MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2024
Excitement running high: There is no trial but the one true trial. All other news topics fail.
We missed the start of Deadline: White House due to an appointment. We returned at 4:15 to find excitement running high and the (uniform) desire to convict running strong.
Also, we returned to hear some odd assertions. More on that tomorrow?
For ourselves, our overall view is this:
We regard this unfolding event as an embarrassment, but also as a major anthropology lesson. Does this help us know who we actually are? Consider:
In an array of formulations, we've been told that we the voters needed to hear Stormy Daniels' story so we could have a real election in November 2016.
That is what we've been endlessly told. Keeping that in mind, this is the story we needed to hear:
Daniels says she had sex with Donald J. Trump on one occasion in 2006. Ten years later, we needed to hear her tell us that before we could know how to vote!
(For the record, Trump says they never had sex. As such, she says the number of assignations is one; he says the number is zero. We would assume that her number is correct, but we can't exactly prove it.)
For the sake of rumination, let's assume her number is correct. On one occasion, ten years before, she and Donald J. Trump had sex. Voters needed to hear about that in order to know how to vote!
This framework draws us back in time. In our view, it draws us way, way back in time and shows us who we are.
We decided to cop to our overall outlook. Fuller analysis resumes tomorrow.
(For the record, we also assume that Donald J. Trump is (severely) mentally ill. Most of our cadre say that in private. They've just agreed not to say so out loud.)
For now, excitement is running high. This strikes us as a major embarrassment, but also as an anthropology lesson—as a chance to know ourselves.
In the meantime, and despite what we've said, please remember this:
"No people are uninteresting," Yevtushenko said. "Their fate is like the chronicle of planets."
No people are uninteresting. According to Yevtushenko, they matter all the way down.
ReplyDelete"On one occasion, ten years before, she and Donald J. Trump had sex. Voters needed to hear about that in order to know how to vote!"
No, for me personally, it's not enough to just hear about that. To know how to vote, I need the detailed description. With pictures.
Defendant 1 conspired on a crime that put Cohen behind bars. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is majorly distorting what this trial is about. It is not about Stormy Daniels. It is not even about suppressing the news of Trump's affair with her in 2016. It is about interference in that election which was covering up via the commission of several crimes.
ReplyDeleteThe interference wasn't only keeping the news about that affair from the public, but the whole catch-and-kill agreement that trump had with Pecker at the National Enquirer. The agreement was to suppress negative stories about Trump. We only know abou three such stories which can be proven to have been suppressed under that agreement. We do not know whether there was more to it, such as the story that was printed about Trump's opponent at the time, Ted Cruz, in which it was suggested that Cruz's father was involved in the murder of JFK. The part we DO know about is bad enough, but minimizing it is inappropriate when it was possible too that it involved much more, such as planting and running negative stories about Trump opponents. Yes, that is speculation, but so is Somerby's belief that this is only about sexy time fun with Stormy.
Somerby focuses so rigidly on the sex part, that he disappears the fraud committed when Trump falsified business records and evaded FEC reporting requirements. That same falsification was committed when Trump allowed Russia to "donate" a social media campaign in his favor involving bots, fake accounts, trolls and planted stories in three states, aimed at suppressing black votes and disaffected Bernie votes, and increasing support for Jill Stein (who was also receiving Russian support). In fairness, the hacking of Podesta's account (Hillary's campaign) and posting of that info on Wikileaks was also an in-kind contribution to Trump's campaign. But concealment of contributions and falsification of expenses seems routine, even if this trial is presenting only the things it has the strongest proof of. The sex scandal with Stormy was only the tip of that iceberg.
Somerby has to know this, so he is working overtime today as he blames us human beings for caring about sex too much while trying to pretend that's all Trump did wrong in his election manipulation. We know Comey released in October surprise letter under pressure (because he said so). But who was behind the "upstate NY" FBI agents who were threatening Comey and what did they have on him? I'll bet Trump knows, even if we do not.
This is not about sex. It is about election interference, just like his other trials are. Because we Americans are not sex-obsessed but concerned about maintaining the fairness of all elections, including one Trump is now running in. And notice how much Trump hates it when the judge tries to keep the trial fair. He regards not being able to do whatever he wants as unfairness and his supporters follow that lead. Including Somerby.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC were fined by the Federal Elections Commission for covering up the Steele Dossier payments as legal fees in their books - same charge as Trump. Hillary was fined $8000.
