As indictment nears for Donald J. Trump...


...Ruth Marcus says she's nervous: It's widely alleged that indictment is nearing for one Donald J. Trump.

Blue cable cares about little else, especially between the hours of 4 and 6 P.M. Eastern. Just like that, along comes Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, tossing a soggy wet blanket atop all the excitement and fun.

Marcus Aurelius was more fun than this! Headline included, Marcus's buzz-kill, kill-joy combo platter starts exactly like this:

New York’s Stormy Daniels case against Trump is much thornier than it looks

If you hope that Donald Trump will face criminal charges for at least some of his misdeeds, there is a prospect worse than the possibility that the former president won’t be indicted. It is that he will be charged and escape punishment anyway.

When you strike at a king, you must kill him, the saying goes, and it applies with force in the case of Trump, who would inevitably use the mere fact of indictment as evidence of a supposed liberal plot against him, and then deploy an acquittal (or dismissal of any charges) as convincing proof of the conspiracy.

Which is why, as much as I’d like to see Trump held to account, I am nervous about reports that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) is poised to seek an indictment of Trump relating to the payoffs he orchestrated to silence a onetime lover, porn star Stormy Daniels...

Marcus says she's "nervous about reports" that Trump will soon get indicted in the Stormy Daniels case. In fairness to Marcus, here's why: 

As others have done, Marcus describes the legalistic jumping-through-hoops required to bump the possible charge in this case up to the level of a felony. Along the way, Marcus omits a further embarrassing fact:

District Attorney Bragg—and yes, he's a Democrat (D)—seemed to decide last year that he wouldn't be bringing a charge in this case. In the face of predictable clatter in Gotham, the gentleman then changed his mind.

This guarantees that any prosecution in this case will be seen as a political prosecution. It makes it harder for any honest anti-Trump Democrat to say that any such charge will be false.

By standard accounts, Bragg will have to jump through hoops to generate a felony charge in this matter. Marcus says she wants "to see Trump held to account," apparently for what he did in this specific matter, but she's afraid he'll escape conviction if he's actually charged.

Good God! Marcus even goes so far as to say that Trump "might have a point" in an objection he recently posted on his crackpot site, Truth Social. 

When's the last time Trump "had a point?" That's how bad this whole thing gets!

We disagree with Marcus in one major way. We don't want "to see Trump held to account" for what he did in this matter. We're embarrassed for our own blue tribe, and for the human race in general, as we watch Nicolle Wallace go on and on for two hours each day about the need for a prosecution.

What's at issue in this particular case? This is what's at issue:

Daniels says that she and Trump had consensual sex, on one (1) occasion, back in 2006. Trump says the correct number is actually zero (0).

We would be inclined to assume that Daniels' claim is accurate. The problem starts ten years later, in the middle of the 2016 White House campaign, when Daniels' rep got in touch with lover boy seeking a big pile of cash.

To this day, we have no idea why Daniels isn't being charged with a crime in this matter. Here's why we say that:

If you watch red tribe cable, you're told that Daniels' conduct was a form of extortion or blackmail. If you watch blue tribe cable, you'll never see that claim analyzed or refuted. 

On blue tribe cable, the stars protect you from ever confronting any such buzzkill notion. This is the way our pseudo-discourse works now that we Americans live in two different tribal worlds.

We can't speak to the legality of Daniels' conduct, other than to say that it certainly seems like a type of extortion to us. We can tell you this:

We don't want to see presidential elections polluted by last minute claims about who had consensual sex with whom ten years in the past. 

Within our transparently phony blue tribe, we love to speak, all day long, about "our democracy," which we pretend to hold sacred. We then turn around and announce that we want our White House elections to turn on such low-IQ garbage as this.

Ten years later, Stormy decided that she wanted a big sack of cash. Our tribe is so pathetic and sad that we wish wish wish wish wish wish wish that she had just gone ahead and squealed back in 2016.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep. In truth, our vastly self-impressed blue tribe is secretly empty and sad.

Could Trump be helped by this indictment? Plainly yes, he could be (or possibly not). 

As Marcus suggests, Trump could end up being helped by a failed prosecution. But within the context of our broken modern culture, something else is more important:

An indictment in this stupid matter would be thrilling, exciting and fun. No one would talk about anything else. We could enjoy this for years!


  1. "We're embarrassed for our own blue tribe, and for the human race in general..."

    Hey, nothing's wrong with us humyns, dear Bob. We're fine, thanks.

    ...and would've been even better -- much better -- if your retarded tribe stayed away from our affairs...

  2. Indicting Trump will have zero influence on the election. No one is changing their minds about whether to vote for Trump, or against him, by whether he's been indicted.
    Besides, everything is political.

  3. Remember how deeply troubled the
    right was that their attacks on Bill
    Clinton (or pick a number) would be
    seen as (gasp!) political?
    You know, the party that started
    chanting the opposition candidate
    should be locked up at their
    national conventions?
    I think we should go with that.
    And remember that our flawed but
    necessary judicial system is the
    ONLY reason we are not now
    living under Donald Trump as
    self appointed dictator for life.
    A situation Bob would find far
    superior than having to curb
    his pathological hatred of
    Nichole Wallace.
    But Bob is, after all, a weirdo.

