They want Donald Trump prosecuted!


They hope Bragg finds the crime: Charles Blow wants Donald Trump prosecuted. The headline on his new column says so:

Donald Trump Must Be Prosecuted

Donald Trump must be prosecuted! But prosecuted for what?

On that secondary point, Blow is quite unclear. As his column starts, he's talking about the current "hush money" case:

BLOW (3/16/23): Donald Trump may finally be indicted. Finally!

The Manhattan district attorney’s office has signaled that charges, related to Trump’s reported hush-money payments to the porn star Stormy Daniels, are likely.

But there’s also hand-wringing: about whether this is the best case to be the first among those in which Trump is likely to be criminally charged, the strength of this case compared to others and the historic implications of indicting a former president for anything.

Does it matter that Daniels is a "porn star?" We ask that because, especially on Deadline: White House, the cable stars seem to focus on that fact more and more, suggesting it would be OK if the money in question had gone to an accountant.

Meanwhile, Blow starts by deriding the "hand-wringing" about this case—more specifically, the hand-wringing "about whether this is the best case to be the first among those in which Trump is charged."

Blow never seems to worry about whether Trump should be charged in this particular case at all.  He wants to see him criminally charged, and it almost seems as if one charge is as good as another.

Full disclosure! In the course of the past week, we constantly think that we're hearing cable stars advocate a political prosecution.

To our ear, Nicolle Wallace's frustration has taken her well past the point where she even prepared to pretend. Yesterday, though, it seemed that her entire panel was overtly discussing political prosecution—the kind of case where a prosecutor selects the person he wants to jail, then goes off in search of a charge.

That's even what we started to hear from former FBI honcho Frank Figliuzzi, one of the most capable commentators of the Trump prosecution era. 

We've long admired Figliuzzi for the wealth of information he provides without ever going into the tank as an overt and scripted Trump-hater.

Yesterday, that admirable detachment almost seemed to be reaching an end. Here's part of what he said:

WALLACE (3/15/23): Prosecutors, as human beings, have looked at Trump's crimes and criminality—and they are not a flat line, they're on a scale of escalating brazenness—and have decided, over and over and over and over again, to do nothing.

I wonder what you think the rule of law stands to lose or gain this week if Alvin Bragg decides to charge Trump.

FIGLIUZZI: Yeah, we are at the precipice of a remarkable moment in our presidential history, in our nation's history. And I have to tell you, I want to preface this by saying, I do have concerns about this case.

I know we've kind of beat this around now, that, you know, "Well, it's a kind of clear case," that the hush money payment was made.

It's not entirely clear. 

And as Harry has said now, at least two or three times, we still need—Alvin Bragg needs another crime. To get that to the felony level, he needs another crime.

I think it's going to be, aaah, a campaign, New York State campaign violation, but I don't know. But he needs it. And why is it important?

Figliuzzi went on at some length from there. That said:

"Alvin Bragg needs another crime!" However that statement was intended, that's language which comes straight out of the world of political prosecution.

It comes from the world in which a prosecutor knows who he wants to prosecute, then searches about for the crime which will let him proceed. The world in which a prosecutor finds his criminal, then looks for his criminal's crime.

We feel sure that Figliuzzi is better than that. On the other hand, we'll guess that Wallace pretty much isn't, along with at least a few of her "favorite reporters and friends." 

As of yesterday, it seemed to us that everyone on this particular panel was voicing the language of political prosecution as they discussed what Bragg may do.

"I do have concerns about this case," Figliuzzi told his host. The strength of the case "is not entirely clear," he somewhat unclearly said.

After years of watching him, we'd trust Figliuzzi all the way to the ground. But Wallace's entire panel seemed to be speaking the language of political prosecution, and they no longer seemed to care enough to try to couch their statements.

As he continued, Figliuzzi eventually identified why this matters. This is what he said:

"There could be a collective shrug. Or worse, Nicolle, everybody saying, 'See? They're after him. They're just after him for this.' "

People could be saying that? 

Watching Deadline: White House each day, we'd say it's obvious that "they're after him for this"—that this is a bunch of motivated people hoping for a political prosecution, hoping Bragg will find a way to reach the felony level.

"Bragg needs another crime," the former FBI honcho said. To our ear, other players on this panel sounded a great deal worse.

To watch this full discussion: To watch this full discussion, click here, then search on "collective shrug." 

(Stating the obvious, MSNBC stopped posting transcripts to make this sort of thing hard.)


  1. The walls are closing in. Yawn.

    ...why don't they wait two years and start another impeachment? Hopefully Mr. Schiff is still around...

    1. Mr. Schiff is running for Diane Feinstein's senate seat. I hope he wins.

  2. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”

    Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast.

    1. If Beria was here today, he'd be working for Donald J Chickenshit, David.

    2. "even the innocent"

      But Trump is not innocent. This isn't about manufacturing fictional crimes against Trump. He has done plenty of bad stuff and now he needs to be held to account for it.

