutter or hostility (i.e., "You're stupid" is not actually any sort of comment and nonsequitur posts of right wing propaganda are not comments either).

      Your simplistic suggestion that anything that originates in a comment box must be a comment, ignores the role of commenting in discourse.

      Delete
    8. “You’re stupid” is most certainly a comment.

      Depending upon the context, it may not be a very sagacious rebuttal, but it is the definition of a comment.

      Here’s another example of a comment: Anonymouse 2:17pm, quit being a putz.

      Delete
  2. "That's what Tucker told red tribe viewers last night. As he did, our blue tribe tribunes were continuing to cluck about George Santos.

    Tucker's monologue was the latest event in a week in the life. So is our tribe's collective shrieking about Santos—about the money he stole from the dog; about where his mother actually was as of September 11."

    So, Tucker Carlson is telling huge lies and because of that, we liberals are not supposed to care about anything George Santos says?

    Wouldn't it be nice if the lies told by Carlson about Nixon could excuse all wrongs committed by current members of the House!

    Santos is too trivial to worry about, Somerby argues. His lies are too obviously lies and they are whoppers, so he must be deranged, so just let him serve out his term without addressing the fraud on the voters in his district, his fitness to hear government secrets, or the financial grift he may yet commit while in office.

    Where is the logic in that? More and more, it is Somerby who sounds deranged.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Notice the way Somerby repeats Carlson's message for those of us here on the left, who might have missed it. How helpful -- but who is he helping?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not "on the left" so much as a defender of the corporate-ownded MSM and status quo it protects.

      Delete
    2. I like the MSM much better than Carlson -- who doesn't (except Somerby)? And yes, I am happy with Biden and a Democratic-controlled Senate, but not so happy with the goons in the House. I liked it better when the House was controlled by Democrats too. So sue me.

      Delete
    3. I don't wish to sue you. Just make readers aware of your motivations when you misrepresent them.

      Delete
    4. Them? Them who? Mao himself said he didn't read Somerby's essay. How can he possibly comment on something he didn't read?

      Delete
    5. In the sentence "them" is referring to your motivations. See how that's the most recent plural noun prior to "them?"

      Your lack of logic is front and center again. How does someone quote from a piece "he didn't read." Did you mean "he didn't read the whole thing?"

      Your attempts to gatekeep language and logic are noted, again.

      Delete
    6. tl;dr means too long, didn't read

      I take Mao's word that he didn't read the piece he said he didn't read.

      Delete
    7. It’s like Chuck Schumer said after Trump slammed the FBI, “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,”

      The risk is all Tucker’s.

      Delete
    8. 7:34 PM - direct from Charlie Kirk's anus to your typical out-of-context comment. Well done Quisling

      Delete
    9. Who’s Charlie Kirk? I don’t know him from your anus.

      Delete
    10. Not funny. Liar.

      Delete
    11. The only time Cecelia doesn't play the victim, is when she falls for Charlie Kirk's and Christopher Rufo's lies.

      Delete
    12. Here’s the very seasoned senator issuing the warning about this “community”.

      https://youtu.be/Vdcv5OxiEOU

      I take him at his word.

      Delete
    13. 7:05: that must explain the FBI’s decision to go public with the Hillary stuff right before the election and deep six their Trump investigation.

      Delete
    14. I don’t know what animus the FBI would have had toward her, but it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they did.

      Delete
    15. It's generally understood that the FBI is and has been a nest of right-wing reactionary jagoffs. So yes, it doesn't surprise me a bit.

      Delete
  4. "Santos is an utterly meaningless backbench member of the 435-member House."

    Our of the 435 members, 218 constitute a majority. What Somerby doesn't say is that Republicans only have 222 members, which gives them a 4-person majority. If any of their members become sick or are away for any reason, that majority shrinks and endangers their ability to pass bills.

    If the House were to decide that Santos's actions make him unfit to serve, if they were to remove him, they would have a 3-member majority. Given that people do leave their elected positions for health or other reasons during a term in office, that is a very shaky majority indeed.

    That's why the Republicans are tolerating Santos. Not because he is just one guy out of 435, but because his vote is crucial to enacting the legislation they want to pass.

