Kristof assesses the Trump indictment!


Who should we pity / detest? How strong does Alvin Bragg's case against Donald J. Trump seem to be?

We asked that question yesterday. We'll ask it again today.

For ourselves, we simply don't know the answer! As with any other defendant, we'd like to see Donald J. Trump charged with a "recognizable" crime—with a crime whose parameters can be explained to the average person.

So far, that doesn't quite seem to have happened. In this morning's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof offers his assessment of this state of affairs.

In our view, Kristof casts himself in the Nestor role as he starts his column. Headline included, he starts with some good sound advice:

Do Critics of Trump’s Indictment Have a Point?

Republican leaders and Fox News personalities have erupted at the arrest of Donald Trump, so let’s consider some of their concerns.

“I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.” —Senator Mitt Romney

Is this indictment a legal stretch? It may be. Even some sharp critics of Trump find the case thin. We liberals should recognize our biases and tread carefully.

Kristof quotes Romney voicing reservations about the indictment. He then says that he has some concerns too!  

Kristof even goes so far as to say that says we liberals should "recognize our biases" when we assess this matter! Given the way our self-impressed tribe all too frequently tends to function, this is akin to asking a pack of mosquitoes to stop with all the mosquito bites.

Throughout the column, Kristof quotes conservative complaints about the indictment, then offers his own reactions. He agrees with some conservative complaints, disagrees sharply with others.

In the end, he says we need "a sober, measured process," not "glee or a rush to judgment." We agree with that advice. We also offer these reactions to a few things Kristof says:

Kristof: "Paying hush money to a porn star is not inherently a crime."

As far as we know, that statement is technically accurate. Paying a porn star isn't a crime—except on Morning Joe!

On this morning's program, Joe and Mika seemed determined to break the world record for the most times saying "porn star" during one four-hour period. All too often, Porn star porn star porn star porn star has come to replace our tribe's previous top incantation:

Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail!

Meanwhile, it remains an embarrassing measure of our species' mental horizon. Before we can decide how to vote, we must be told if some candidate had sex with someone ten years earlier, on just one occasion!

Kristof: "In Bragg’s favor is the fact that Trump’s 'fixer,' Michael Cohen, already went to prison on these facts."

As we've noted before, that statement is a bit of stretch. Many miles of hard legal road are sanded away in that thoroughly memorized statement of alleged fact.

Kristof: "There’s so much fever and delusion out there."

That's Kristof's reaction to some crazy and / or stupid claims made by several commentators. (By Andrew Napolitano, as cited by Infowars. Also, by one of Trump's current lawyers.)

In fact, there's a lot of Crazy out there now, with a whole lot more to come. Dating back to Reverend Falwell's insinuations and claims about all the people the Clintons murdered, the mainstream press has done a poor job dealing with this part of American (and human) life.

Our advice? It's time to bring medical and psychological specialists into our discussions of such behavior. Also, we liberals might want to be sure that we avoid bogus claims.

Kristof: "It's important that Democrats act responsibly toward a man they detest." 

In our view, this raises an important point—a point with which you may disagree. Before we tell you what that point is, we'll offer the longer passage from the end of Kristof's column:

KRISTOF: A CNN poll found that 60 percent of the public approves of the Manhattan indictment, but that about three-quarters believe the prosecution is driven at least in part by politics.

All this makes it all the more important that Democrats act responsibly toward a man that they detest. I wish the first indictment were stronger on its face, but I’m wary of prejudging the case—and let’s brace ourselves for more tumult ahead.

That's how Kristof ends his column—with good, sound advice. We have one reservation about his advice. But first, let's think about this:

In that CNN poll, three-quarters of respondents said they "believe the prosecution is driven at least in part by politics!" That should be a sobering statistic—a serious cause for concern.

Earlier, Kristof had raised the possibility that some red state prosecutors might start pursuing the highest Democratic politicians with flimsy prosecutions. Obviously, that could happen, especially to the extent that Trump gets charged with crimes which no one can quite recognize, describe or explain.

Remember: Except on programs like Morning Joe, it isn't a crime to get shaken down by "a porn star," or even by a doorman! According to Bragg, Trump or his associates paid hush money to one of each. 

As far as we know, no one believes the doorman's threatened claim was actually true. Can this possibly be the way we want our elections to work?

Our final suggestion is this:

Kristof says we should act responsibly toward a person we detest. Borrowing from the early Alanis Morissette, how about if we just stop detesting people?