Delete6:33 Trump received a bill from Cohen and Trump's accountants paid the bill out of Trump's bank account not his campaign account. Hillary Clinton funneled money through an attorney to pay for the Steel Dossier that came out of her campaign account.
DeleteBut 6:07 is right, hiding donations and cooking the books appear to be just another day at the office, even though this courtroom drama showcases only the juiciest bits they've got iron-clad evidence for and Americans are not sex-obsessed.
There are 34 felony charges against Trump, not one. That Somerby only mentions Stormy doesn't mean that is the only thing Trump is accused of.
DeleteOne single instance of Hillary paying a fine does not mean "everybody does it" is even remotely true. That's why the Sandoval hearing was held -- to admit instances of Trump doing other similarly fraudulent things, to prove that HE does this kind of thing routinely. If they had anything else against Hillary, they would have used it.
Hillary Clinton (checks notes) violated campaign finance law by (checks notes) lying to the FTC. Which is the same charge as Trump. Amirite?
DeleteNot even close.
DeleteYou can read Trump's charges in the indictment:
Deletehttps://manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-indictment-of-former-president-donald-j-trump/
6:39,
DeleteYet people who loved Trump's bigotry, more than they cared that they were voting for a self-proclaimed sexual predator, pretended they were enraged by Clinton's corruption.
At least we both see these voters for who they really are.
DeleteWhat Clinton corruption? ;)
Hillary Clinton reimbursed the DNC for the money they paid for the Steele Dossier (which they bought from a Republican who created it as oppo research on Trump), but it isn't clear that was a campaign donation -- it might depend on the contents of the dossier, which may have contained nothing useful in her campaign. That may be splitting hairs.
DeleteIt is notable that Clinton apparently paid the fine without arguing about it. The point with Trump is that his actions consisted of a pattern of behavior aimed at a single illegal goal -- interference in the election. Clinton's were nothing like that, especially since she didn't commission the Steele dossier in the first place and it was not about her.
Actually, the Steele Dossier originated 100% with the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign did not buy the Steele Dossier from a Republican who created it as oppo research on Trump.
DeleteNot sure why you are lying here. The Clinton commissioned the Steele dossier in the first place itself. No one else did. The Steele dossier was 100% her campaign's invention and was all about her.
Are you lying or do you have your facts wrong?
Later, Hillary Clinton personally approved a plan to share Trump-Russia allegations with the press in mid 2016 before the election.
This will help you understand why you are mistaken when you repeat the lie that the Steele Dossier was bought from a Republican who created it as oppo research on Trump.
DeleteClinton commissioned the Steele dossier in the first place. No Republican had anything to do with it.
Clinton was falsely trying to tie Trump to Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html
They weren't allegations, Boris. Russia really was energetically working to help elect the orange abomination. The question is, why does that make you so happy? Putin is a punk.
Delete(Your lie is conflating the hiring of Fusion GPS with the commissioning of the dossier. Really though, the commissioning of the dossier came 100%, completely, entirely and totally from the Clinton campaign who was trying to make up stories about Trump and Russia.)
DeleteAfter the Clinton campaign originated the Steele Dossier and lied about it to the FTC, Hillary Clinton herself personally approved a plan to share Trump-Russia allegations with the press. This was in mid 2016 before the election.
8:44 the allegations in question were not only proved false, they proved to be ridiculous and the researchers themselves protested how absurd the allegations were.
DeleteIt was a 100% total fabrication on the part of the Clinton campaign. You can see their emails discussing how crazy the claim is but deciding to bring it t the press anyway.
(they brought the same allegations to the FBI who rejected them because they were so outlandishly absurd.)
Let's try to stay informed, could we?
8:44
Delete"A campaign staffer later passed the information to a reporter from Slate magazine, which the campaign hoped the reporter would “vet it out, and write what they believe is true,” Mook said.
Slate published a story on October 31, 2016, raising questions about the odd Trump-Alfa cyber links. After that story came out, Clinton tweeted about it, and posted a news release that said, “This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.”
The testimony came in the criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who is being prosecuted by the Trump-era special counsel John Durham. Durham is investigating potential misconduct tied to the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe. The trial has shed light on the dark arts of political opposition research – and how campaigns dig up dirt and plant stories in the press.
Federal investigators ultimately concluded there weren’t any improper Trump-Alfa cyber links.
