BREAKING! We lost a large chunk of time today!

 FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 2023

We expect to post tomorrow: As you've almost surely already heard, we lost a large chunk of time today, on this our latest Bloomsday.

What the Vinegar Hill can you do? We expect to post tomorrow.


  1. Let's take time today to think about that time when according to his handwritten notes, CIA Director Brennan briefed
    President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including
    the "alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her
    foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming
    interference by Russian security services."

    Good times.

    1. What, is it national right wing full of shit day? You are reminding me of when Brian Epstein made the Beatles put on suits, Mao. But your music still sucks.

    2. Brian Epstein made the Beatles world-famous.

    3. Indeed, and people like Mao put lipstick on the ultimate pig and may destroy America yet. But said Pig is very famous.

    4. To be fair, in reality Brennan wasn’t making a claim about Hillary Clinton, he was merely reporting on a narrative the Russian intelligence were trying to disseminate.

      In other words Brennan was reporting that the Russians were trying to fool people into thinking that Hillary was stirring up a scandal. Frankly, if you got fooled that’s on you, since Brennan testified to this years ago.

      Russians have a long history of using exactly these kind of tactics.

      As it turns out, in 2020, these Russian tactics proved to be ineffective, unlike 2016.

      It’s not so much that right wingers like @3:20 are complete morons and thus susceptible to cons like this from the Russians, but that these people are so obsessed with dominance that they are willing to throw integrity out the window and weaponize any tool towards their sad and empty goal.

    5. That's great and I'm sure you feel your really smart and that other people are morons for not taking the director of the CIA at their word. But ... I regret to inform you the Hillary Clinton campaign has admitted she signed off a proposal to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.

      This is out in the open. The cat is out of the bag. I tried to tell you that yesterday. You're still trying to argue that it didn't happen. That Hillary's campaign didn't interfere in the election and bring stories they knew were false to the media and the FBI in an attempt to link Trump and Russia at the way to Swift boat Trump in the summer of 2016.

      But they did and they already got caught. It's an objective fact. There are emails you can read and you can read the stories themselves they planted in the press. You should probably not be arguing that the Clinton campaign did not try to stir up a scandal claiming Trump and Russia were connected. That is a settled issue. They were caught and we all need to deal with it.

      Not that it was even illegal.

      I wish it would have worked and she would have been elected.

    6. 7:26 the fact remains that Brennan was merely reporting that Russian intelligence were trying to spread a narrative about Hillary stirring up a scandal to fool right wing suckers like you.

      Apparently the Russian scheme worked, to a certain extent, on easy “marks” such as yourself.

      As indicated by your own link to a CNN report, neither Hillary nor her campaign tried to “stir up a scandal”.

      In fact the Durham investigation tried to prove this by indicting Michael Sussman, however, Sussman was found not guilty!

      The article goes on to say:

      “There is no evidence to support Musk’s claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann’s lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI.”

      When your claim is so empty and specious that the evidence you provide to support your claim actually counters your claim, you’re probably varying degrees of misguided and arguing in bad faith.

      I am sorry you got snookered by the Russians.

    7. So where did Franklin Foer get his information for the article he wrote as an October surprise connecting Trump to the Russian bank?

    8. It's so funny. Your source for evidence it didn't happen are claims from the people who were caught doing it.

    9. The people that “got caught” were investigated, for longer than Mueller’s investigation (admittedly which was tepid and not thorough), and were found to be not guilty.

      Here is Franklin Foer’s take on the issue, where it’s clear that Clinton and her campaign did not “stir up a scandal” nor do anything wrong:

      I even quoted your own evidence that indicated there was no “stirring up a scandal”.

      You got bamboozled by the Russians.

      Instead of wrongheadedly trying to defend your nonsense claim, you should be working on why you got so badly played by the Russians.

    10. Oh, one of those vilifying Donald Trump proposals? I didn’t realize!!

    11. How is it clear from the Foer piece that Clinton and her campaign did not “stir up a scandal” nor do anything wrong? He doesn't mention his sources at all.

      So, let's try this a second time: where did Franklin Foer get his information for the article he wrote as an October surprise connecting Trump to the Russian bank? ('October surprise' his words)

      Who was his anonymous source? Tell us.

      Stay on point - where did Foer get his information from?

      What was his source's name??

      And how was his source connected to the Clinton campaign???

      Do tell us!

      How about this - how much did Foer's source bill the Clinton campaign for what they described on the bill to the Clinton campaign as "Communications regarding Slate story"?

      Do tell us!

    12. Foer talks about how he consulted other investigative journalists that were already working on the issue, as well as experts in the field. The FBI were also aware of the issue. So it’s clear this was not Hillary trying to “stir up a scandal”, which was in reality a narrative cooked up Russia; this was already a concern being investigated.

      There are experts who think the servers were indeed serving a nefarious purpose, although the FBI looked into it briefly and decided that it was just a technical glitch and not suspicious - believe who you want.

      Many legal experts think that Russia/Trump/Durham were trying to hide a connection between Russia, Trump and Alfa Bank, by producing a “speaking indictment” against Sussman, ie they weren’t really after Sussman since their case against him was nonexistent, but they were trying to craft a narrative blaming Hillary as a way to obfuscate looking into Alfa Bank. Sussman was found not guilty.

      After Russia hacked the DNC and Hillary’s emails, the campaign was briefed on the server allegation, and, reasonably, the campaign decided to alert the media. Hillary’s campaign manager briefed her on the plan and she agreed with the decision.

      This was investigated by Durham but there was no indictment other than for Sussman, who was found not guilty!