We continue along in our view that Trump seems to be some (serious) form of "mentally ill." Because our high-end journalists refuse to enter the 20th century, this obvious possibility plays no role in our 21st century journalism.

"I pity the poor immigrant," Dylan (metaphorically) said. As you can see if you click this link, Dylan's lyrics described Donald J. Trump to a T:

Who eats but is not satisfied
Who hears but does not see
Who falls in love with wealth itself
And turns his back on me

It seems to us that pity works better, on a political basis, than reams of detestation.

Can you imagine pitying Trump? For starters, we'll ask you this:

Would you want to be that disordered person—the person Dylan described?


  1. In our humble opinion, what you need to pity, dear Bob, is your unfortunate brain-dead tribe.

    ...others will manage without your pity, dear...

  2. John Westly Harding is a very good album, don’t be scarred off by Bob’s mangling of it. It has an allusive quality, hard to get a handle on, and it’s not as much fun as some of Dylan’s classics, still, give it a go.
    The rest of this nonsense is hardly worth considering. Bob had no real interest in Trump and certainly no compassion for his victims. He just cannot allow
    MSNBC to, in his warped mind,

  3. The second amendment is evil.

  4. I detest Mao Cheng Ji

  5. The Republican Party is evil.

  6. "How strong does Alvin Bragg's case against Donald J. Trump seem to be?

    We asked that question yesterday. We'll ask it again today."

    This question is irrelevant and it will be answered in due course as the trial progresses, especially with the jury's verdict. We do not have to waste energy anticipating that process and its results.

    So, why then is Somerby going through this exercise? Clearly for political reasons. We do not need to concern ourselves with that either, since we each no doubt hold our own views and are not going to be convinced by any of Somerby's sophistry on behalf of Trump and his MAGA followers. However, there is some pleasure in acknowledging their squeals, to counterbalance the pain of their unsuccessful attack on our democracy. Trump has been waging a similar attack on our legal system (and human decency) since his early 20s, but we are approaching the end game. That doesn't concern us either because he will be the one suffering the consequences of his lifelong actions.

    So we only need to sit back and watch events play out, vote for our preferred candidates, donate and write letters as we think is right, and get on with our lives. Let Somerby and Trump be dueling blowhards.

    1. It's relevant because a less strong case may open suspicions of politicization on the part of the claimants.

    2. And a stronger case will 100% not sway one Republican voter, who loves bigotry more than his country.

  7. "Throughout the column, Kristof quotes conservative complaints about the indictment, then offers his own reactions."

    I suspect that various temperate voices are only talking about these conservative complaints in order to make the right feel like it has a voice (to keep it from resorting to violence) and not out of any conviction.

    I worry that this approach will cause the right to be even more disappointed when Trump is convicted, just as they were stronger on 1/6 because of their belief that Trump had won and been cheated, than they would have been if they'd considered Trump a possible loser in 2020. Telling Republicans that Bragg's case is reasonably strong or he wouldn't have brought it might prevent violence down the road when Trump is sent to the Big House (or the country club version of Jail). Is it kind to continue to delude Republicans like this? I don't think so.

  8. Even Trump's appointed judges have been throwing out flimsy right-wing legal actions. That is not going to stop.

    This claim that Bragg's charges are too hard for anyone to understand is ridiculous given that there are many good explanations of them all over the media. None are so dumb as those who will not understand, including Somerby, who pretends that physicists don't understand Einstein. When the right doesn't want to know something, no one can make them, but that is not the media's fault.

    The main unknowns in this situation are how the jury will respond to the arguments presented by the prosecution and defense. Time will tell on that one. There will not be any summary judgment because the evidence is too strong in the case against Trump, regardless of who the judge's daughter once worked for.

  9. In an interview, Alan Dershowitz opined that the case against Trump is legally worthless. Nevertheless, he predicts that the presiding judge will let the charges stand, and that Trump will be convicted. Dershowitz predicts that his conviction will eventually be overturned at some appellate court level.

    I find this situation terribly disturbing. It means that we don't have equal justice, Furthermore, most of us don't even want equal justice. People who like Trump you want him acquitted. Those who dislike him want him convicted. Only a few care primarily about the justice system itself.

    1. Here is what Dershowitz has said (Rawstory):

      "Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz predicted former President Donald Trump would be convicted of falsifying business records to hide an alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

      During an interview with right-wing host Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, Dershowitz revealed that he would decline to represent Trump following Tuesday's arraignment in New York City.