🥷🏼
Hillary Clinton personally approved plan to share Trump-Russia allegation with the press in 2016
Deletehttps://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html
8:44
DeleteSo actually, they were allegations, Boris.
The Clinton campaign really was energetically making up stories tying Trump to Russia and bringing these lies they invented to the FBI and the press, as I have proved. The question is, why are you so ignorant about it or why are you lying about it? Putin is a punk.
Russia, if you're listening, explain why Trump, Jr. would love it, especially later in the Summer.
DeleteOh - 'Russia if you're listening?' Do you want to allege Trump decided to communicate hacking instructions to Russia through his televised press conferences?
DeletePlease tell us why Russia if you're listening is some sort of meaningful riposte!!! (You can't.)
Donald J. Trump would vote for Vladamir Putin for President of the United States, instead of himself, if Putin told him to.
DeleteTo repeat:
DeleteThe Steele Dossier origination entirely from within the Clinton campaign. Clinton lied about it to the FTC. Clinton approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press.
Not that there's anything wrong with it.
9:20 AM In other words, you've been proven full of shit and a liar and can't defend it in any way.
Delete9:19,
DeleteGood point. Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would do his corruption in public. After all, he's not a moron who thinks when you're rich, they let you get away with it.
9:24 AM What are you alleging - Trump was really asking Russia to find the emails missing from Hillary's server? Be specific.
Delete9:24 AM Are you denying the Steele Dossier originated entirely from within the Clinton campaign and that Clinton lied about it to the FTC and later Clinton approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press and tweeted about it when the false allegations were published? Be specific.
Delete9:22,
DeleteEveryone knows that. It's why the Trump DoJ led by Bill Barr opened an investigation of Clinton, Schiff, and the Intelligence Committee but came up with bupkis.
9:28 Glad to see you agree the Steele Dossier originated entirely from within the Clinton campaign and Clinton later lied about it to the FTC.
DeleteThen, she approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press and tweeted about it when the false allegations were published.
There isn't anything illegal about these lies she invented (or commissioned) and spread to the FBI and the press.
We seem to totally agree.
Re: "Russia if you're listening"
DeleteYou can't believe a word Trump says. If you think he was really asking Russia to find the emails missing from Hillary's server, you probably think they really let him get away with walking up to women and grabbing them by the pu**y, or that he was a successful businessman. C'mon, it's ALL jokes.
OTOH,
DeleteTrump really did try to gaslight a deadly viral pandemic, like it was some common NY Times political reporter.
He's a moron, no matter how you look at it.
9:31,
DeleteI'm glad you finally agree the Trump DoJ couldn't find any support for your allegations, so they dropped the investigation with zero charges.
9:38 No, we don't agree there was no support for the allegations The allegations are all proven 100% true. The sleazy lies Clinton invented were not illegal.
DeleteThe DoJ found support for all of my 'allegations'. There were not any charges because it was not illegal for Clinton to create these lies and bring them to the press knowing they were false in an effort to swiftboat Trump. (Except for then she lied to the FTC.)
9:54 What Russia stories?
DeleteOnce Somerby started deleting my posts about Russiagate, it became obvious he reads his comments, despite his denials.
DeleteBob Somerby,
DeleteQuick question. Do you delete my posts criticizing the media, because TDH is not a media criticism blog?
To summarize:
DeleteThe Steele Dossier origination entirely from within the Clinton campaign.
Clinton lied about it to the FTC.
Clinton approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press.
The Clinton campaign was actively trying to tie Trump to Russia in the summer of 2016.
The Clinton campaign decided to keep blaming Russia after they lost and engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. They invented a script they would pitch to the press and the public with Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-the-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque_b_5906e5f6e4b03b105b44ba15
The 2 major multi million dollar investigations into if
Trump and Russia diid collude came up with bupkis.
The matter of Trump colluding with Russia has been settled with no conclusive evidence Trump did anything wrong.
9:54 What Russia stories?
DeleteGo fuck yourself, Boris.
DeleteNEW YORK (AP) — A Florida judge sanctioned former President Donald Trump and one of his attorneys, ordering them to pay nearly $1 million for filing what he said was a bogus lawsuit against Trump’s 2016 rival Hillary Clinton and others.
In a blistering filing on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks accused Trump of a “pattern of abuse of the courts” for filing frivolous lawsuits for political purposes, which he said “undermines the rule of law” and “amounts to obstruction of justice.”
“Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,” he wrote.
Citing Trump’s recent legal action against the Pulitzer Prize board, New York’s attorney general, big tech companies and CNN, he described Trump as “a prolific and sophisticated litigant” who uses the courts “to seek revenge on political adversaries.”
“He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process,” he wrote.
The ruling required Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, to pay nearly $938,000 to the defendants in the case.
10:12 That doesn't refute any of these facts:
DeleteThe Steele Dossier originated entirely from within the Clinton campaign.
Clinton lied about it to the FTC.
Clinton approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press.
The Clinton campaign was actively trying to tie Trump to Russia in the summer of 2016.
The Clinton campaign decided to keep blaming Russia after they lost and engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. They invented a script they would pitch to the press and the public with Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-the-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque_b_5906e5f6e4b03b105b44ba15
The 2 major multi million dollar investigations into if
Trump and Russia did collude came up with bupkis.
The matter of Trump colluding with Russia has been settled with no conclusive evidence Trump did anything wrong.
You're full of shit, Boris. If any of that was true, I wonder why Don Farto has to pay nearly a million dollars to Hillary?
Delete10:30 AM It's all true. If you can prove otherwise, be my guest.
DeleteIt's not supportive of Russia to admit the truth that the Steele Dossier originated entirely from within the Clinton campaign. Clinton lied about it to the FTC and Clinton approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press.
DeleteDon't be so adverse to rational thinking.
DeleteAs a Democrats, I was proud that Clinton originated the Steele Dossier and lied about it to the FTC before approving a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press.
DeleteIt's just hardball politics. It shows she was a fighter. And she needed to do things like that because of her historic and overwhelming unpopularity and poor skills at actual campaigning.
I'm voting for Biden, but if Trump wins I'll take solace in an 8 x 10 photo of David in Cal being pushed into a cattle car by Stephen Miller.
DeleteHey, shit-for-brains Boris, the FTC had nothing to do with it. It was a stupid technical fine because she reported the pyaments to Perkins Coie as legal expenses. So fuck off, go back to polishing Putin's knob, Boris.
DeleteIt's a natural defense mechanism to turn to cliched, weaponizing accusations like bigotry to deflect from facts like the Steele Dossier originating entirely from within the Clinton campaign, Clinton lying about it to the Federal Election Commission, and Clinton approving a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press, etc.
Delete12:55 PM: That's true. Thank you. Clinton lied about it to the Federal Election Commission who fined her. They fined the DNC as well for lying about the payment by calling it “legal services” instead of opposition research. Good catch!
🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯🎯💩🙌✌🏽🥇🥷🏼👯
You're great!!!!!
Get your facts straight, putin knob polisher. Your boy, uncle putin hacked the DNC. Steele wasn't brought in and hired by Perkins Coie until after the DNC went to the FBI and the FBI refused to make public that Russia had hacked the DNC.
DeleteHillary Clinton had no direct participation of the commissioning of Steele, putin knob polisher.
Why is any of that relevant? How would you know Hillary Clinton had no direct participation of the commissioning of Steele? It's ok to be wrong. Let's remember:
DeleteThe Steele Dossier originated entirely from within the Clinton campaign.
Clinton and the DNC lied about it to the FEC and were fined.
Clinton personally approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press.
The Clinton campaign was actively trying to tie Trump to Russia in the summer of 2016.
The Clinton campaign decided to keep blaming Russia after they lost and engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. They invented a script they would pitch to the press and the public with Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-the-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque_b_5906e5f6e4b03b105b44ba15
The 2 major multi million dollar investigations into if Trump and Russia did collude came up with bupkis.
The matter of Trump colluding with Russia has been settled with no conclusive evidence Trump did anything wrong.
Right?
Russia actively worked to help the trump campaign and undermine the Clinton campaign. Trump knew this was happening in real time and yet repeatedly protected Russia by denying it. He was told by our intelligence agencies and his own fucking son, yet he repeatedly publicly gave cover to Putin and his goons. Just by those facts alone it is clear that Trump was colluding with Russia. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
DeleteGo back to polishing putin's knob now, little Boris.
Hi 2:22
DeleteBacking up a second, lets put what you say into context and remember:
Clinton personally approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press.
The Clinton campaign was actively trying to tie Trump to Russia in the summer of 2016.