    Somerby pretends Santos is trivial when he is very important to them. And that is why the fine, upstanding, Republicans have turned a blind eye to major fraud, lying and ethical lapses. They want to maintain political power.

    But why is Somerby lying to us? Why does he pretend Santos is just too unimportant to care about? Why is he carrying water for McCarthy and the other Republicans instead of telling the truth here? There is no good answer to that question that includes Somerby being any sort of liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much of a fraud and liar as Santos is, he got the most votes. There is something to be said for letting the person who got the most votes take office. In fact, there is a term for those people who want to overturn the results of an election that they lost.
      The New York state Democrats cost us the House of Representatives through their incredible incompetence. They were rolling in money (in fact a lot of it from SBF), but they were more concerned with going after Democrats they didn't like in the primaries than with beating Republicans.

      Delete
  5. "We say it and say it and say it and say it. That doesn't mean that it's true."

    That doesn't mean that it is false either.

    As usual, Somerby presents no evidence -- just unsubstantiated accusations. For example, what are the lapses on the left concerning race? Is it liberals who are committing the hate crimes against black people these days? Are liberals trying to suppress the black vote? If you listen to Carlson, liberals are racist against white people, and that's why the white supremacists need support by the right wing. Do you buy that argument? It is all that Somerby has to support his daily attacks on us, the actual blue tribe (which Somerby left behind some time ago).

    ReplyDelete
  6. If people still haven't figured out that Nixon left office because he was a crook, then they are beyond help. Santos is mocked because he is also obviously a crook.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "In our view, it's also obvious that she isn't an education writer. In our view, that became clear when we read this passage:

    KAMIN (1/15/23): At least 73 percent of Black eighth graders in the [Shaker Heights] district were reading at or above grade level in 2011; by 2021, that number had dropped precipitously to about 27 percent, according to Ohio’s Department of Education.

    On their own, those numbers don't tell us anything about the ghosted kids of Shaker Heights. Thanks to decades of not caring, editors at the New York Times show no sign of knowing such things, nor do they seem to care."

    On its own, that passage written by Somerby doesn't tell us anything about why he is critical of Kamin. Is it because she didn't report the NAEP scores for black kids? Is it because she neglects to say that some portion of the drop is due to the pandemic? The article itself is about shifts in real estate, causing a 5% decrease in black school enrollment in Shaker Heights as black families move to nearby suburbs.

    First, none of the kids in Shaker Heights are being "ghosted." That's ridiculous. Second, Somerby complains about education writing in an article about real estate. Third, the article is about parent perceptions and consists mostly of interviews, not statistics. Fourth, no one in the article complains about neglect of their kids' needs. They mention lack of support at home to help struggling kids. In what sense is the word "ghosted" appropriate?

    ghosted definition: "Ghosting, also known as simmering or icing, is a colloquial term which describes the practice of ending all communication and contact with another person without any apparent warning or justification and ignoring any subsequent attempts to communicate."

    Has this happened in Shaker Heights? No. And Kamin doesn't say so either -- this is Somerby's construction. It is an ugly one, since it implies that Ohio is behaving the way the South did just after the Brown v Board of Education decision, where it entirely ignored the courts and continued to fail to provide schools for black children (not just unequal schools, but frequently no schools at all). That is far from what has happened in Shaker Heights.

    But this is Somerby's posturing, his own pretend virtue signaling, that is really a diversion. You want to talk about Santos? Well, why aren't you talking about the lack of black kids in gifted programs in Shaker Heights, OH? You filthy liberals claim to care about black kids, well what about those disappeared kids?

    Somerby cares about those kids so very very much that he doesn't even bother to explain why he is picking on Kamin today (and yesterday, when he was just as nasty and just as mysterious about why). And why does Somerby criticize Kamin's education writing when she is talking about shifts in demographics as black families change suburbs?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob didn't comment on it but I will post some excerpts.

    Bob Woodward, author of All the President's Men (1974), has a strong Old Boys Network background. He is the son of a Republican judge and a Yale graduate with a stint in the Navy as a liaison officer for the Task Force 157, an Office of Naval Intelligence operation. This ONI Task Force, using the top secret SR-1 channel, coordinated communiques between the CIA, NSA, DIA, NSC, and the State Department. Most likely Woodward continued his spooky work, while writing for the Washington Post, a cover which quite frankly would be hard to beat.