      "Well, I have a policy of only representing somebody once," he explained. "I don't think I could get this case dismissed so easily. I don't think that if you had the best lawyers in the history of the world, Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall, a New York City judge would dismiss this case because that New York City judge's life would be over."

      "So I don't think it's gonna be easy," he continued. "I think he probably will be convicted by a New York Jury who voted for [DA Alvin Bragg] and voted [to] get Trump."

      Why do you suppose the people of NYC, who know Trump best from childhood, would be so eager to convict him? Appeals court judges don't overturn cases due to jury bias. They overturn them for irregularities and problems with the conduct of the case. Those jurors will swear they can make an unbiased decision based on the evidence. If they do that, the appeals court will have no basis for saying they are biased against Trump. Claiming that he can't get a fair trial in NYC is just Trump's talking point about why this is a political prosecution and not a serious legal opinion on Dershowitz's part, but his refusal to defend Trump is telling.

    2. Don't pee your pants, David. I am watching the TN legislature expelling 3 Democratic members right now. What fucking justice system are you talking about?

      Clarence Thomas has accepted undisclosed luxury trips from GOP megadonor for decades, report says

      The highest court in the land is totally corrupt. What justice, David?

    3. Dershowitz has railed against using the legal system to punish political opponents. Dershowitz has supported Donald Trump’s White House.
      He is not a person that can be taken seriously.

    4. Alan Dershowitz Is a smart smart man, but it doesn't take genius to have foreseen the scenario that he laid out.

    5. Dershowitz is also an old old man. There is some reason for concern that these formerly respected individuals become Trump supporters as they age. Somerby is another example of that phenomenon. Frontal lobe deterioration leads people to black and white thinking, simplistic conclusions and emotion-driven decisions. To see this, compare any essay from Somerby's first year of blogging with what he writes these days. The same can be said for Dershowitz, who is not his old self and hasnt been for quite a while. This is sad, but not anyone's fault as time catches up with us all. That doesn't mean anyone should believe something because Dershowitz, a formerly smart man, said something foolish that he himself would have mocked in years past.

    6. Like Guiliani, who was once respected as at least competent, Dershowitz has been seduced by flights on Epstein's jet and hanging with rich folks such as Trump into using his law knowledge for evil. Defending rich scum like OJ, Epstein, Weinstein & Trump has undermined whatever credibility he once had. Yes, everyone deserves a defense, but Dershowitz was corrupted by hanging with such people, acquiring their values and tastes, not simply providing legal expertise. That makes his opinion in this situation unreliable.

    7. @Cecelia,
      Isn't it slightly odd what he says, though? If the charges are so flimsy, then all the defense needs to do is to select one normal person into the jury. Just one.

      Is Manhattan so dembot-infected that it's positively impossible?

    8. @4:35 -- thanks for finding the exact wording. That was the comment I was thinking of.

      @4:36 IMO the court will eventually overturn Trump's conviction (if he's convicted) because he's not accused of committing a felony. False reporting of an expense is a misdemeanor with a 2 year statute of limitations

    9. So in your mind, you have constructed a hierarchy of “smart” where someone ranks highly, yet made an assertion that someone of a lower rank could also have made.


      Let’s talk about your mother…

    10. These are felony charges. The defense may argue they are not. My understanding is that there is precedent and lots of evidence. We'll see what happens in court. Opinions ahead of that are based on wishful thinking, even if Dershowitz says it.

    11. @4:36 Justice Thomas did nothing wrong. In the future, he will have to report such trips. The liberal WaPo wrote,

      "Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts’ policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14. Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet."

    12. Twenty years ago the LA Times reported about some of the gifts lavished on Thomas, how what he chose to accept dwarfs what other justices accepted. Others have reported how Thomas chose to not report his wife’s income, such as the $700k she received from the right wing Heritage Foundation, a violation of the rules.

      These have been widely viewed as ethical violations, if not a strict violation of the rules, thus prompting the rule change.

      Clearly Thomas did do something wrong, egregious enough to have the rules changed.

      Beyond being ethically compromised by accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from people with a vested interest in how Thomas operates as a SC justice, Thomas likely inspired some of the gift giving when he announced a key motivating factor in his work on the SC was to make “liberals lives miserable”.

      What a guy!

      FYI Thomas, no that wasn’t Anita Hill’s pubic hair on the Coke can, you sick fuck.