The Clinton campaign decided to keep blaming Russia after they lost and engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. They invented a script they would pitch to the press and the public with Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
The 2 major multi million dollar investigations into if Trump and Russia did collude came up with bupkis.
The matter of Trump colluding with Russia has been settled with no conclusive evidence Trump did anything wrong.
In that context, your unproven accusations, frankly, fall flat.
Sorry.
Sorry, Boris knob polisher. Get back to me when Donald J chickenshit testifies under oath to the Mueller investigation.
DeleteWill do!!
DeleteWill that change any of these indisuputable facts?
DeleteClinton personally approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press.
The Clinton campaign was actively trying to tie Trump to Russia in the summer of 2016.
The Clinton campaign decided to keep blaming Russia after they lost and engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. They invented a script they would pitch to the press and the public with Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
The 2 major multi million dollar investigations into if Trump and Russia did collude came up with bupkis.
The matter of Trump colluding with Russia has been settled with no conclusive evidence Trump did anything wrong.
I dispute all your troll-boy bullshit, ok, Boris?
DeleteFeel free to provide the sources.
DeleteWhat's the matter, Peckerhead? Not having a good day with your Pecker? Every magat accusation is a confession. There are no exceptions.
DeleteIt comes down to non sequiturs of course. What else can you do? You can't refute that Clinton personally approved a plan to bring false allegations about Trump and Russia to the FBI and the press and the Clinton campaign was actively trying to tie Trump to Russia in the summer of 2016 and the Clinton campaign decided to keep blaming Russia after they lost and engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up and they invented a script they would pitch to the press and the public with Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument and the 2 major multi million dollar investigations into if Trump and Russia did collude came up with bupkis and the matter of Trump colluding with Russia has been settled with no conclusive evidence Trump did anything wrong.
DeleteAfter all those years of believing otherwise, I know it stings little. And of course an angry non response makes sense. I feel you pain.
It's only a non sequitur to you because you're a little slow, eh. I guess you haven't been following David Pecker's testimony? About how Trump and he did orders of magnitude worse than the lies you're accusing the Clinton campaign of doing. That's OK, peckerhead. Enjoy life on the troll farm. Do they feed you well?
DeleteHere is the way Somerby thinks about this trial:
ReplyDelete"Daniels says she had sex with Donald J. Trump on one occasion in 2006. Ten years later, we needed to hear her tell us that before we could know how to vote!
(For the record, Trump says they never had sex. As such, she says the number of assignations is one; he says the number is zero. We would assume that her number is correct, but we can't exactly prove it.)"
For the record, Somerby never believes accusations that women make against men, proof or not, since he wouldn't have been an eyewitness.
Ten years later, what we need to hear is how Trump (during the election, not 10 years ago) coerced Stormy Daniels into signing an NDA by threatening her daughter's safety, paid her off, then had to be sued to let her out of that NDA years later, when it was no longer relevant. The lawsuit was dismissed as "unenforceable" and the judge ordered Trump to pay Daniels' legal fees ($44K). Daniels was considered to be the "prevailing party" which means she won the suit.
The reason we need to hear about the NDA is because it was part of the fraud committed by Trump when he suppressed her story, had Michael Cohen pay the $130K himself, failed to report that as a campaign contribution (because Daniels was hushed to support Trump's election chances), and then falsified his business records to show the reinbursement of the $130K that Cohen laid out as "legal expenses" when Cohen himself says he performed no such services for that money. None of that is about sex. It is all about fraud, deceit, cheating in the election, and pulling the wool over voters' eyes by suppressing knowledge of Trump's philandering, extortion of Daniels, and scumbag lying and cheating.
That stuff should matter to voters. But we all should have had the chance to decide for ourselves whether it did or not. It is too late now. It may have changed the election and led to the unnecessary deaths during covid (because Hillary would have been competent). As Somerby often says, people are dead of covid because of what Trump did, not with Stormy but during the election itself.
You say Somerby never believes the woman, and in support you quote Somerby saying he does believe the woman.
DeleteYou reason a bit differently than I do.
If Somerby has allowed the possibility that Daniels was telling the truth all these years, why did he call her a grifter and ask why she wasn't accused of extortion, allege that she approached Trump/Cohen and asked for money to conceal her story, and so on?
DeleteJust because Somerby offers a pro forma acknowledge that she might be telling the truth doesn't mean he believes it, especially when his arguments for the opposite occupy more space and are asserted more vigorously?