    Woodward himself said that "Watergate was about covert activities [which] involve the whole US intelligence community and are incredible. Deep Throat [Woodward's informant] refused to give specifics because it is against the law. 'The cover-up has little to do with Watergate, but was mainly to protect the covert operation." (p. 371)

    Whose covert operations? The CIA's? Task Force 157, the FBI joint Chiefs, NSA, DIA? These were not questions that the Post was willing to raise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if Woodward said such stuff, where was his proof? Anyone can invent a conspiracy theory. It remains fantasy until evidence is provided.

      Delete
    2. Woodward that investigated Watergate? Are you aware of what you are asking?

      Delete
    3. I am saying that you cannot cite Woodward as a source for a conspiracy theory about clandestine intelligence services during Nixon's terms without providing some evidence to support it. That Woodward had a conservative background doesn't make his or your theories true. If Woodward thought that Nixon was engaged in other activities, he still needs to have some support for his statements and so do you.

      Delete
    4. I'm quoting Woodward not trying to convince you. Interested readers can follow up, the info is all out there.

      Delete
    5. 12:33 & 12:39 - commenter that takes virtually every claim Somerby makes without proof demands proof from Woodward and another commenter.

      If this is a parody, it's sublime.

      Delete
  9. We can and should question the government's intelligence apparatus and their role in history. While Tucker's comments related to that came after his usual garbage presentation, this is not an issue the rest of the MSM seems willing to touch. There was a recent story floating around a little that the CIA had some involvement with Oswald prior to the assassination of JFK. This has been known for decades so it was basically a limited hangout, so safe for the greater MSM to report on.

    Sorry for the interruption. Now go backing to mocking Santos...

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Thanks to decades of not caring, editors at the New York Times show no sign of knowing such things, nor do they seem to care."

    Does Somerby realize that he is imploring the NY Times to care deeply about the upper middle class black children of wealthy Shaker Heights? That IS what the article is about.

    Meanwhile, Somerby himself said nothing about the difficulties of children (black or white), schools and teachers during the pandemic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Despite Tucker Carlson's flaws, as outlined by Bob, he is popular because he also reports true stories that the mainstream media misreport or ignore. One such story is the manipulation of Twitter news by the FBI and other federal agencies. This is an important story because it amounts to something like secret government censorship. The story is well-sourced, because it's based on actual documents being released by Twitter. Even if it weren't true, the conservative fuss about it would be newsworthy. Yet, the mainstream media has maintained a strict embargo.

    A question for liberals here: The media that you rely on has intentionally chosen to not report this newsworthy story. How do you feel about this? Are you bothered or disappointed or angry? Or, do you support the media's decision to ignore this story?

    Thanks for your responses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Even if it weren't true, the conservative fuss about it would be newsworthy."
      And just like that, feelings are not only back on the table, they're "newsworthy".

      Delete
    2. Well David you deserve a better response than that failed attempt to derail your reasonable comments.

      Yes, as a liberal I am both disappointed and angry that the media won't touch very relevant topics of the day. The profit model combined with laziness and cowardice and a lack of real investigative journalists willing to take risks has led us to this place and I hope we one day can escape these confines and have journalism return to it's rightful place as an occupation that has integrity and a true role in helping preserve our democracy.

      Delete
    3. And I apologize for that comma-free run-on sentence, but I was on a roll :)

      Delete
    4. I think it's scary. I don't support it.

      Delete
    5. 1;28,
      Somerby said we should listen to "the Others". He never said we had to fall for their BS about things like "feelings".
      Please leave the repeating of Right-wing bullshit to the pros, like Bob Somerby.

      Delete
    6. I don't trust anything coming out of Twitter after Elon Musk took over. He obviously has a political agenda.

      Delete
    7. @1:37PM - "as a liberal I ...."

      LOL

      Delete
    8. 1:37 is adopting the Somerby pose.

      Delete
    9. Every right wing accusation is a confession, David. Which is why I quit Twitter when the racist white supremacist Elon Mush bought it. The story you refer to has everything tailored for idiot rube marks like yourself. Most importantly, you get to play the part of the aggrieved party without any political power, while you control a 6-3 supreme court majority, the lower house of congress and a majority of state houses. Go away to wallow in your self pity, David, I am fucking sick to death of your non-stop whining. Maybe the mainstream media recognizes the fact the Matt "dick pics" Taibbi is an owned sock puppet russian stooge and paid hack of Elon Mush.