    13. Even if Thomas committed some technical infraction, it’s perfectly appropriate for a Supreme Court justice to take handouts from a billionaire. That encourages him to protect concentrated wealth and power, which is his main job.

    14. Sure, David. Thomas was just accepting friendly "hospitality" from his billionaire friend. You have fucking warped morals, so I expected nothing less from you. The SC is fucking corrupt, just like you like it.

      Don't pee your pants again, David, not a damn thing will be done about it and Thomas is too fucking corrupt to be shamed.
      IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

      If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.

    15. Just remember, the same people who are attacking Alvin Bragg because Geoge Soros indirectly supported his campaign, think Thomas accepting millions of dollars personally is just fine and fucking dandy. Nothing wrong, eh, David.

    16. Cecelia, at 5:31. You change the subject and ignore my point. Dershowitz is smart enough to win you with his brazen double standard, but not me.

    17. Anonymouse 5:59pm, the whole biologically deficient argument/deflection is quite the slippery slope. You have to be eternally young and with a brain as smooth as Aphrodites’s rear end to think that age experience is a sign of biological deterioration.

      However…twenty or so years ago, Dershowitz was telling his students that their idea of diversity was someone in a dress or with black skin who thought exactly as they think.

    18. Anonymouse 6:12pm, no, I simply gave due recognition to Dershowitz’s abilities while, in this case, replying “duh”.

    19. Anonymouse 9:37pm, I’m assuming that you wrote this and want me to respond.

      “Those jurors will swear they can make an unbiased decision based on the evidence. If they do that, the appeals court will have no basis for saying they are biased against Trump.”

      All juries argue that they made “an unbiased decision based upon the evidence”.

      Unless, there’s some outright impropriety with a juror, Trump’s attorneys are not going to argue that the jury was simply biased. The contention will be that the jury was swayed by the prosecution’s faulty interpretation of relevant law.

      Dershowitz is a defense attorney. This is rudimentary stuff.

    20. The judge interprets law. The prosecution presents evidence to support charges. Trump is attacking the judge.

    21. Anonymouse 10:37pm, that’s a personal and politically defensive move by Trump that could very well cost him.

      What has that to do with Dershowitz?

    22. "False reporting of an expense is a misdemeanor with a 2 year statute of limitations"
      Misdemeanor? In the words of every snowflake Right-wing xenophobe whining about losing their privilege, "What part of illegal do you not understand?"

    23. So you proclaimed a point you thought obvious, perhaps signaling your vice. Interesting.

      Is it possible, in your youth, your cries for help went unnoticed?

      Let’s talk about your mother…

    24. Anonymouse 4:03pm, I proclaimed a point that is entirely obvious unless you’re squeezing your eyes shut, humming loudly, and have your fingers in your ears.

      It’s dawned on me that I must have mentioned that my mother died when I was a toddler. That’s the reason for the several references to my mother?

      Well, let me reassure your kind self that people don’t miss what they never have had. What I did have was several fiercely protective female mother figures and a wonderful dad.

      The times I remember feeling any angst about her death were about me feeling like I should feel angst, but did not. Later, when I became a mother, I then felt sorry, but for her, not for me.

      Anonymices are quite something. You’re more precious than I could have ever imagined!

    25. Cecelia, you are taking this too seriously. No one is referring to your toddlerhood. People are suggesting that maybe you have personal reasons for your behavior. Let's talk about your mother... refers to a psychodynamic approach to therapy that posits that trauma in early childhood is responsible for adult behavior problems that can be analyzed and changed with insight.

      No one wants to hear about your mother. We want you to think about your own life experiences and try to figure out why you are the way you are. Other people's lives are boring to everyone except themselves (and sometimes a significant other).

      We already know you don't feel angst about other people's sufferings. That is what it means to lack empathy. It might be that if you allowed yourself to feel for others, you might be overwhelmed by your own feelings related to your own past as a toddler (or other experiences you haven't shared). We all have such troubles. The people who can feel empathy are those who let themselves feel their own angst too. A therapist might help you explore your negative feelings in a safe and controlled environment so that you might be better able to feel such feelings when they arise in daily life, such as when hearing about other people's troubles.

      But you seem to be more interested in blaming anonymous commenters, such as the one who accidentially triggered a memory about your mother with an innocuous phrase implying that you might benefit from therapy.

