SATURDAY, JANUARY 21, 2023
Joins others in getting it wrong: Last evening, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, the Fox News Channel's "excitable boy" was excitedly at it again.
The youngster started by comparing mask policy during the pandemic to the way women are forced to wear burqas within some Islamist nations.
Mainly, though, he was excited about gas stoves—and about the Chinese Communists.
Starting with a bald misstatement about the contents of a recent report by a conservative publication, the excited and excitable fellow thrilled his viewers as shown:
CARLSON (1/20/23): So why do we suddenly know that gas stoves are a hidden hazard? Why did no one tell us this before? Where did this information come from?
Well as the Washington Free Beacon has reported, government regulators are citing a study from a group called the Rocky Mountain Institute, and the Rocky Mountain Institute recently partnered with the Chinese to implement an "economy-wide transformation of America." OK, so the Chinese government, by proxy, gets to decide how you cook your dinner, what appliances you're allowed to have in your own kitchen?
That's right, declared The Washington Post, and it's a good thing. The "hidden hazards of these appliances," the Post declared with obvious relief, "is finally getting attention."
Finally! We've been waiting for it. Can you imagine the celebration in the Post newsroom? We've been fretting about gas stoves for decades and finally the science has caught up to their concerns. Well, unfortunately for The Washington Post newsroom and the Biden administration and most of all, the Chinese government, not everyone in America was immediately on board with the idea of getting rid of your gas stoves because they're a hidden hazard.
"Most of all," it's the Chinese government! In this and in all other things!
Just for the record, no! The Rocky Mountain Institute didn't "recently partner with the Chinese" in the way this nutcase said, and the Washington Free Beacon didn't say that it did. None of that stopped the excitable boy from offering this declaration:
CARLSON: Now, remember. All of this, this moral panic on the left about gas stoves, stems from fake science about the health risks of natural gas pushed by the Communist Party of China.
"All of this" stems from the Communists! It got even stupider after that, but the excitable boy has reached the point where he's able to spot a Chinese Communist under every stove and bed.
This ridiculous figure spews such statements to millions of viewers each night. We think such conduct should be front page news, but our major journalistic organs choose to walk safer paths.
That said, and in total fairness, the misstatements can be general across the sweep of "cable news."
Our tribe often hears misstatements too. On Thursday night, to cite one possible example, Lawrence O'Donnell angrily made this statement right at the start of his program:
O'DONNELL (1/19/23): Nobody questioned the Justices themselves...No Justices were interviewed, and that line proves that no Justices were interviewed.
Lawrence angrily stressed this claim. Based on today's New York Times, it seems that his confident statement may well have been false.
Last night, the highlighted statement by Alex Wagner was pleasing but plainly false. Wagner made this inaccurate statement in the first minute of her own show:
WAGNER (1/20/23): Fox News didn't cover the hearings. Every other major network did. Fox News ignored the January 6 committee hearings entirely.
Through a visual appearing behind her, Wagner cited this NPR report as the source of her statement. (Headline: "Only one major cable news channel did not carry the Jan. 6 hearing live: Fox News.")
In fact, that NPR report only concerned the committee's first public hearing, the one which was held in prime time.
In fact, the Fox News Channel did broadcast the January 6 committee's daytime hearings. You can refresh yourself on this point in this AP report.
In all honesty, the current structure of cable news is built for inaccurate statements.
Few others approach insanity in the reliable manner of Carlson. But whether the channel is red or blue, hosts proceed secure in the knowledge that none of their guests will ever question, challenge or contradict their various statements, whether true or false.
Bookings are done on a "members only" basis. Seldom is heard a discouraging word. Human nature takes over from there.
Wagner made other factual errors in her opening segment last night, along with some logical lapses. That said, she focused on a very important topic in a highly appropriate way.
She focused on the reign of misstatement and factual error which emerged from the Fox News Channel in the wake of the 2020 election. More specifically, she focused on the $1.6 billion lawsuit being brought against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems.