      Delete
    10. One aspect that I wonder about is how the entire mainstream media made the same decision to report nothing about this story. Perhaps they just all used the same reasoning. OTOH, I wonder whether there is some mechanism that ensured the uniformity.

      A frightening possibility is whether some agencies of the federal government persuaded the media to not report the story. That would be ironic. A story about how the federal government leans on a private new outlet to suppress a story is then suppressed by the federal government. If this is correct, it suggests that the FBI and other federal agencies may have been censoring the entire mainstream media the same ways as they were censoring Twitter. If Musk bought the New York times or CBS News, would he find the same kind of scandalous communications that were found at Twitter?

      Delete
    11. There was nothing scandalous, David. The scandal is the idea that there was a scandal, being pushed on you right wing rubes. Do you ever question your OWN media sources?

      Delete
    12. When something is NOT being reported by anyone, it strongly suggests there was nothing to report.

      Delete
    13. You can see the effects of our censored media systems and the echo chambers of disinformation they have become from the above comment at 6:02 PM. The revelations of the Twitter Files are mostly kept from him, but when he is told about it in the media he consumes, he is told that it is a nothingburger. He doesn't question his media sources. And just like cults do, he drops a 'conversation ending cliche' that the media he consumes has taught him, that the author is a "Russian Stooge". A claim that has no evidence and for years has been used to discredit and end the conversation of anyone who questions the party line, even though it's a blatantly stupid accusation.. It's a technique that was actually invented in communist China I believe. I'm not sure how we deal with this situation. It's very difficult. It makes it very difficult for reporters to accurately report stories and obviously it makes it very easy to trick the gullible.

      Delete
    14. And how did YOU learn about it, 6:27? Undoubtedly a very trustworthy source, incapable of lying or propaganda. Amazing that only YOUR sources have the truth. What a coincidence.

      Delete
    15. It is just fiction from Carlson and the QAnon right via Somerby. No one sane is reporting this.

      Delete
    16. David, you should read Manufacturing Consent if you have not. That can give you a good basis of how information is controlled at that level. The task force that was working with Twitter to censor and suppress and shadowban tweets was made up of 80 people. I think you can assume they have their fingers in the more mainstream outlets in some similar way. But you can learn from Manufacturing Consent how institutional measures will allow self-censorship to take place without any government interference.

      Delete
    17. 6:31 PM Yes, the source is as trustworthy as it gets. It is the actual emails and Slack messages between Twitter employees and the FBI.

      Delete
    18. There are no emails or messages that indicate or implicate any kind of scandal. It’s not being reported because the “issue” was a scam perpetrated by right wing nuts Weiss, Taibbi, and Musk. If you fell for it, that’s on you, sucker.

      Delete
    19. What “story” are you talking about? This post by Bob tells us A) Tucker Carlson is a stupid, greedy f@cking @sshols, which actually MSNBC does remind us of from time to time, and it also reminds us that B) the Kennedy assassination is the well Spring from which most political paranoia lflows, which is interesting if not earth shaking news.,
      MSNBC was covering a Story yesterday that relates very directly to this blog post. Fox is being sued for a billion dollars for letting it’s clown car run amok on Trump’s lies about the election. Bob will probably never write about this, unless he can find a way to grant most of the numbskulls at Fox an insanity defense too.

      Delete
    20. Joe Bob Bill is Corby.

      Delete
    21. That's right, David. You figured it out. The vast left wing conspiracy against you by the FBI, CIA, and all the mainstream media companies. You're just going to have to get a good multi-billionaire to buy all the media in order to get the evidence.

      Judge fines Trump, lawyer for ‘frivolous’ Clinton lawsuit
      And the implausible claim that Mr. Comey conspired with Ms. Clinton, given the impact of his announcements on her 2016 campaign, not only lacks substance but is categorically absurd.

      Hey David. How's the unemployment rate going? You used to report regularly when Donald J Chickenshit was president.

