STARTING TOMORROW: Tucker Unbound!

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2023

No buzzkill need apply: Tribal warfare can lead us humans to say the darnedest things.

In fairness, we won't all agree on what the silly things are. In our view, Michelle Goldberg made a fairly silly suggestion in this portion of a recent New York Times column:

GOLDBERG (3/31/23): [T]he hush money payments to Trump’s paramours might seem like a minor issue, but it’s part of a pattern of anti-democratic behavior. As The Wall Street Journal reported, in addition to hearing about the payoff to the porn film star Stormy Daniels, the grand jury in New York heard extensive questioning about the payoff to a Playboy model, Karen McDougal. Both women were going to tell their stories before the 2016 election. Unlawful means were used to silence them, which is why Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, went to prison.

For the record:

Michael Cohen went to prison after pleading guilty to eight separate criminal charges, only one or two of which involved the payments to Daniels. As we've repeatedly noted, Goldberg's embellishment concerning this matter is now a standard part of blue tribe novelization and lore.

It's also true that Daniels wasn't "silenced" in the scary way that scary term might imply. 

Was Stormy Daniels "silenced?" Stating the obvious, Daniels could have proceeded to "tell her story" any time she wanted. Instead, she chose to negotiate with Trump's agents, seeking a big sack of cash. 

(Were "unlawful means" used to "silence" Daniels? As far as we know, no one claims that there was anything illegal about the payments to Daniels themselves.)

For our money, Goldberg has her thumb on the scales in various ways as she thumbnails this story. (We've omitted the fact that Cohen keeps saying that he was forced to plead guilty to crimes he didn't commit.)

In our view, Foldberg told a fairly novelized tale. So it can go when a very large nation splits into tribes and invents a journalistic world which is segregated by viewpoint. 

Tribunes of the warring tribes may sand the edges off basic facts and embellish freely. They do so confident in the knowledge that their accounts will never be challenged within their own tribal realm. 

So it can go! According to experts. so it can go when human populations split into tribes, with  different sets of novelized, perhaps even cartoonized, facts.

That said, we still haven't reached the part of Goldberg's presentation which strikes us as basically silly. What strikes us as basically silly is this suggestion:

We needed to hear Stormy Daniels' story before we could know how to vote!

That suggestion strikes us as deeply silly, bordering on the demented. That said, it was just a suggestion in Goldberg's hands—but that very same night, Lanny Davis directly stated this silly idea, speaking with a reliably compliant Lawrence O'Donnell.

In fairness, Davis is a well-known lawyer. In this case, he's representing Cohen. Still and all, it must be said:

He came right out and said the following, as a tribal enabler looked on:

DAVIS (3/31/23): Let's just say, final comment to you, Lawrence. This is a very powerful case about a very serious crime that is not just what Mr. Pence said was a finance crime, a campaign finance crime, as if that's not an important crime.

This is called, by the Southern District prosecutors who worked for Mr. Trump, a serious crime that can undermine a democracy. 

If somebody can pay money to stop the American people from getting information that they need in order to vote, this is a serious crime. 

Yes, he actually said it! In order to know how to vote within our beloved democracy, "the American people" needed to know that Daniels had sex with Donald Trump on one occasion. On one occasion in 2006! 

Or at least, we needed to know that she says she did. When she "tells her story!"

American citizens, please! How could we the people have known how to vote if we weren't allowed to hear Daniels tell her story about that one (1) alleged sexual interaction? 

A "very serious crime" was committed when Daniels was "silenced," to use the misleading term Goldberg employed. Speaking with Lawrence, Davis came out and stated the view which Goldberg had merely suggested.

That said, how about it? Was our democracy undermined when Daniels silenced herself? When we the people didn't get to hear her "tell her story?"

In our view, that statement moves past "silly" to a much more pitiful realm. In fairness, Goldberg had merely made the suggestion. As Lawrence sat obligingly by, Davis brought in all back home.

Were we the people, and "our democracy," undermined in that way? If so, perhaps we need to move beyond the mere proposal that candidates should be required to publish their tax records. 

Perhaps we need to require candidates to list all sexual partners over something like the previous twenty years! Not necessarily excluding the various times they "lusted" or "committed adultery in [their] heart!"