    3. Play me the tape of Trump telling officials to find votes for him and I’ll show you the crime. What a sleaze bucket you are, David.

    4. Speaking of quotes, "Because that's where the money is." is the infamous Willie Sutton one about banks that was recently called to mind when Rupert Murdoch agreed with Dominion lawyers that "It's not about the red or blue but about the green." Only when DIC and his ilk are able to summon up the requisite amount of introspection to extract their heads from Rupert Murdoch's rectum will the latter quote be put to the test. Which is never. Because the recently unearthed text messages documenting that their favorite talking heads are lying sacks of shit is not enough, so long as Fox employees routinely spew incentives that run in parallel with the pathetic world views of their viewers.

    5. Give David in Cal a break.. He didn't vote for Donald Trump to be President of the United States, because Trump is a self-admitted sexual predator.

    6. (cont'd)
      David in Cal voted for Donald Trump to be President of the United States, because David in Cal was turned-on by Trump's bigotry.

    7. Invectives for incentives in my prior post

  3. It is not a “political prosecution” when simeone has comitted as many crimes as Trymp has:

    1. Insurrection.
    2. Selling pardons.
    3. Enriching Jared by selling nuclear secrets to the Saudis & letting Khashoggi’s killing slide
    4. Stealng classified docs
    5. Campaign fraud
    6. His business fraud
    7. Colluding with Russia to win election
    8. Rape
    9. Paying off Stormy

    And Somerby seriously asks what he should be prosecuted for?

    1. @3:57 is trolling. Trump has been accused of sexual assault by 27+ women. He is being tried for raping E.J. Carroll. But he has himself bragged about women he has kissed without preliminaries, fondled and grabbed by the pussy. One woman he assaulted was a stranger who was just standing and waiting for an elevator in Trump Tower.

      These are criminal acts. So Somerby's pretense that Trump is not a criminal is ridiculous.

    2. Once again, Trump is a scofflaw
      who mocks any notion of responsibility,
      and had pardoned crooks for
      covering for him. He deserves
      less consideration than virtually
      anyone you could name.

    3. Trump gave micro targeted, swing state polling data to KGB operatives.

    4. @11:39 rape is so funny, har-de-har-har-har

    5. I'll rape you, bitch.

  4. Bragg needs to choose which of the sveral other crimes makes the best case, not manufacture a crime for political purposes. Somerby is misunderstanding. Perhaps deliberately. There is no shortage of crimes with Trump.

  5. Stating the obvious, MSNBC does not operate for Somerby’s convenience and that doesn’t mean they are hiding anything or being shady.

  6. Lavrentiy Beria offered to allow Germany to reunify as a capitalist country if it would remain neutral. The US ignored him.

  7. Bob: A question. If someone offered you $5,000,000 a year for going on television for an hour a day for 40 weeks and all you would have to do is lie about political issues...would you do that? If not, how about $10M? How much does Tucker and Nicole and her friends make a year?

    1. Not sure how you came to equate Nicole Wallace with Tucker Carlson. Did her onscreen antics contribute to the evidence resulting in a 1.5 billion dollar defamation lawsuit? Did her behind the scenes commentary contradict the sewage that she was spouting on air? Making the claim that she and Carlson are liars resulting from their oversized salaries is bizarre.

    2. How did Tucker Carlson's onscreen antics contribute to the evidence resulting in a 1.5 billion dollar defamation lawsuit?

    3. Nicole Wallace makes $2 million per year. Tucker Carlson makes $35 million per year.

    4. 6:46 Tucker Carlson described the 2020 election publicly as the biggest scam of his lifetime while privately stating otherwise. You can easily look this up.

  8. "Charles Blow wants Donald Trump prosecuted."

    Him and several million others.

    1. Why does Charles Blow want several million others prosecuted?

    2. In fairness, Blow would probably want anyone prosecuted who has committed as many crimes as Trump has.

  9. I want Donald Trump prosecuted. No one should be above the law. That is a principle of democracy. It shouldn't be controversial and Somerby does no one a favor by pretending that Democrats just want a political prosecution when Trump is such a criminal.

  10. When is someone going to prosecute George Santos?

  11. If Trump is being charged on a minor offense
    We might normally want someone to
    slide on, Trump is a complete scofflaw,
    perhaps the most flamboyant in history,
    so the State is completely justified in
    throwing the book at him for jay walking.
    Bob, who no doubt enjoys Trump ‘s
    abusive treatment of blacks and other
    charms, wants Trump to walk, BADLY.
    Bob puts down Trump trying to declare
    himself dictator for life as “disordered.”
    What this post also doesn’t seem to
    notice is that on the station Bob damns
    as twisted and one sided, Bob finds a
    regular guest who makes a case Trump
    should walk on this, just Ad Bill Kristol
    did on MSNBC the afternoon.
    That’s a lot more both sider than
    Bob, Trump’s hand wringing apologist,
    had ever gone!!😊