Good lord! Rupert Murdoch was questioned, under oath, for the past two days in this highly promising defamation suit. If MSNBC was willing to post transcripts of its TV shows—it's fairly obvious why the corporate behemoth stopped doing that—we could show you more of what Wagner and her two guests said.
Could Dominion's massive lawsuit help bring Fox News down? Could such suits force the channel to rein in its relentless misconduct?
We can't answer such questions. To her credit, Wagner was willing to discuss the channel's behavior in a direct (if sometimes erroneous) way at the start of last night's program.
That said, Tucker had been screeching away, in his normal manner, just one hour earlier. Needless to say, Wagner returned to a safer topic—the pleasurable gong-shows of George Santos—before her program was done.
How can members of our blue tribe peel voters away from the red? As our millionaire corporate tribunes script us in our talking points, they simply never ask such questions—and we think the word "never" is justified.
Tucker was screeching away last night. He does so night after after night after night, and our major journalistic organs rarely take any real notice.
Someday, we may stop pleasuring ourselves in the predictable ways and instead start asking ourselves such basic questions as these:
In what sorts of ways could we work to bring such lunacy down? In what ways might we stop talking to ourselves—to "our favorite reporters and friends," even including our "very dear friends," and to no one else on the planet?
In what ways might we hope to show (some of) The Others that what they're hearing is wrong? What sorts of approaches might work?
That's a fairly obvious question. Have you ever seen any such question asked?
""All of this" stems from the Communists!"
Hmm. Okay, dear Bob, point taken: "all of this" does not stem from the Communists.
...so, where does it stem from, all those gas stoves-related horrors? Incomparable Tucker Carlson has his hypothesis -- what about you? Your brain-dead tribe? Please enlighten.
Your a total nutcase, obnoxious too, and you should really put a sock in it.Delete
Is Mao just a clown, or is he part of the Right-wing griftosphere?Delete
Oxides of nitrogen.ReplyDelete
Get a range hood, dear dembot. And leave normal ordinary humyns alone, to deal with their alleged health risks as they see fit.Delete
Yeah. The working class needs to suck it up and buy a range hood with their meager salaries. The Great and Powerful Mao has spoken.Delete
BTW, Mao, do you ever get tired of shitting on the poor?
Note the typical, standard-issue Right-wing totalitarianism on display in Mao's screed.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
That this argument flips on a dime is something that Tucker pointed out last week.Delete
If people complain about some constraint, or an imperative, it means that they don’t give a damn about the environment or about other people, etc.
However, if the complains reach a certain media level, then the script flips to the problem being the overwrought imaginations of these same people. It’s suddenly all a conspiracy theory that these fools have embraced. .
That happens here endlessly. Especially in a discussion of CRT or equity goals in education.
Who could possibly call you a fool for believing CRT is taught in K-12 schools?
Everyone here knows you truly believe that nonsense because it tickles your bigotry.
Tucker is being ridiculous. No one could possibly think Right-wingers are faking their love of bigotry.Delete
Everything else they complain about, yes--probably faked--but the bigotry, it's the only thing they really care about.
Faux right wing whiney grievance outrage manufactured and pounded into the Crazytowne rube population thru the right wing media industrial complex. Remember how outraged rush Limpdick was when he heard Obama was taking away your incandescent light bulbs?Delete
Bwahahaha!! I am sure you found that outrageous also, Cecelia.
How could I have forgotten the anonymouse all-purpose script-flip?Delete
Would you rather us make something up about Right-wingers instead?
I’ve seen no evidence that the right cares about the environment.Delete
Anonymouse 10:29am, you mean make something up again?Delete
Cecelia you’re a man that pretends to be a woman that defends the immorality of right wingers. Your righteous has zero credibility.Delete
Until you stop crucifying others for your own sins, you’ll never find peace.
Why don't you go help Rationalist find that Republican voter who cares about something other than bigotry and white supremacy.
I'll have my great, great grand-kids hold the fort down until you get back.