Davis's statement to Lawrences struck us as stunningly silly. Others will reach a different assessment. That said, we move on to this:

In our view, a whole lot of silly was spilling out of blue tribe cable last week. But over on red tribe cable, the behavior was sometimes three steps past astounding. 

On Tuesday and Wednesday nights of last week, Tucker Carlson fumed and foamed concerning the "transgenderist" mobs who feel free to murder our Christian children because they believe that they themselves are God.

It was already crazy (and stupid) on Tuesday night. On Wednesday night, it got worse.

On Thursday afternoon, the Trump indictment was announced. Just a few hours later that evening, Carlson was saying that he agreed with this:

WHITLOCK (3/30/23): Today, in our state capitol, which is right here in Nashville, the transgender antigun crowd took over the House for a time. And then, by the time I get home, I find out Donald Trump has been indicted. And I hear you loud and clear. 

They are agitating for unrest. That's the only way to interpret this. They are agitating for unrest. And there's a godless element in this country that doesn't care about fairness. They don't care about the will of the people. They care about power and control. 

As you have spelled out this week, they think they're God, and they think that they can make up the rules. They can decide what fairness is. They don't have a Biblical worldview.

It's sickening for me. I'm upset. I'm emotional. I'm—I'm ready for whatever is next. And I hope, every other man out there watching this show, I hope you're ready for whatever's next.

If that's what they want, let's get to it.

Jason Whitlock is ready "for whatever is next." For his fuller remarks, just click here.

For the record, Whitlock is fully sincere. He said he hopes that every man in Carlson's audience is ready to go there with him.

There was more, a great deal more, and Carlson said he agreed with his guest. But over on our own blue cable, happy talk experts like Lawrence and Rachel simply refuse to discuss this.

Over on our own blue cable, a happy mellow feeling prevailed in the wake of Trump's indictment. Nicolle Wallace finally got to relax. Rachel went on and on, then on and on and on and on, about the way there's nothing to look at here.

Elsewhere, Carlson was preparing for war. As has long been the norm, his conduct went almost wholly unreported. It was Tucker Ignored and Unbound.

All this week, we'll discuss what Carlson and some of his guests were saying all last week. In keeping with upper-end journalistic tradition, you won't read about this in the New York Times. You won't be hearing about this on our tribe's side of the segregated cable news aisle.

At this site, we thought we heard lot of silly last week. Did we also hear a lot of dangerous / disordered / deranged?

Our blue tribe was feeling mellow.  And when our tribe is feeling mellow, no buzzkill need apply!

Tomorrow: Shall we start with last Tuesday night?


86 comments:


  1. tl;dr

    "In order to know how to vote within our beloved democracy, "the American people" needed to know that Daniels had sex with Donald Trump on one occasion. On one occasion in 2006! "

    Right. But not to see the laptop with clear evidence of influence peddling to the tune of millions of dollars, with '10% to the big guy' accounting entries....

    Anyhow, here, dear Bob, is what we consider a brilliant article on this subject, by incomparable Howie Carr. For your, dear Bob, reading pleasure:

    https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/04/02/howie-carr-happy-mugshot-day-democrats-church-of-trump-derangement-syndrome-miracles-have-begun/

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am pretty sure it was more than one occasion.

      Delete
    2. Don't forget: there's no Rasputin without Putin

      Delete
  2. "Was Stormy Daniels "silenced?" Stating the obvious, Daniels could have proceeded to "tell her story" any time she wanted. Instead, she chose to negotiate with Trump's agents, seeking a big sack of cash.

    (Were "unlawful means" used to "silence" Daniels? As far as we know, no one claims that there was anything illegal about the payments to Daniels themselves.)"

    When Stormy Daniels filed her lawsuit to vacate the NDA, her complaint stated that Michael Cohen used "intimidation and coercive tactics" to force her into signing the NDA. That is illegal.

    And so what if Cohen went to jail for more crimes than the two relating to the hush money payment? It doesn't contradict Goldberg at all, since Goldberg is not claiming that all 8 of the crimes Cohen pled guilty to were about Daniels. That is Somerby's sophistry. If all 8 crimes were not about Daniels, does that negate that 2 were? Of course not.

    Why does Somerby play such games?