      Not only was there nothing illegal done, there was nothing corrupt done either.

      The fact is, Brennan briefed Obama that the Russians were cooking up a narrative to falsely portray Hillary as “stirring up a scandal”, but in reality Hillary and her campaign did nothing wrong. Even the exhaustive Durham investigation was unable to produce anything from this, basically presenting the world with one of the biggest nothingburgers of all time.

      Ironically, Trump declassified the Brennan notes in an attempt at an October surprise in 2020, and while Trump’s and Russia’s corrupt behavior did affect the 2016 election just enough, for 2020 it failed, in part because it was all old news and had already been litigated in the press, no one bought the story except for sad sacks that got played by Russia.

      In your heart, you know you were suckered, yet you can’t face the music, so you’re trying to deflect with this Russia propagated nonsense; I’m worried how someone as gullible and naive as you functions in the world without getting constantly conned. Maybe I can help wake you up, unlikely but I’ll put the effort in for as long as it takes.

    13. Great trolling but who was his source for that story? Where did Foer get his information from? Why did the person Foet got his information from bill the Clinton campaign for doing so?

      It's a simple question. Why can't you answer it?

      Because you are a troll and you're full of shit.

    14. I can't continue to converse with a troll. Bye.

    15. Mao you have really established the hell out of what he was found Not Guilty of. Just like the popular vote winner of 2016 was never charged with anything. You really got your ass kicked today but, like your Orange God, you are too dumb to know it.

    16. It's purportedly alleged that there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot.

    17. The Alfa server issue was already being investigated, by computer experts, by journalists. When the Clinton campaign was briefed on the issue, in the aftermath of the DNC and their campaign being hacked by the Russians (obviously on behalf, if not at the request, of Trump), the campaign reasonably and appropriately decided to alert the media. They ran it past Hillary who agreed with that plan of action. Foer’s sources included the Clinton campaign, other investigative journalists, and computer experts.

      None of this news, this is all above board, none of this illegal, none of this is corrupt.

      Russia/Trump was the entity trying to stir up a scandal from this. As Brennan reported, Russia attempted to stir this up into a scandal, Trump had the Durham investigation, and Trump declassified the Brennan memo. But it all failed, nothing came of any of it…

      Except it conned you. You got suckered, bamboozled. Hoodwinked! So much so, that you’re repeatedly embarrassing yourself here. Some friendly advice: don’t send money to that Nigerian prince.

  2. James Joyce can't even get an honest mention on his birthday.

    1. I said yes I will yes.

    2. To be fair, an honest mention of James Joyce could reasonably include an assessment that much, if not all, of the value of his work is that it functions as virtue signaling, particularly among those concerned with meritocracy and the attendant hierarchy thus produced.

      Not to say that this was necessarily the original intent, but at this point, that matters little.

      Furthermore, James Joyce was born in February. June 16th is so called Bloomsday, the day his book Ulysses takes place.

      Joyce may continue to be read, but most likely via academic coercion, so it’s hard to see his work maintaining much relevance.

  3. Somerby keeps focusing on Trump's sociopathy, but the actual danger arises because Trump is a fascist. Somerby never explores the content of the things Trump is promising to do and their implications for our society.

    The press has been describing Trump as an authoritarian, but he is actually a fascist. This article explains the difference between the two and supplies evidence from Trump himself to show that he is a fascist and not an authoritarian:

    Among the 5 elements of fascism described by this article is the following:

    "2. The galvanizing of popular rage against cultural elites.

    “Your enemies” are “media elites,” … “the elites who led us from one financial and foreign policy disaster to another.” (Trump, 2015, 2016).

    Authoritarians do not stir people up against establishment elites. They use or co-opt those elites in order to gain and maintain power.

    By contrast, fascists galvanize public rage at presumed (or imaginary) cultural elites and use mass rage to gain and maintain power. They stir up grievances against those elites for supposedly displacing average people and seek revenge. In so doing, they create mass parties. They often encourage violence."

    This is how Somerby helps Trump -- he targets certain elites and relentlessly blames them for both specific and general crimes, claiming that because of these elites our nation is sliding into the sea. Who does Somerby target? The media, journalists, authors, professors, former prosecutors, anyone who might appear as an expert on a news show. He makes a special point of denigrating the top universities, telling us which college a given journalist came from and then blaming that place for whatever criticism he is blaming on that reporter. He blames so-called thought leaders, cable news hosts, Morning Joe and friends, anyone who he can stigmatize over a triviality. He claims they are making too much money, and they too are causing our nation to sink into the sea, while anthropologists in trees weep (or something). The continual badmouthing of liberals, the media, and people he designates as elites (without evidence of wrongdoing) can only help Trump's fascist campaign by weakening faith in truth, expertise and knowledge and spreading disinformation.

    Another pillar of fascism is misogyny.

    "5. Disdain of women and fear of non-standard forms of gender identity and sexual orientation...

    Authoritarianism imposes hierarchies; authoritarianism seeks order.

    By contrast, fascism is organized around the particular hierarchy of male dominance. The fascist heroic warrior is male. Women are relegated to subservient roles.

    In fascism, anything that challenges the traditional heroic male roles of protector, provider, and controller of the family is considered a threat to the social order. Fascism seeks to eliminate homosexuals, transgender, and queer people because they are thought to challenge or weaken the heroic male warrior.

    Not coincidentally, Somerby's favorite targets here are nearly always female. That's because his purpose here is to support Trump's fascist agenda and keeping women in "their place" is one of the five pillars of fascism.