If you, and the Right, have anything besides bigotry and white supremacy you care about, you might want to try to let us know. Good luck.
Anonymouse 11am, guns, dogs, God, and pickup trucksDelete
Not necessarily in that order.
Thanks for asking.
Bigotry of course comes first, and owning libs goes between God and pickup trucks. Notice sex is not on the list, nor love, nor family, nor art, music, beer or world peace.Delete
Cecelia's life is a country music cliche, suggesting she is more likely an Eastern European on a troll farm listening to Dolly Parton.Delete
Anonymouse 10:53am, I have no problem with you thinking I’m a man. By all means, whatever floats your boat.Delete
Anonymouse 1:13pm, nor Digby.
Anonymouse 1:15pm, Slim Whitman.
Nobody is fooled , you dork. By all means, pretend you’re a woman, it’s just weird considering all your (phony) moral panic over gender identity.Delete
On the contrary, Einstein.Delete
Your fixation upon my gender is weird considering YOUR take on what determines gender.
"That said, and in total fairness, the misstatements can be general across the sweep of "cable news."ReplyDelete
There is nothing fair, much less totally fair, about ignoring the matter of degree. Carlson's misstatements are many orders of magnitude (i.e., hugely distorted and untrue) compared to the occasional misstatement made in the mainstream cable news media. Further, Carlson's disinformation is deliberate, whereas mistakes in the mainstream media are usually accidental or result from incomplete info due to the immediacy of reporting breaking news.
There is no planet where it is fair to equate what Carlson does with what occurs in the sweep of mainstream cable news. Somerby knows that, but he says this shit anyway. And that makes him part of the right wing noise machine, defending Carlson by equating him with legitimate news sources, and excusing his excesses by calling him disturbed by childhood divorce (as if that could cause what Carlson is). This is so unfair on Somerby's part that it approaches total unfairness.
If Tucker was the a-hole Somerby makes him out to be, he'd be the Speaker of the House right now.Delete
"We think such conduct should be front page news, but our major journalistic organs choose to walk safer paths."ReplyDelete
Somerby thinks the press should call out other press, such as Tucker Carlson's disinformation. It does that regularly, reporting real news for interested viewers. It doesn't have to get person with Carlson, to disconfirm his conspiracy theories and present more reliable information. It is odd that Somerby doesn't recognize that the mainstream press has been doing this all along.
Is it safer to not pick fights with propaganda sites by name? Maybe, but it is also a huge waste of time to attack public figures instead of going after the disinformation itself, contradicting it with facts and better sources. Nothing will change what Tucker does -- he makes too much money doing it, and is viewers are true believers (even Somerby, who can't seem to quit Tucker).
Has Somerby ever urged his readers to stick with mainstream media because it has better facts than Tucker? No. In fact, Somerby has urged the opposite. He has told his liberal readers to go watch Fox and Tucker, because they have better facts over there -- by which he apparently means the anecdotes and manufactured outrage over unverified tidbits, such as that New England labor unions didn't allow electrical workers to visit hurricane sites in FL and help restore power. A total lie. Just like this one about China forcing the US to ban gas stoves.
It seems pretty obvious which side Somerby is on. Not the side of truth and reliable information -- he attacks the mainstream media every chance he gets. And if he advocates an alternative, it is a right wing monster such as Carlson, not any progressive news site.
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Identifying who it is that is shouting fire in a movie theatre is the responsibility of mainstream media and has been neglected to the detriment of this country for years. Jon Stewart was left to do that. Somerby has never to my knowledge recommended Fox as a news source.Delete
Jon Stewart? That’s all you can think of? Here are some prominent fact checking web sites:
Media Matters for America
Washington Post Fact Checker
Columbia journalism review
Also, if you actually watch MSNBC, you will see frequent criticisms of Fox News from Chris Hayes and Lawrence O’Donnell, among others. You are not likely to hear about that from Somerby, because he pretends it’s all “Trump Trump Trump” all the time there, a blatant falsehood.