    "...used "intimidation and coercive tactics" to force Clifford into signing a false statement denying the extramarital affair with Trump."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why does Somerby play such games?"
      Right-wing bullshit isn't going to repeat itself.

      Delete
    2. Good point, and Bob is not very far from functioning as part of Trump's said legal team.

      Delete
  3. "(We've omitted the fact that Cohen keeps saying that he was forced to plead guilty to crimes he didn't commit.)"

    And Trump keeps saying that he never slept with Daniels. Does anyone believe that?

    And, earth-to-Somerby, adding the phrase "we've omitted the fact" doesn't change the fact that you just stated that fact yourself. Asshole.

    They had the good on Cohen, which is why he agreed to the plea deal. They have the goods on Trump too, and it doesn't consist solely of Cohen's testimony. They have phone recordings and business records.

    Somerby is trying to pretend that this is a fake case against Trump, by attacking both Daniels and Cohen's testimony. That isn't going to work, other than to spread more disinformation HERE, which would inflame Trump supporters even more, if any of them were reading Somerby's blog (aside from the right-wing trolls).

    Aside from convicting Trump and holding him accountable for his behavior, an important purpose of this upcoming trial is to sort out what is true from what is false, including about the things Somerby has been saying to smear Daniels. I find myself wondering why Somerby is so quiet about McDougal's hush money. Perhaps because it corroborates Daniels testimony?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has been disproved.

      Delete
    2. Cite a source if you are claiming that.

      Delete
    3. Also say specifically what you think has been disproved.

      Delete
    4. You need to examine where you stand.

      Delete
    5. Better trolling please.

      Delete
    6. It's not a smear if the truth of it hasn't been sorted out, is it?

      Delete
    7. Yes, it is a smear if the intent is to damage a person, whether the statement is true or untrue.

      Delete
    8. We don’t know whether Daniels’ version is true or not. We do know Trump has lied. Somerby assumes Daniels is lying, without any evidence of her lying. Somerby has done that with other women over time here. Somerby has called Daniels a grifter and con artist without evidence. That is a smear.

      Delete
  4. "Instead, she chose to negotiate with Trump's agents, seeking a big sack of cash."

    According to Daniels, she was approached by Trump's agents, not vice versa. She was not seeking a "big sack of cash" (i.e., a check), says she didn't need the money because she was doing fine financially. She wanted to tell her story, which is her right to do, just as Trump himself has bragged about the women he has slept with (and some who say they have never even met him). She says they threatened her in a parking lot, while she was with her child.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "That said, we still haven't reached the part of Goldberg's presentation which strikes us as basically silly. What strikes us as basically silly is this suggestion:

    We needed to hear Stormy Daniels' story before we could know how to vote!

    That suggestion strikes us as deeply silly, bordering on the demented."

    Somerby obviously isn't female. It might not matter to him whether a story corroborating the Billy Bush video, of Trump having affairs with McDougal and Daniels, cheating on Melania shortly after the birth of his son, suggests that Trump is not an honorable man when it comes to women. A man like Somerby might not care about that when casting his vote. Many women do care and we do vote accordingly. For some of us, that was a main objection to Trump.

    I asked a Trump supporting friend why those things that Trump did to women didn't bother him. He said, "well, if that is how you feel about, you shouldn't vote for him." But he clearly didn't feel the same way himself. Neither does Somerby, obviously.

    Does the way a man treats women suggest that he might appoint Supreme Court justices that similarly have disdain for women and their choices? Could a female voter have predicted that Trump would be hostile to women's needs in other ways during his term in office? I don't see why that is crazy or far-fetched. In fact, it seems pretty obvious to me that a man who treats women badly is going to continue doing so when it comes to his job as president. And he certainly has done that.

    In retrospect, perhaps if more women had heard about Trump's behavior toward Melania, McDougal and Daniels, as well as E.J. Carroll and the others he is alleged to have assaulted, they might not have voted for him. Trump certainly feared that, or he wouldn't have paid them off to keep quiet. Or perhaps those nice Christian conservative suburban women (who have switched to Independent) might have not voted for him back in 2016 if Melania had gotten angry enough to divorce him over Daniels and McDougal. We don't know because we didn't get the chance to find out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob may be a little correct here: isolating a one element or incident and saying that decided the election is dubious game both sides play. Bill Maher and Morning Joe went along with the nonsense that Biden won because we didn't here enough about the laptop.