  4. The antics of Paula Jones and Monica
    Lewinsky both reeked of elements of
    extortion, which has been buried in
    the bullshit din as years went by, while
    the likes of Bob said nothing.
    Obvious crackpots like Tara Reid
    and Juanita Broadrick have been
    celebrated by the mainstream press,
    again. Silence from Bob.
    So, if Stormy can be shown to
    having held Trump up let’s charge
    her or sue her. But Bob is seeking
    a Fox News solution for a reality

    1. Wait, what was Monica Lewinsky's "antic"?

    2. What about her wasn’t?

    3. You made a statement, which means you have to back it up. Just being coy doesn't cut it. She was very young and exploited by a much older man, who should've known better. In the end, she is the only person who emerged from that fiasco looking like a decent human being.

    4. Monica never did anything like extortion.

    5. Fellating a married man is not decent.

    6. By the same logic, it was indecent of Bill Clinton to do it. Not to mention stupid. But it was always Somerby’s contention that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was between consenting adults, and he always accused the press of Pecksniffian rooting through Bill Clinton‘s underwear drawers in reporting about the affair. Same thing he said about Trump and Stormy Daniels (not bothering to mention the campaign finance violation aspect of it).

    7. Ilya, Monica in her own deposition said she was the aggressor, stalking Clinton and offering him a BJ, not vice versa.

    8. I needed you to clarify further at 6:22.
      I wasn’t quite sure how dumb you
      were. But, you may be unaware or
      forgotten some stuff:
      Public sympathy for Monica dwindled
      when the news started playing the
      bits of her call to Linda Tripp when
      She mentions that the job offers
      from the White House were not
      meeting her expectations..
      Clinton did try to hook her up,
      She wanted six figures however
      and at that time they could not
      put that over given her limited
      experience. You get me a high
      paying job I am not qualified
      for and I keep my mouth shut.
      It’s pretty basic.
      Why did She hang on to the
      dress? Many asked, though the
      answer was too obvious to fill
      in. This was viewed as a kinda
      cute comeuppance for Bill, true
      enough, if you can abide a
      little soft blackmail.
      Monica admitted She initiated
      the sexy time fun. When She
      didn’t get the job She started
      telling everyone She could,
      essentially shopping the story.
      After She became famous, She
      fled the spotlight by doing
      million dollar interviews, S and
      L, and her own A and E show.
      Even Barbara Walters was
      You may disagree with this,
      or the way I stare this, but it
      all true and it has all been
      Buried on the way to getting
      Monica her TV movie at
      Maybe you agree with the
      PR spin that Monica is a great
      Wit, another Vanity Fair invention,
      or have been seduced by
      the general wave of gaslighting
      the public has been treated to.
      But please, just because you
      have chosen willful sickerdom
      don’t demand it of others.

  5. Marcus Aurelius has nothing to do with Ruth Marcus except the name Marcus. This is called having “loose associations” in psychiatry and is often a symptom of schizophrenia or other frontal lobe disorders. Normal people suppress inappropriate thoughts that arise out of context. Somerby indulges himself, perhaps proud of having thought of Aurelius at all, but it interferes with coherent conversation.

    1. Besides, Mr Aurelius was fun to hang out with, the life of every party.

  6. The only relevant question is: are there sufficient grounds to charge Trump?

    Not: will it help or hurt Trump politically.

    Not: did Stormy Daniels extort Trump.

    Not: did he really have sex with stormy.

    The question is: did Trump use or direct that funds be used illegally to benefit Trump’s campaign? If the DA doesn’t think he has a case, one assumes he won’t file charges.


    1. "The only relevant question is: are there sufficient grounds to charge Trump?"

      Meh. In these modern times there are sufficient grounds to indict pretty much everyone.

      ...which is why the powers that be invented the concept of "prosecutorial discretion".

    2. Vladimir Putin should be indicted for war crimes.

    3. Was Trump's signature on the check that Cohen gave to Daniel's?

  7. "Ten years later, Stormy decided that she wanted a big sack of cash."

    In fairness, Stormy decided she wanted to talk about her own life and what had happened to her with Trump. Trump does that himself, even making up affairs with women he had never met.

    When Stormy sued Trump, it wasn't for money but to vacate the NDA.

  8. [Verse 2: Del the Funky Homosapien]
    Through Russel, not his muscles
    But percussion he provides for me as a guide, y'all can see me now
    'Cause you don't see with your eye, you perceive with your mind
    That's the inner, so I'ma stick around with Russ and be a mentor
    Bust a few rhymes so motherfuckers remember
    Where the thought is, I brought all this
    So you can survive when law is lawless (Right here)
    Feelings, sensations that you thought was dead
    No squealing and remember that it's all in your head