Also, if you read Somerby carefully, he frequently urges his readers to watch Carlson because he sometimes has facts which, according to Somerby, “our” media doesn’t report. Somerby doesn’t bother to show how Carlson uses those facts in service of propaganda.
Here’s another small example of how Somerby doesn’t stand anymore for what you think he does:
The recent revelations about Biden and classified documents vs Trump.
When Carol Leonnig and others on MSNBC, like Nicolle Wallace, tried to show how the situation with Biden was substantially different than with Trump, Somerby was having none of it. In other words, MSNBC was trying to show how the right wing reaction was false equivalence. They were doing precisely what you claim they should be doing, and Somerby complained!
And, Unamused, one more observation: you use the term “mainstream media” as if it excludes Fox News, which has bigger ratings than the other cable news networks. Why are they not “mainstream?” By describing them that way, you allow them to essentially take no responsibility for their own shit, which in your view apparently is the job of other “mainstream” (ie not Fox) news sources to attempt to debunk.Delete
Must be attractive, the thought of me starting up a right wing hate propaganda network, where I get to say whatever shit I want, and watch the “unamused” world lay the blame for my behavior on the mainstream press for not debunking me.
"In fact, the Fox News Channel did broadcast the January 6 committee's daytime hearings. You can refresh yourself on this point in this AP report.ReplyDelete
In all honesty, the current structure of cable news is built for inaccurate statements. "
Somerby has a valid point. Fox did broadcast some of the 1/6 hearings. But he also is wrong when he ignores the nuances of what they did and did not broadcast.
Fox did not broadcast the first hearing. The fact of it occurring in primetime is irrelevant, since they didn't broadcast it at any other time either. Fox did broadcast portions of the subsequent hearings. As noted in the AP article that Somerby cites, Fox cut away from those hearings it did begin showing in daytime.
But Fox is also known for ignoring news affecting right wing figures, while the mainstream media covers such news. It disappears plenty, such as stories about Santos and Schlapp and the MAGA GOP candidate who shot up Democratic homes and offices in New Mexico. These days, it has been ignoring Trump. It has an agenda that dictates what it covers.
Is a political agenda OK but a "news structure" is not? Further, Somerby asserts that guests never disagree with hosts on cable news, but what is the evidence that this is a policy and not a matter of the hosts summarizing what the guests will say, and not the guests supporting the hosts? The guests tend to be the experts, after all.
Fox is being sued by Dominion for deliberate false reporting. What is Somerby's evidence that Alex Wagner's mistake is motivated by a political agenda, or that it isn't simply imperfect recall of what Fox did do initially, which was suppress the hearing while all other news stations carried it, or did Alex Wagner go on later in her show to admit that Fox did show some of the later hearings? We don't know because Somerby himself is less than reliable when it comes to telling his readers what he has left out of each day's diatribe. I don't know, but Somerby has crossed that line before, most recently when he never told his readers about that pain treatment task that the white subjects showed bias on -- disappearing it entirely from three weeks of continuous whining about the rating scale (one would think that was all the study was about).
Alex Wagner's mistake is trivial and it is also half-true and most likely an honest mistake. It has no impact on anything, especially since Fox is so blatantly biased in many ways -- including the repeated false reports that got it sued. Is Wagner wrong in he spirit of her remark? Not at all. Fox is a cess pool of lies and an entirely untrustworthy source, that has shown its bias in many ways, including ignoring the first hearing. She just isn't wrong enough for Somerby to use as an example of bothsiderism comparing Fox with legitimate news sources. Somerby makes himself look ridiculous by asserting such a false equivalence.
"Few others approach insanity in the reliable manner of Carlson."ReplyDelete
I wish this were true, but it isn't.
"If MSNBC was willing to post transcripts of its TV shows—it's fairly obvious why the corporate behemoth stopped doing that" -- yes, it is obvious. Costs. Somerby won't tell you this, but Fox doesn't post transcripts either.ReplyDelete
MSNBC transcripts are available at other sites. Somerby has posted from them himself (suggesting he does read his comments, given that I directed people to transcripts recently, after Somerby was complaining about them again). Why must MSNBC spend the money when others are producing transcripts?