      Delete
  6. Lanny Davis said: "If somebody can pay money to stop the American people from getting information that they need in order to vote, this is a serious crime. "

    What if voters had been told about Reagan's negotiations (by proxy) with Iran to detain the hostages a bit longer, past the election, in order to damage Jimmy Carter's reelection prospects. Might Reagan have lost and Carter won? How would that have changed our country?

    What if voters had been given more info about Russian interference before the 2016 election? Might not those extra voters who swayed three key electoral college states have given the election back to Clinton, who deserved it based on the popular vote? A lot of was being kept secret by the Trump campaign. Divulging any of those secrets might have been enough to overturn that slim margin that Trump eked out.

    During a year when a woman was running for president, might not mistreatment of women by Trump have persuaded more women to support her history-making candidacy? That seems likely to me and not crazy, as Somerby dismisses Goldberg's suggestion.

    In fact, I find myself insulted by Somerby's assumption that such a revelation would have no impact. This is another of the attitudes that suggest to me that Somerby doesn't think much of women. But then again, male Trump supporters voted against their own best interests too, in 2016, believing Trump's lies and swagger instead of looking at facts. Somerby's dismissal of Goldberg is insulting to women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob may be sort of inadvertently correct here. Why Trump felt the need to silence these woman is sort of a mystery. His own faith in his amoral voters fell short: clearly they knew he was a sleaze and, like his family, couldn't have cared less.

      Delete
    2. Not really. Trump only won the states he needed by 70000 votes and these claims (plus the Billy Bush tape) came out fairly close to the election. That's why it's called hush money.

      Delete
    3. Bob could point to Shep Smith’s bullshit hit piece on the Clinton Foundation as the deciding factor in the election (a few noted it at the time) but it’s fair for him not to. You could point to many small things in such a close election. But Goldberg merely speculates, which is fair enough, and Bob would never call this out on the Right.

      Delete
  7. "For the record, Whitlock is fully sincere. "

    Yesterday, Somerby was saying he considered Whitlock sincere. Today he is saying, for the record, that Whitlock IS sincere. Aside from mind-reading Whitlock, look how Somerby shifts from believing something is likely to knowing it is true. This is how disinformation becomes fact in weak-minded people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And worse, if you actually watch the clip with Whitlock, unlike Somerby’s version, Whitlock is very low key, seemingly rattling off bullet points he memorized; not an impassioned outburst, but more like an insincere obligation to the audience.

      Delete
    2. Good points, and to truly imagine the callow level Bob has embraced, try imaging Bob giving points to Nichole Wallace for being sincere.

      Delete
  8. By touting Whitlock's threats of violence, Somerby is adding his weight to the threats the right wing has been making as part of its tantrum against Trump's being brought to justice. That is coercion too. I do not believe anyone currently involved in investigation and prosecuting Trump should be swayed by such threats. More than that, I don't believe any responsible journalist or media figure to be supporting the crazy fringe violence that the right wing is aiming toward our institutions. This time it is the court system instead of congress, but it is still a threat of violence intended to interfere with the workings of justice.

    Somerby needs to rethink this. Or perhaps that is what he intends to do today, as he tells us that if we persist in putting Trump on trial, the right will hurt us, as it did those Capitol police and DC cops. Shame on Somerby for using threats and coercion himself to interfere in justice. He should know better, but apparently doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "All this week, we'll discuss what Carlson and some of his guests were saying all last week. In keeping with upper-end journalistic tradition, you won't read about this in the New York Times. You won't be hearing about this on our tribe's side of the segregated cable news aisle."

    Carlson is going to go on threatening our nation and Somerby is going to amplify his voice. Those others who are ignoring Carlson are doing him a favor. And no, we are not "segregated" (Somerby has pointed out before that this refers to law-regulated separation) but have ignored Carlson because we have no use for people who deal in threats as he has been doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And all this week Bob will be rationalizing the press’s most successful bold faced liar with his own distortions about the people he hates on the corporate left.