    26. Anonymouse 12:03pm, I don’t feel angst over me. I’m not suffering and I am not a victim. I don’t view others as victims based upon their demographics.

      I certainly don’t feel that there’s something wrong in believing that there are only two genders. We should accommodate gender dysphoria as much as we can, without being pushed into an Orwellian denial of reality.

      I harbor a colorblind philosophy, rather than the imperatives of equity.

      I don’t see you as an enemy or as being dangerous. You’re just angry and doctrinal. Go lie down, you’ll feel better.

    27. There are only two genders, female, and the one the government let's make their own reproductive choices.

    28. You’ve never heard of child support services?

  10. "As far as we know, no one believes the doorman's threatened claim was actually true."

    As Somerby says repeatedly, at every opportunity, "anything is possible." That means, this doorman's claims are certainly possible too. Are they likely? Well, we know that Trump has lots of affairs. He has been charged with rape. Would he know whether a child resulted from such activities? Not necessarily. Is it possible, of course it is, given how nature and the human body works. There have been rumors that Trump has paid up to 8 women to have abortions and sign nondisclosure agreements. That is not proven, but it is not unproven either. And that is a lot of smoke to be circulating without any cause. Now Trump is anti-abortion but in 1999 he said he was "very pro-choice." We know that Trump has not stopped his sexual activity (because of the other women who have accused him of affairs and sexual assault), but if he is now anti-abortion, he might have a living child out-of-wedlock.

    And then, Trump is a known liar. Is the doorman a known liar? I haven't heard anything to that effect. Just on that basis, I would disbelieve a liar and believe Trump's accuser. But wouldn't the doorman need evidence in order to be able to get a hush-money payoff from Trump? Does he hand out money to anyone who asks? Trump must have had some reason to think the doorman might be believed, might be considered plausible enough to hurt Trump's election chances (following the Billy Bush video). I think Trump's own actions lend credibility to the doorman's story.

    1. Trump is such an awful person that I would believe any bad thing said about him, including that he shot someone on 5th Avenue during the 2016 election.

    2. Maybe Trump is an awful person. No doubt, that's why a lot of of people want to see him convicted.

      However, our legal system is not supposed to convict people of being awful. It's supposed to treat everyone equally, even awful people. Is the idea of equal justice dead? I'm afraid it may be. Trump is being charged in a way that nobody before ever was, and that's OK for most people.

    3. People want to see him convicted because he is guilty as hell of crimes, not because he is awful. Society takes care of awful but law-abiding people by shunning them socially.

    4. Trump’s unique ability to commit crimes in his own unique manner, can not excuse his criminal activity, if we truly believe we are equal under the law, although that notion has been a joke forever if you look at who gets harassed by cops, arrested, poorly defended, sent to prison, it’s obvious the law favors White makes.

    5. What crimes exactly?

    6. You can start with refusing to rent to Blacks and go all the way to attempting to get people to falsify election results before stealing top secret classified docs and refusing to return them when caught. Between those crimes there’s perhaps hundreds of other crimes.

      Like Tucker says, Trump is a “demonic force”.

    7. @6:23 wrote: "People want to see him convicted because he is guilty as hell of crimes"

      But, are the crimes for which you think Trump is guilty the same crimes that he's being charge with? Does it matter if he's being charged for crimes he didn't commit? Or, is that OK, because you believe he committed other crimes? Do you even know what felonies Trump is charged with?

      Trump's lawyer paid Daniels to keep silent. Such a payment is legal. In fact, it's quite common for a lawsuit settlement to require silence.

      Trump may have accounted for this payment in the wrong category. At this moment, it's not proved that the category was wrong. It's not proved that it should have been shown as campaign expense or that Trump knew about the payment. At worst, if Trump did knowingly put the payment into the wrong category, that's a misdemeanor for which he cannot be prosecuted, because it has a 2 year statute of limitations. BTW, the Justice Dept. looked at this matter when it was fresh and decided not to prosecute.

      Because of this one questionable act, Trump was somehow charged with 34 felonies. Does this make legal sense? Could someone explain how one (possible) misdemeanor, for which the statute of limitations has run out, becomes 34 felonies? Is this proper legal procedure?

      IMO it's banana republic behavior.

    8. The misdemeanors, under New York law, can be escalated to felonies if they were done with the intent to commit another crime.

      The 'another crime' isn't crystal clear but seems to be a violation of Federal election finance law: that the payment to Daniels was a de facto campaign contribution since it benefitted the Trump campaign, and should have been reported as such, rather than as an expense of the Trump organization.