"Needless to say, Wagner returned to a safer topic—the pleasurable gong-shows of George Santos—before her program was done."ReplyDelete
There is nothing pleasurable to the left about what Santos has done, who he is. If Wagner did not talk about him, Somerby might accuse her of disappearing him, as Fox has done.
Somerby has no clue how painful it is to watch our country behaving in crazy ways, from Santos to Carlson to Somerby himself. Calling this pleasurable demonstrates Somerby's lack of empathy, a hallmark of the right wing, and his inability to understand that liberals are not like conservatives, we don't find joy in destruction, hurting others, watching our country default on the debt. We are not like the right, who considers this winning.
Cue trolls to tell us we are being sanctimonious as we defend against this kind of false accusation by Somerby.
You're being sanctimonious. (And wrong.)Delete
1:07 gets it right, I appreciate your comment.Delete
"How can members of our blue tribe peel voters away from the red? As our millionaire corporate tribunes script us in our talking points, they simply never ask such questions—and we think the word "never" is justified."ReplyDelete
It is not the job of the mainstream media to help the left peel away voters from the red tribe. Further, the left will not win elections by peeling away conservative voters. That is a waste of effort. The left wins elections by motivating its own voters to vote and by attracting left-leaning independents. It would be just as wrong for the mainstream media to show a left bias as it is for Fox to be the official cable news outlet of the right wing, as it has been since its inception. Their job is to report news accurately and leave the campaigning to the political parties.
What may be confusing Somerby is that truth has a leftist bias because people on the left tend to value truth whereas the right prioritizes winning at any cost, including via lies and disinformation -- which is why the right will not throw Santos out of Congress.
"In what sorts of ways could we work to bring such lunacy down? In what ways might we stop talking to ourselves—to "our favorite reporters and friends," even including our "very dear friends," and to no one else on the planet?"ReplyDelete
Is Somerby really unaware that Fox doesn't invite the left onto its shows?
If the mainstream media starts inviting lunatics onto its programs, I will know it is time to move to another country.
Members of cults are notoriously difficult to deprogram.ReplyDelete
Here is an article in The Conversation that describes how to talk to those who believe conspiracy theories. That's a group that now includes Somerby, since he is presenting his own theory about how the mainstream media controls the minds of liberals:
The Conversation? Here’s The Conversation:Delete
Somerby claims Alex Wagner got it wrong when she suggested that the justices were not interviewed. That may be technically incorrect, but here is why many people are claiming that the investigation did not include the justices:ReplyDelete
"According to a report from the New York Times' Jodi Kantor, court employees feel they were unfairly interrogated while the nine justices sat on the sideline and faced far less scrutiny.
Legal experts are questioning the thoroughness of the investigations, with one pointing out, "Whether the ‘employees’ who were subjected to the investigation includes the justices themselves remains unclear, and the speculation amongst legal industry commentators is that the nine were not included in the search for the leaker — and it certainly doesn’t include any of their spouses,” and those staffers are now raising the same concerns."
So who leaked? Probably Thomas or Alito.Delete
All indications point to Alito. This Supreme Court is corrupt to the core.Delete
This is the kind of reporting that Somerby used to do:ReplyDelete
It comes from Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog, which often has media commentary.
Instead, Somerby targets female reporters with specious nitpicks and invented nothingburgers, while telling us to pity Tucker and to always watch him every day because the "facts" are different over on Fox. You bet they are!
Well, were the Justices interviewed or not? If O”Donnell had totally screwed up (which he does from time to time, he also has a a Trumpian habit, everything must be the most or biggest in our history) then say so, but if he only seemed to screw up you can count on no correction from Bob. And as has been pointed out, Wagner was PARTLY wrong, and Fox’s overpaid frothers no doubt treated the hearings as one plot or another, probably worse than Bob bitching that Republicans are not represented on the committee but will never tell you had that came to be.ReplyDelete
So all that makes them equal to the sub mental bullshit of Carlson, the man who is quite proud of his hate. An aspect of Carlson Bob will never mention.