      Delete
    22. We already have the evidence. The Democrats and the CIA and FBI and media conspired to spread propaganda that the Trump campaign colluded and conspired with Russia in 2016. Most people don't understand how elections work and didn't look at the facts and figures which clearly show it was conspired propaganda from the start.

      Delete
    23. Who's "we", Trollboy? You have a mouse in your pocket?

      And the implausible claim that Mr. Comey conspired with Ms. Clinton, given the impact of his announcements on her 2016 campaign, not only lacks substance but is categorically absurd.

      Delete
    24. By 'we' I mean the world. Everyone in the world was told about the conspiracy of collusion and everyone in the world never received any confirmation or proof of it.

      Delete
    25. It's done. That part of our history is over. No need to pretend like it didn't happen.

      Delete
    26. Bwahahaha!! Just give John Durham a few more years and he'll prove it all. He just needs more time! LOL

      And the implausible claim that Mr. Comey conspired with Ms. Clinton, given the impact of his announcements on her 2016 campaign, not only lacks substance but is categorically absurd.

      Delete
    27. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

      Delete
    28. Judge Fines Donald Trump Nearly $1M for 'Frivolous' Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

      In an order issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote that Trump's case "should never have been brought"

      That's right, Trollboy. Donald J Chickenshit has been ordered to pay a fine to Secretary Clinton for his bullshit frivolous suit. Isn't that just perfect, trollboy?

      Delete
    29. Is that proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

      Delete
    30. Remind me again, Trollboy, what was Donald J Chickenshit going to prove with his civil suit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, several ex-FBI officials and more than two dozen other people and entities that he claims conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign by trying to vilify him with fabricated information tying him to Russia.

      A federal judge has fined Donald Trump and his attorneys nearly $1 million after the former president filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey and others — alleging them of conspiring against him during the 2016 election, by trying to link his campaign with Russia.

      Trump's suit, which was dismissed in September, had initially sought $70 million in damages, alleging that Clinton and others "sought to sway the public's trust" by tying him to Russia.

      Instead, Trump himself was fined — more than $65,000 in fees and penalties in November and now, after the defendants filed a new request for sanctions, nearly $1 million.


      Sounds an awful lot like Donald J Chickenshit was attempting to prove that which you have repeatedly stated has already been proven to the world! Is that what you're claiming, Trollboy dumdfuck?

      Delete
    31. That isn't proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Please provide some if you have it. Otherwise, the world is still waiting for it. You're acting like a fool.

      Delete
    32. 11:46:
      Fuck you, Trollboy.

      You prove your claim first, dumbfuck.

      The Democrats and the CIA and FBI and media conspired to spread propaganda that the Trump campaign colluded and conspired with Russia in 2016

      Delete
    33. You doubt that?

      Delete
    34. Then I guess you don't think the Trump campaign colluded and conspired with Russia in 2016. If you do, why do you think that? On what basis?

      Delete
    35. Do you realize how stupid you are?

      Delete
    36. "The Democrats and the CIA and FBI and media conspired to spread propaganda that the Trump campaign colluded and conspired with Russia in 2016."

      When it comes to extraordinary claims, not backed-up by any proof at all, this ones a doozy..

      Delete
    37. Did not all those parties make that claim over and over for years?

      Delete
    38. "Hillary Clinton personally approved plan to share Trump-Russia allegation with the press in 2016, campaign manager says"

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html

      You need to stop playing the fool. This whole issue is long been over.

      Delete
    39. Ooh, 12:56. Hillary wanted to tell the media something! That’s real evidence of collusion. It’s ludicrous to think the media would collude with Hillary anyway, given their 30 year war on her.

      Delete
    40. Thanks for your brilliant insight. :)

      Delete
    41. You’re welcome, 1:01. I notice you didn’t refute it.

      Delete
    42. If you don't think the media and the Clinton campaign conspired to spread a false allegation about Trump conspiring with Russia in 2016 that was aided by false leaks from the FBI, it's your business.

      Delete
    43. Yes. It was Hillary Clinton, and not the corporate-owned mainstream media--which loves the corporate tax breaks Republicans provide them---who made-up a tale excusing the out and out bigotry of Republican voters.
      Now, pull my other finger.