      There is widespread doubt that the New York 'escalation' law is applicable if the crime it was intended to abet violated Federal, not New York law.

    9. He did those crimes. That’s what the evidence is about. You cannot just make up your own definitions of law. The judge will instruct the jury. There are 34 charges, not “one questionable act”. Do you think Bragg doesn’t know the statute of limitations. You are trying to confuse the matter for ignorant people by throwing a bunch of shit into the discussion, like conservative trolls do.

    10. David, no one is not acting under the presumption of innocence principle. Trump has been investigated, there’s been a grand jury, an indictment, there’ll be a trial. This is the due process of the law.

      Most of the victims of Trump’s crimes will never see justice served. In this way, Trump has been excessively privileged, shirking all responsibility for his corrupt behavior.

      The US may well be a banana republic due how stratified our classes are, with a wealthy elite lording over our workers; however, the term does not apply to Trump’s situation in any way that would suggest he is a victim of a banana republic, especially since his behavior endorses a banana republic.

    11. "the wrong category" Bwahahahaha!! You're a trip, David.

      "BTW, the Justice Dept. looked at this matter when it was fresh and decided not to prosecute."

      You mean AG Bill Barr who asked Cy Vance to stand down and then did nothing. Cover up specialist Bill Barr decided not to prosecute, eh, David?

    12. Banana Republic Behavior, complains the Trump voter….

    13. "However, our legal system is not supposed to convict people of being awful."

      Yet, "that kid shot by a cop was no angel" is still brought up to defend murderous thugs.

    14. "However, our legal system is not supposed to convict people of being awful."

      Holy Judge, Jury and Executioner of Michael Brown from Ferguson, Missouri, Batman.

  11. I see no evidence that Trump “eats but is not satisfied.” He seems to enjoy his meals just as much as Bill Clinton did. Clearly Dylan didn’t have Trump in mind, no matter how hard Somerby tries to squeeze him into lyrics written a long time before Trump’s era.

    1. Anonymouse 4:45pm, whether you’re serious as a heart attack or perfectly parodying anonymices, this made my day.

    2. But were it the case (indeed as is possibly the case) that you are the one being mocked, still day made?

      You when feel superior, is that when your day is made?

    3. Hey Cecelia, have you ever heard the album? Just curious.

    4. One suspects that if Trump had bothered to properly eat out Stormy, instead of prematurely spurting from his tiny dick, she may have shown him some sympathy and kept quiet.

      No one likes a shitty lover who hasn’t a clue how to fuck properly.

      Did Dylan not sing something like that?

    5. Anonymouse 6:17pm, do you feel that it is an accomplishment to refrain from being direly concrete and literal simply in order to contest someone?

      I don’t think it is. I think it’s perfectly normal.

    6. You don’t think, and that is perfectly normal for you.

      You feel; sometimes you feel superior, and that makes your day.

    7. Cecelia, I just asked if you knew the album. It’s no big deal.

    8. Anonymouse 9:35pm, no, I didn’t notice your post and I haven't heard the whole album.

      What’s not the big deal?

    9. Anonymouse 9:24pm, you’re telling me that I don’t think and that I suffered childhood trauma.

      Yet I’m the one who feels superior?

    10. All the years Bob has quoted that song never jogged your curiosity? Some fan

    11. Anonymouse 11:17pm, the question was if I had listened to the entire album.

      No. I’ve listened to the song and read the lyrics.

      I mentioned the song in a reply to Mao about Bob calling Tucker Carlson a “lost boy”. Think about it.

    12. Sometimes you feel superior, and that’s what makes your day; this is most likely the result of unresolved childhood trauma.

    13. 8:23 comment of the year!

    14. Anonymouse 3:48am, not “sometimes” it’s every time you post.

      Condolences on your trauma.

    15. Your faux sincerity is faux touching.

    16. Anonymouse 12:58, that’s your amygdala talking,

  12. Kristof has a hot tip: Dems should act responsibly.

    What a sanctimonious grifter moron Kristof is.

    Was it responsible to run for governor in Oregon where you weren’t a resident, you merely owned a vineyard in the state? Was it responsible to claim your residency circumstance was the same as migrant farmers? Was it responsible to run for governor without any requisite qualifications or competency? Was it responsible to keep the $3 million your campaign raised?