      Delete
  10. The second amendment is evil.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, Bob doesn't sink to the level of bathos he wrote at on friday morning, wetting his pants like a more subdued Lindsey Graham, but there is not much to find common ground with here.
    But I'll take a shot: mostly I do dislike the infotainment politics of sexual shaming, and there has been a healthy dollop of it in Stomymaina, but but Bob's bitching is absurd in context. Bill Clinton has essentially been driven from public life by a coalition of Republicans and Media (INCLUDING Michelle Goldberg) over his bad behavior roughly along these lines and Bob ignores this as if he were, well, a Republican partisan. Sexual shamming is bad, so is rank sexual hypocrisy.
    In a sense Bob is correct, the public, beyond those who are basically overage children (that can't be more than fifty percent of Trump voters, even if they are mean kids) certainly knew what they were getting on the character issue with Trump, no doubt many viewed it as REVENGE for Clinton "getting away" with it. It a stupid way to decide your vote, but if you go to the issues, of course, they just get dumber.
    Then there's the basic "Bob isn't really paying attention
    Department":
    Though it is not their function or duty to police Fox News,
    MSNBC DOES make note of Carlson's more absurd reaches, sometimes the other shows too which Bob gives a pass by ignoring. So here Bob is just getting it wrong because he is lazy. Also, it was Bob who decided to stop paying ANY attention to Fox around the time his pal Bill O"Reilly was shown to be a chronic inappropriate work place offender.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People may think that Bill Clinton should have slunk off in shame, but that isn't what he did. Bill Clinton wasn't driven from public life. He chose to devote his energies to establishing and building the Clinton Foundation. It has been quietly promoting global healthcare and economic development initiatives that have been doing a lot of good. Hillary Clinton continued her public career as Senator, Secretary of State and presidential candidate, but is now retired and working on her own projects, such as her TV show with Chelsea.

      From Wikipedia: "The foundation "has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support". Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs.

      This foundation is a public organization to which anyone may donate and is distinct from the Clinton Family Foundation, a private organization for personal Clinton family philanthropy.

      According to the Clinton Foundation's website, neither Bill Clinton nor his daughter, Chelsea Clinton (both are members of the governing board), draws any salary or receives any income from the foundation. When Hillary Clinton was a board member, she reportedly also received no income from the foundation.

      Beginning in 2015, the foundation was accused of wrongdoing, including a bribery and pay-to-play scheme, but multiple investigations through 2019 found no evidence of malfeasance."

      Delete
    2. I utterly agree with your assessment of Clinton, Not only is the Foundation laudable, but The Daily Howler way back when documented the NYTs and the WP’s early, ugly attempts to smear it. But President Clinton has not been able to function as an elder statesmen and asset to the Democrats the way he should. The credibility given the vile fruitcake Juanita Broaddrick is just the most obvious example.

      Delete
  12. The Munk Debate is an annual event held in Canada. The most recent one was about whether the mainstream media could be trusted. Ironically, Michelle Goldberg argued on the side that the mainstream media COULD be trusted.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vkgROIINEs&t=356s&ab_channel=TheMunkDebates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She lost decidedly. Her debate partner accused their debate opponents of racism!

      Delete
    2. I don't see anything ironic about that. There is nothing wrong with what Michelle Goldberg wrote.

      David, the over/under for total number of indictments Trump will face is 3 (three).

      What are you taking, over or under?

      Delete
    3. He's still trying to figure out why he can't convincingly argue against climate change.

      Delete
    4. Sounds like a very loaded question for a debate. On a given night, I would trust the Fox News Broadcast, though I would never trust it’s commentators who we now have proof have the ethics of very cynical crooks. I did not trust Michelle Goldberg when She told me I should Bill Clinton as a pariah for the rest of his life. I never trusted the NYTs or the WP’s scandal mongering on the Clintons and the fact they have never been indicted for anything supports my good judgement. Elon Musk has now aliened his ethical judgment with Donald Trump’s, so he’s obviously as stupid and evil as He is rich. You sort of have to play these things by ear….

      Delete
    5. @3:29 As the old story goes, a Grand Jury can be convinced to indict a ham sandwich. A politicized DA can always secure an indictment. The real question is, how many convictions after all appeals? My prediction is zero. What's yours, @3:29?