A number of cities are banning gas stoves in new construction, based on the idea that electric stove emit less CO2. (IIRC they may be banning gas heating in new construction.) But, gas actually causes more CO2 emissions than electricity, when you take into account how the electricity is currently generated. Energy from water power, wind, solar and biomass are pretty limited. So, extra electric energy used by stoves will come from increased use of fossil fuels, predominantly coal. However, burning natural gas causes much less CO@ emissions than burning coal or oil.ReplyDelete
So, why is there a move to ban gas stoves? I wish I knew.
Electric power can come from nuclear reactors, too.Delete
There's also been some house fire incidents with gas stoves in recent years. In Andover, MA forty homes caught fire due to a gas surge.Delete
David says: “ I wish I knew.”Delete
Translation: I have no intention of finding out.
"So, why is there a move to ban gas stoves? I wish I knew."
Yes, precisely, dear David. Where liberal-elitist authorities make seemingly absurd, unexplainable, far-reaching decisions, normal-ordinary humyns struggle to find an explanation.
...and this is how they might come up with "all of this stems from the Communists!" and shit like that. Can you blame them?
...yeah, dear Bob, who do you blame for the miserable state of the nation? Incomparable Tucker Carlson? Please enlighten.
David raises a good question. I have another one for David. Why does it take Donald J Chickenshit 10 to 15 flushes when he takes a shit? Any ideas David?Delete
It was Joe Biden, not Tucker Carlson, who presided over the lowest unemployment rate in 5 decades. And it pissed-off Mao's Establishment elite bosses so much that workers had leverage over them, they raised the interest rates to throttle the economy and hurt workers ability to gain wage increases.Delete
Banning gas stoves has arisen as a topic due to concerns over how it affects the health of children, not over CO2 emissions.Delete
In California, the fifth largest economy in the world, so by far the most significant state, you can opt to have your electricity 100 percent generated by renewables and it’s roughly the same price, so many people do opt for that - and that’s in the most populous state in the country.
The nonsense coming from right wingers is tragic, since it’s generally a function of unresolved childhood trauma leading to an undying obsession with dominance. Today Somerby asks the dumbest question; how right wingers vote is baked in at an early age, there are no votes on the right to “peel off”. Why Somerby keeps insisting on exposing himself as an utter moron daily is not so much a mystery as a plaintive wail of misery.
Tucker Carlson and the Republicans in the House are trying to reintroduce smoking into public places. Tucker has even been implying that smoking is good for people. Digby says:ReplyDelete
"That’s not just about “freedom” to kill yourself with cancer. He’s portraying it as good for you. Even the vaccine and mask deniers don’t suggest that getting COVID is fun. But hey, why not get everyone using meth or cocaine.? Of course they don’t give other people cancer which I guess Tucker thinks must be one of the “fun” aspects of it. Enjoy your cancer folks!
Is it just me or is he sounding crazier and crazier? I honestly think that the number of people who want to re-introduce smoking cigarettes into our culture is pretty small. Only 12% of population smokes now. Way more people use cannabis."
Digby says WTH, but I think it is probably that they are being paid to shill for the tobacco industry again. This is a very good reason not to listen to that guy, or Somerby when he urges us to watch Tucker's show.
Tucker is jacked-up on the thrill of knowing his viewers will kill themselves if he tells them to.Delete
This is a guy who jumped the line to get his lifesaving vaccination, and then spent the next year telling his viewers not to get it.
Off topic, but relating to Somerby’s frequent labeling of Trump as crazy and delusional.ReplyDelete
From Judge Middlebrooks’ recent decision sanctioning Trump and his lawyer:
“Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” Judge Middlebrooks wrote....
“He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions.”
Kind of flies in the face of Somerby’s view of Trump as a pitiful chump in the grip of some unspecified mental illness.