    No, no it was not. It was a grifter, carpet bagger move on all accounts.

    Today Somerby asks again if the case against Trump is strong, and then answers himself by saying he doesn’t know.

    What is with Kristof and Somerby, are they having some kind of moron-off, a fight to be King Moron?

    There’s been an investigation, a grand jury, an indictment, and now there’ll be a trial. This is the due process of the law. Nobody’s building a gallow for Trump, questions will get answered in the trial.

    Somerby today asks if this is how we want our elections to work; again, this is a trial of a corrupt person having committed crimes, not an election.

    Somerby wants us to pity instead of detest, because it “seems” better, but offers nothing to support this assertion, and functionally there’s no difference, and even moreso, we on the left tend to do neither. (Pity is condescendingly offensive)

    Today we ask: can we leave it to Dylan to decide who the bigger moron is, Kristof or Somerby? No doubt the fanboys will chime in with the usual simp based whining.

    1. Bob has often treated Kristof as a clown when he didn’t agree with him.

    2. Kristof is not a legal expert. Why should we care about his opinion?

  13. Being mentally ill is no excuse before the law unless Trump fits the criteria for legal insanity. Many imprisoned people are mentally ill, but Somerby has shown no concern about that before. In fact, he hasn’t called for Trump’s removal from office either and opposed his two impeachments. That inconsistency makes Somerby sound insincere.

    1. Wilful ignorance is not insincerity,

  14. If those payments to repay Cohen were entered as expenses for legal fees in the 2017 tax returns for the Trump Org and DJT, it's clear tax evasion on over $420,000. That seems like a material crime to me.

    1. You should find someone to indict him for it.

  15. Hello I greatly recommend you Via our ongoing Invitation to join our Great Illuminati and become Rich and Famous.

    With help of Bryan George Steil make me believe that illuminati is real, when you come across wrong person’s you will think that life is not real but when you are with the real one you will experience the goodness of your life, Mr Bryan George Steil has made me discovered my purpose of life. Welcome to the great brotherhood of Illuminati and everyone in other Countries can join the Illuminati brotherhood to get rich and famous, Are you a Business man/woman, retirement pensioner, musical artist, student, footballer Pastor, pianist, engineer, scientist, lawyer, Politician, Model, Music Teacher, Photographer, Musician, Doctor, fashion artist, Footballer, pilot, Swimmer, social media influencer, philanthropist, filmmaker, and podcast host, producer, tv host, comedian, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), e.t.c? Do you want to be a Famous Artist or an Actor or whatever occupation you do, you want to be rich, powerful and famous in life. Illuminati can grant all your heart desires to join the Illuminati to become rich and famous in life, Illuminati will make you achieve all your dreams to become rich and protected all the days of your life…… BENEFIT GIVEN TO A NEW MEMBER WHO JOIN THE ILLUMINATI a new dream car valued at $200,000.00 USD a dream house to build in any country of your own choice one month holiday (fully paid) to your dream tourist destination. One year golf membership package a V I P treatment in all airports in the world a total lifestyle change access to bohemian grove, a membership benefit funds amount $1,500,0000 USD to start of a business that will be bring profit to you monthly, one month booked appointment with our leaders and some celebrities» JOIN ILLUMINATI YOUR FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES ARE BROUGHT TO AN END. WE SUPPORT YOU BOTH FINANCIALLY AND PHYSICALLY SPIRITUALLY TO ENSURE YOU LIVE A COMFORTABLE LIFE . IF YOU ARE INTERESTED CONTACT Email: For immediate response… Note: There aren't any Human sacrifices and no bloody involvement.

    The Club of the Rich and Famous; the world oldest and largest fraternity. We are one Family under one father who is the Supreme Being. In Illuminati we believe that we were born in paradise and no member should struggle in this world. Hence all our new members are given Money Rewards once they join in order to upgrade their lifestyle.; interested viewers should get instant initiated to the Illuminati Brotherhood membership profit funds, sum of $1,500,000.00 USD to start off a business that will be profitable.

    After Illuminati membership profit funds, a sum of $1,500,000.00 USD was given to me to start a profitable business, I now earn a daily profit of $50,000 USD for just inviting new customers to The Club of the Rich and Famous and being part of this life changing opportunity.

    Invite customers Get reward 100% guaranteed and legitimacy

    Please note, Kindly make sure all your responses are sent directly to the Illuminati secret Authorities email stated above only at: For more instructions on our membership process.