      Delete
    6. @3:44 What do you mean by "climate change"? If you mean that the earth is warming and that man's activity contributes to the warming, then I believe in climate change. However, I do not think the current models are yet reliable.

      Delete
    7. No, David, we won't go chasing your rabbits today. You can answer my question first.

      Looks like Donald J Chickenshit doesn't want his sucker fans to see him in the courtroom. Once a lying coward, always a lying coward.

      Prediction: Number of times Donald J Chickenshit will testify in his own defense. ZERO

      Delete
    8. The current models do not have to be reliable in order for us to know what direction to work toward. If you wait for better models, we will reach tipping points that will make our planet uninhabitable. Change first, study later.

      Delete
    9. David, if you are claiming that the grand jury was impressionable that undercuts the idea that no actual jury would ever convict Trump. Same kind of people, same process, same evidence.

      Delete
    10. A couple weeks ago, David boldly predicted Trump would never be indicted, NY or anywhere else.

      Now he comes back to say how predictable it was that Trump was indicted because the GJ can be persuaded to indict a ham sandwich. What's wrong, D, you didn't know who Allan Bragg was a couple weeks ago.

      It's so funny, DinC will never give up on Donald J Chickenshit.

      Delete
    11. Fair point, @9:06. I was wrong about Trump being indicted.

      @8:30 You are conflating a grand jury with a jury trial. The process is different in many, many ways,

      Delete
    12. "...A politicized DA can always secure an indictment." Of course this is true especially for one backed by George Soros as your favorite right wing outlets have caused you to believe despite the fact that there is no evidence of such and Soros has denied contributing to the DA's campaign. But we are to take your word as well as the inestimably fair-minded and apolitical attorney general Bill Barr's words that the DA is acting like a republican on this matter. No evidence whatsoever that the indictment is a political gesture but that is all you've got so you have to run with it, to smear the DA, of course.

      Delete
    13. "I don't think the current models are yet reliable." Based on what, your own painstaking research? We have strayed so far into the politicization of science in this country that it becomes remarkable and cause for a congratulatory pat on the back when a conservative states that he concurs with the consensus of 98% of scientists on a subject. Perhaps not quite on the order of saying "I believe that the earth is a sphere." , but certainly nothing to suggest that there is a viable alternative view at this late date, for which a statement concurring with uniformly accepted knowledge should even be necessary. Sad state of affairs that does not bode well for our country's competitiveness.

      Delete
    14. Don't worry, David, Gov. DeSantimonious is going to fight extradition. Bwahahaha! What a clown show!

      Delete
    15. Dr Santis would have, but Mickey Mouse had him pinned and he was on the three count when the feds showed up. Upon hearing that the always thoughtful governor would break from his constitutional obligation to fight the government on this issue , a smarter Trump would have briefly resisted extradatiion, you know, like he held on to those documents, and put the squeeze on the guy he calls meatball.

      Delete
    16. Soros contributed a million dollars to the PAC that supported Bragg. (They spent half a million of the Soros donation promoting him.) There is evidence of such. Of course Soros has denied contributing such sums directly to the DA's campaign - that would be illegal.

      Of course he was backed by Soros money. That is not in dispute.

      It's strange the scumbag left wing outlets who lie to you in your face about it want you to think otherwise because it's not illegal or wrong for Soros to back the guy through a PAC donation.

      Delete
    17. I'm trying to understand what you mean, David. Are you saying that Trump is factually innocent, or that a New York City trial jury will be charmed by DJT's people skills and let him off?

      I have got to admit, you were right about Trump all along. He's a fucking genius. No matter how bad it looks for him, he'll always find a way to make it worse.

      Delete
    18. To be clear, 7:47: the entity that Soros' Pac gave 1 million dollars to spent 11% of their total funding on backing the DA. The year before, when the DA was not running, the Soros PAC contributed 2.5 million dollars to that same entity and years prior to that Soros individually contributed 450,000. So unless you have some argument that Soros should have withheld donating via his Pac to an entity he had supported financially as far back as 2016 because they were planning on spending 11% of their donations on the DA, you are serving up some very weak sauce here. Soros is rich, supports democracy and free press and of course is a favorite target of left wing media outlets. If you don't like that he weilds power through his PACs, you can take that up with John Roberts and his supreme court.