Not really. You have either misread him or are intentionally misrepresenting what he wrote.Delete
Or maybe it is you who is misreading or misrepresenting Somerby?Delete
Trump is pretending to be a doofus who stole a bunch of empty folders as souvenirs. Somerby will say Trump is mentally ill, but this strikes me as another strategy to delay and confuse those pursuing justice, yet another abuse of the legal process. I think mh has things right and Somerby has things wrong when it comes to Trump's motives.
They just found more documents with classified markings at Biden’s home.Delete
The doc were from Biden’s time in the senate. His last year there was 2009.
The media does a terrible job of lending context to any issue. They cannot get their spin out of the way.
Oh, dear. Burisma, then Tara Reade, and now this. It makes us sad. What is the world coming to?
We are discussing Trump…Delete
Well mh should provide some sources for her claims.Delete
Or mh should provide some sources that square her logic that one cannot be crazy and delusional and be also be a mastermind of strategic abuse of the Court system.Delete
Craziness implies dysfunction. The word crazy is not a real psychiatric term so you can’t get too precise about its clinical meaning. Trump has been described by associates as deeply stupid but he’s been working the courts his whole life, learning to do it at his daddy’s knee. Remember Fred sending him to housing court?Delete
Have you asked mh what pronouns are preferred?Delete
Cecelia: When is Donald J Chickenshit going to invite the DOJ to search his various other properties, including Bedminster and Trump Tower?Delete
No, MH what are your preferred pronouns?Delete
Well I think mh"s is original comment was poorly thought out and inaccurate. And, as usual, they provided no sources to back up their claims. But what else is new? That's how trolls roll.Delete
Anonymouse 4:03pm, actually, all they need is a warrant.Delete
Whoa, apparently dembots believe the DOJ are vampires...
You can use the search box on Somerby’s blog as easily as anyone else. Use terms: Trump crazy pity.Delete
Cecelia, sounds like you don’t know how a warrant is obtained.Delete
Anonymouse 4:11pm, sounds like you don’t remember recent history.Delete
4:10 I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on the troll making the claim. So thus far, the troll's claim means nothing. Frankly it's boring. And so are you.Delete
We were all here and read what Somerby wrote for ourselves. You are the one who needs remedial reading.Delete
Cecelia, yes they would need a warrant, if the target is not fully cooperating and doesn't willingly INVITE the DOJ to search, as President INVITED the DOJ to search. You're really stupid, you know that?Delete
Anonymouse 4;50am, no, I thought a warrant was obtained for people who invited authorities to search their homes or who agreed to a search.Delete
Bottomline, they don’t need permission. They don’t need “negotiation”. The fact that any of that happens does not change one iota of culpability if it is a crime for particular people in particular positions to harbor such documents.
You’re watching a type of theater here.
Yeah, dembots are desperate. The garage-gate hit them as hard as the Mueller report.
They’re as sharp as dough and they spend the majority of their lives calling other people dumb.Delete
Cecelia, in order to get a warrant, an authority needs evidence and they need to specify the materials sought and relate them to some official purpose, such as a crime. They cannot just go ask for one and receive one. And no, authorities cannot invade people's privacy without good reason. The permission comes from a court (judge). People generally give permission when they are not guilty of anything and have nothing to lose from a search.Delete
It is not a crime for Biden to have secret documents in any of his positions (senate, VP, president). It might be a crime for him to fail to return them as a private citizen, depending on the circumstances. Trump insisted that he owned documents belonging to the public and refused to give them back after leaving office, which is definitely a crime -- the nature of the specific crime again depends on the circumstances but can even include treason. There is no question of that with Biden because he didn't know he had any documents and he immediately cooprated with returning them, inviting the DOJ to search and not requiring court action, as in Trump's case. There is no equivalence and NO, this is not "theater".
You ignorance is astounding.
Right, anonymouse 5:36pm, no one has heard these arguments before. let alone to have understood the vast complexities of the grounds for a warrant.Delete
No, harboring classified documents in a careless manner can be crime. A garage woujd qualify. The level of cooperation once discovered is incidental to level of risk involved.