      Delete
    44. The mainstream media, who spent 2016 pretending to care that Republicans were pretending to care about Hillary Clinton's email protocols, colluded with Hillary Clinton?
      Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

      Delete
    45. I hear it was Hillary Clinton who came up with the "Republican voters are economically anxious" BS too.
      LOL.

      Delete
    46. 5:15,
      That's your complaint about the collusion of the mainstream media?
      Not that they refuse to say inflation is caused by lack of competitive markets, or that our elections are undemocratic because they're funded by corporations?

      Delete
    47. There’s an entire volume of the Mueller Report that details only some of the “collusion” between Trump and his Russian pals. Mueller made it clear he could not indict Trump due to rules; furthermore, Mueller is a right winger - he barely put any effort into investigating Trump.

      Trump colluded in the open, asking directly for Russia to produce material that would damage his opponent. Being openly corrupt does not preclude responsibility for that corruption.

      Those that deny Trump’s corruption are mere right wing puppets, lost souls with no moral compass.

      Delete
  12. Republicans can't get rid of George Santos for being a grifting, lying, piece of crap, without looking like total hypocrites. Though, that hasn't stopped them in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The subtext to the Santos story is the freakish lengths people will go for money and career advancement, so it actually relates to Carlson very directly. Carlson also said recently that he was wrong about the Red Wave because he was blinded by hatred. A hatred he is obviously quite proud about feeling. Isn’t embracing the pleasure of hatred obviously a huge contributing factor to the derangement we see on the right? Roger Stone has crowed that he believes hatred is stronger than love, so that’s how he fights. This is a significant part of our situation now. Bob himself doesn’t just disagree, he despises.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shorter Bobby: "Tucker is a lying, conspiracy fear- mongering a-hole, but what about Nicole Wallace?"

    ReplyDelete
  15. David @5:15 PM is curios of whether the Deep State has the command-control center. A politburo. The actual Big Brother.

    And then 6:38 PM Anon opines that Deep State cells are not likely to be tightly coordinated. They practice self-censorship.

    Fair enough. Disappearing the Twitter Files is indeed a perfectly obvious psyop that doesn't require any central control.

    But what about giving Mafia Joe a flick on the nose with suddenly discovered -- by unnamed lawyers! -- super-secret shit in his garage?

    No, dear 6:38 PM, in our humble opinion the 'garage-gate' (and the way to handle it) couldn't be implemented by a network of independent cells. It had to be a decision from the center...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would they decide to do that?

      Delete
    2. Why, perhaps they want a different figurehead? Less in-your-face-corrupt, perhaps? Not as much a laughing stock, perhaps? Someone who can read a sentence off the teleprompter? More melanin? Homo? With tits and ovaries? All of the above?

      Who knows. All we know: it's being done. Motives, we can only surmise

      Delete
    3. Motive: They hate the lowest unemployment rate in 5 decades.

      Delete
  16. Driftglass reviews the roots of Republican perfidy, including George Santos and holding the debt ceiling hostage (Newt did it to Clinton in 1995) in events preceding Trump, then quotes Charlie Sykes and David French, who have disappeared that earlier conservative history:

    "Sykes: Yeah, I wanna underline that point. It's not just that Conservatives and Republicans made a pivot back in 2015/2016 after a decades of saying that character matters to say, no, winning is all that matters...

    French: This is the story of the last seven years ... To say that has been a reality on the Right is not to then say that the Left has it all together. [Hahah!] Of course not!"

    Notice the similarity to the way Somerby today describes Carlson's off-the-wall nonsense, and then tells us his own version of "To say that has been a reality on the Right is not to then say that the Left has it all together. [Hahah!]"

    For those who do not believe that Somerby spends his time here promoting Republican memes, this one is a classic. Somerby sez "Yes, the right is bad, but so are we liberals", just like the right keeps saying. And conservative voters have learned that no matter how bad the Republicans are with their Santos and Walker and Trump misbehavior, the Democrats are worse and can never ever be allowed to govern unhindered by right wing sabotage, like this foolishness over the debt ceiling and the hijacking of House processes to enact a vendetta by investigating Hunter Biden and helping Trump evade justice.

    Meanwhile Somerby helps them along every little bit he knows how.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://driftglass.blogspot.com/2023/01/brick-by-brick-walling-off-before-time.html

      Delete