      Delete
    19. 7:47, as you know, the implication is that the indictment was illegitimate and that Soros had influence on Bragg to charge Donald J Chickenshit (as part of the international Jewish conspiracy to take down Trump and destroy the USA)

      Do you believe Soros had any influence on the indictment?
      Because if you do, you'll have to explain why the former Manhattan DA, Cy Vance, was told by Billy "the fixer" Barr to stand down on the very same investigation.

      ***************
      "I was asked by the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District to stand down on our investigation," Vance told Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet the Press, "and as someone who respects that office a great deal and believing that they might perhaps have the best laws to investigate, I did so,"

      For a year and a half, at the request of the Southern District of New York, the Manhattan D.A.'s office "hit the pause button" on the hush-money case, Vance elaborated on MSNBC's Inside with Jen Psaki. "I was surprised, after Michael Cohen pleaded guilty, that the investigation from the Southern District on that issue did not go forward. By that time we had moved on to other matters," including the "two-year saga" to obtain Trump's tax returns, which led to an indictment of the Trump Organization four months later and guilty verdicts a year after that.
      ****************************

      So now I am not sure if Trump was indicted by the black DA because he is a puppet of the Soros international Jewish plot to destroy this country, or maybe it was Bragg because Barr was able to block the previous DA.

      Delete
    20. No I'm just saying a claim that the da was backed by George Soros money is accurate. In any claims that there's no evidence he was backed by Soros are false.

      Delete
    21. If you want to make a claim that the decision to indict was not influenced by Soros, make that claim. Don't make a false claim.

      Delete
    22. Jesus unamused, you go from there's no evidence that Soros backed the da to 'deal with it if you can handle he wields power through pacs'. Lol.

      Delete
    23. Unamused, you make liberals look stupid.

      Are you one of those small town hicks that uses a liberal identity to feel superior to the other dumb hicks you've been surrounded by your whole life?

      Boring.

      Delete
    24. If you want to make the claim that the decision to indict WAS influenced by Soros, then make the claim.

      Soros did not donate directly to Bragg's campaign.

      I notice you completely ignore the point about Bill Barr blocking Cy Vance from advancing with the investigation. What a surprise. Did Soros also contribute to Cy Vance's campaign?

      Delete
    25. My claim is there's is evidence the DA is backed by Soros money. Clear, indisputable evidence.

      I don't care about the Bill Barr point.

      Delete
    26. No, you're wrong. The PAC "Color of Change" contributed to Bragg's campaign.

      Who else contributed to Bragg's campaign?

      Of course you don't care about the corruption of Bill Barr, it debunks your entire narrative.


      The Pinocchio Test
      Republicans are being slippery here. Claiming Soros “funded” Bragg is simply false, but many rely on the more ambiguous phrase of “backed,” which is technically correct by several degrees of separation. But it’s still misleading and worthy of Three Pinocchios.

      Delete
    27. The original claim by the dumb hick Unamused said there is no evidence Soros "backed" Bragg, and that is 100% inaccurate. That's my only point and narrative.

      Delete
    28. We just heard a joke on a Jimmy Dore show: Soros didn't pay Bragg the same way as Trump didn't pay Stormy.

      Delete
    29. Unamused didn't claim any such thing.

      He simply put some context and perspective which facts. Republican supporters of the lawless trump don't believe in facts.


      To be clear, 7:47: the entity that Soros' Pac gave 1 million dollars to spent 11% of their total funding on backing the DA. The year before, when the DA was not running, the Soros PAC contributed 2.5 million dollars to that same entity and years prior to that Soros individually contributed 450,000. So unless you have some argument that Soros should have withheld donating via his Pac to an entity he had supported financially as far back as 2016 because they were planning on spending 11% of their donations on the DA, you are serving up some very weak sauce here.

      Delete
    30. I'm so sick of these dumb hick Democrats. So gullible and unintelligent.

      Delete
    31. Unamused: "Of course this is true especially for one backed by George Soros as your favorite right wing outlets have caused you to believe despite the fact that there is no evidence of such and Soros has denied contributing to the DA's campaign. "

      There's his claim dumb farmer.

      Delete
    32. @11:10 AM

      They are faithful. The true believers.

      ...and that doesn't require intelligence. In fact intelligence hinders faith...