You can salute Biden’s…largess… in cooperating in the face of a political firestorm that embroils him with Trump, but that just makes you dumb as to both law and politics .
Lots of other people understand this stuff -- just not you.Delete
As a lesbian and a Democrat, I was saddened that the Mueller Report yielded no indictments and no proof of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in their election interference activities.Delete
The years and years of speculation otherwise turned out to be flimflam. It brings me great pride when my fellow Democrats accept and speak the truth
Mueller is a Republican who protected Trump.Delete
Mueller, as a right winger, barely investigated Trump, yet his report resulted in many indictments and convictions, and detailed just some of the corrupt connections between Trump and Russia.Delete
Historically Russia has always been a right wing populous, innovating towards fascism, which is why the attempt at communism failed there - risibly, it could only go as far as state capitalism.
Russia flourished during the Trumps years, but is now getting their ass handed to them in the Biden years.
Correction: the Mueller report yielded not one indictment for anything that had to do with the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia in their election interference activities. The primary focus of the investigation did not yield any indictments, unfortunately.Delete
This is a 180 degree change from the Anonymouse stance against any and all doubt Bob expressed as to the abilities of Mueller and company.Delete
Cece: let's stick to the facts for now, okay?Delete
The facts from the quizzes. Mueller gave swing state polling data to a KGB operative that was used to microtarget swing states with disinformation, and ultimately deny Hillary Rodham Clinton of her rightful election as president.Delete
Now Mueller is a traitor and Russian asset rather than merely being an establishment neocon.Delete
We’ll put him right up there with Comey The God.
Speaking of memory holes, don't forget when Don Jr said "if you release the Podesta emails later in the summer via WikiLeaks, I'm loving every minute of it.".Delete
I imagine that Don, Jr, rather than Podesta would be pleased as to the public exposure of John’s emails.Delete
I haven’t seen that quote though. Reference it, please.
Anonymouse 8:14am is me.Delete
The report specifically detailed how Donald Jr brought the KGB "sandwiches" in the stairwell of Trump Tower in the late spring of 2016. But we all know that was just a disingenuous excuse on the part of the semi handsome young dauphin. He was giving them polling data funneled through WikiLeaks vis-a-vis Roger Stone that was used to swing the election six months later.Delete
How many other anonymous comments are yours, Cecelia?Delete
Anonymouse 909am, the ones I alert you to after I’ve reflexively commented to a comment via email posts links of TDH responses.Delete
Anonymouse 9:91am, what did Perkins Coie give to the Russians?Delete
Perkins Coie was merely furnishing them with information on how to feed and care for hungry children.Delete
Because that’s who Russians are.,,Delete
Anonymouse 9:91am, please link that report.Delete
Anonymouse 9:01am, please link it.Delete
My God, Cecelia. You are obsessed with shadow boxing with “anonymices”. You seem to be triggered by them.Delete
Anonymouse 9:57. consider your statement here when you encounter twelve anonymices posts of ten paragraphed replies to Bob.Delete
I’m just asking for link.
Trump gifted Putin some Cuban Links through intermediaries and cutouts associated with Julian Assange.Delete
Nobody called Comey a God except Somerby trolling dems.Delete
Yes, because Somerby didn’t trust Comey while you sainted him as you did Mueller.Delete
Now you’re putting all that down the memory hole,
Tomorrow begins the 4th Annual News Literacy Week. For info, see:ReplyDelete
Is That a Fact? PodcastDelete
"For the second season of Is that a fact?, we’re exploring the origins of false narratives and the harm they cause. We know that sharing misinformation is misleading and leaves people poorly informed, but we wanted to go deeper and explore how fictional information starts and then bubbles to the surface to misdirect the country’s civic and cultural discourse. Listen this season as we explore false narratives related to the country’s most important issues and events, including the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, school shootings, immigration, political parties and more."
Take these quizzes to see how good you are at sifting through misinformation in the news:Delete