      Delete
    33. If you can read, you will notice that Soros did not contribute to Bragg's campaign. He gave a PAC - Color of Change - money to do with as they wished. Something he has done in previous years when Bragg was not on any ballot.

      you can LIE by omission all you want. We all know why the RW shouts Soros every time they need to get the rube hicks' juices flowing.

      Delete
    34. Ok well you posted a fact check that said it was true, so you have to pick one! You're so dumb!!!

      Delete
    35. "technically correct by several degrees of separation"

      You're not too bright, are you?

      Delete
    36. It's correct. Is it not?

      Delete
    37. Is it that hard to cop to making a misstatement about Soros backing Bragg?

      Delete
    38. Yes, it is correct that Soros gave money to a PAC - Color of Change - as he had done in previous years when Bragg was not on the ballot. They did use some of their funds, which happen to be fungible, to support Bragg's candidacy, but never directly coordinating with the campaign which would be illegal.

      Delete
    39. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    40. "Yes, it is correct that Soros gave money to a PAC - Color of Change - as he had done in previous years when Bragg was not on the ballot. "

      Surely Mr Soros wouldn't give a flying fuck whether the name of his henchmyn is Bragg or Schmagg? Or would he?

      Delete
    41. I guess as long as neither one is a treasonous magat anti-democratic fascist anarchist like yourself, Meow.

      Delete
    42. Wow. How could I be such a frigging dumb hick. I get it now. Campaigns for public office apparently need to be funded by the party grievanced against the candidate; otherwise upon winning, the candidate can appropriately be called out by brilliant minds who can fairly claim that their funding makes them illegitimate. Maybe get a grip on how the world works. Soros could have donated directly to Bragg's campaign, in which case the claim could be made that he was George Soros-backed. Since the genius criticizing me apparently has direct insight into how the Soros PAC money was distributed, go ahead and show us your pie chart. You have zero evidence that such money was specifically earmarked for Bragg at the time it came in. Zero. And dumbass, I have never lived in a city of less than three million population.

      Delete
  13. “That said, we still haven't reached the part of Goldberg's presentation which strikes us as basically silly. What strikes us as basically silly is this suggestion:

    We needed to hear Stormy Daniels' story before we could know how to vote!”

    Goldberg did not say this. This is whole cloth invention by Somerby.

    Here is what Goldberg actually wrote:

    “It’s impossible to know what impact these stories [Daniels’ and McDougal’s] would have had if the electorate had been allowed to hear them…I’d guess that a vast majority of Trump voters would have been … unmoved by news of his affairs. But given the freakishly thin margins that gave Trump his victory — about 80,000 votes in three states — the stories wouldn’t have had to change that many minds to alter the outcome.”

    Indeed, the fact that Trump felt the need to hush them up shows that he agreed with Goldberg. Her argument doesn’t sound demented or silly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a good example though because it’s just the sort of thing Bob condemns in others.

      Delete
  14. Unless you have an “open marriage”(which is almost entirely nonexistent), marital infidelity isn’t just about sex, it is a kind of breach of contract, the marital contract. It’s often difficult to prove, especially if one of the parties denies it. But it isn’t beyond the pale to imagine that it might be important to some voters who find infidelity disqualifying. That used to include “family values” Republicans.

    It’s a tricky subject, with lots of potential mitigating circumstances, and clearly prone to sensationalizing (not just recently, either. Look back through US history.) But I can’t agree that it’s “demented”, period, full stop, to be concerned about a candidate’s marital relationship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks to Bill Clinton, marital fidelity is no longer required for a President. That ship has sailed.

      Delete
    2. My God, David. You're still chasing after President Clinton's dick?? I thought Hunter's dick would keep you occupied for now.

      Delete
  15. "Thanks to Bill Clinton...". You might want to brush up on your American presidential history. Also, Bill Clinton would have been unelectable after the scandal involving Lewinsky, so there is no reason to suggest that marital fidelity can be compromised in considering a candidate for president.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Touche, I forgot about the deplorables. Even Trump didn't trust them, as per his cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 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: illuminatisecretauthorities@gmail.com 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: illuminatisecretauthorities@gmail.com For more instructions on our membership process.

    ReplyDelete