When anything is possible and the opposite of a statement could be true, do you have any basis for believing that statement? No. There is evidence supporting Stormy Daniels. Somerby doesn't deal in evidence. He says this could be true, or it may not be. There is no proof, or "anything is possible" or "there is no way of knowing." And thus leaves that statement hanging in thin air while the reader is being told, quite obviously, don't believe this and it is obvious that Somerby does not (unless he believes everything can be true all at once). This is sophistry.
It is sad that you are taken in by this. But you don't show many signs of intelligence about anything else either.
This summarizes Somerby's attitude about women who accuse men of wrongdoing:
Delete"In the more general sense, Bazelon offered a pair of warnings concerning accusers like Reade. Sometimes accusers are lying, she said. And sometimes accusers "have problems."
Sometimes accusers are lying, and sometimes accusers "have problems!" For those reasons, Bazelon said, we need to "exercise caution in believing high-profile accusations which can destroy other people."
https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2020/05/intellectual-architecture-tara-reade.html
In this case, Somerby was correct that Reade was lying, but he said similar things about other women, such as Blasey-Ford and accused Chanel Miller of deserving her rape for having gotten drunk. Somerby argues strenuously against believing any woman who makes an accusation.
Tara Reade turned out to be an operative who attacked Biden for political purposes and is now living in Moscow. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. Chanel Miller's rapist was convicted. His judge gave him a too-lenient sentence and was subsequently recalled by an outraged public. Somerby had to disbelieve a whole lot of evidence and corroboration to disbelieve Blasey-Ford but the Republicans put Kavanaugh on the court anyway. Biden would have saved today's women a lot of trouble if he had believed Anita HIll back in the day and sworn in her corroborating witnesses at his hearing.
8:28,
DeleteYour comment mistakenly assumes it is not possible to extort someone over the truth.
To extort is to obtain something by force or threat. In this case the threat was by Stormy to reveal the (truthful) fact that she'd slept with Trump.
It isn't possible to call someone a con artist and then assert that they are telling the truth. Con artists don't tell the truth.
Deletecon artist definition: "a person who cheats or tricks others by persuading them to believe something that is not true"
The argument was over whether Somerby believes Trump or Stormy Daniels where their narratives conflict in major ways. The examples are of Somerby supporting Trump's version instead of Daniels. Somerby is the one asking why Daniels wasn't charged with extorting Trump, when her narrative states that Trump approached her demanding an NDA (after she tried to sell her story to the press). Somerby's question about why she wasn't charged with extortion shows that he believed Trump's version of what happened. That's all it was intended to show -- Somerby's belief (based on what he wrote).
DeleteShe told the truth about them having sex and she was a con artist for extorting Trump for it.
DeleteIn October 2016 Daniels, through her attorney, approached the National Enquirer to go public about her tryst with Trump. She then accepted a $130,000 payment in return for her silence.
DeleteThat's certainly extortion-ish behavior, a conclusion which can be reached without relying on any of Trump's lies.
No, that isn't what happened. You may have her confused with Karen McDougal, the playboy model with whom Trump had a year-long affair while Melania was pregnant. But McDougal got paid $150,000, thought the article would be published and was disappointed when it wasn't. Her silence was obtained via an exclusive contrast with the magazine, which then killed the story.
DeleteDaniels approached two other publications requesting much less money ($11 and $15). She said she discovered her story might be worth money by mentioning it on a daytime interview show. Trump got wind of it and sent his goons to coerce her into an NDA. There is tape of Trump talking to Cohen about cutting out the National Enquirer and approaching Daniels directly to obtain an NDA. Trump paid Cohen $130,000 to reimburse what he gave Daniels. Daniels said she didn't want to sign an NDA but was coerced into doing it via threats to her daughter's safety. Somerby mocked that story, which came out in 2018 when she tried to sue Trump to remove the NDA (she prevailed in that suit).
You really shouldn't post without doing some research -- you sound like you are just making stuff up.
Your Axios source substantiates my claim that you were confusing Karen McDougal with Stormy Daniels:
Delete"2016: Actress Karen McDougal's attorney Keith Davidson approaches the National Enquirer about selling her story of an affair she had with Trump in 2006 and 2007, according to documents later filed by the Federal Election Commission.
The Enquirer secures the rights to her story for $150,000, but never publishes it — a tactic used to quash her claims to prevent their influence in the election, which its parent company American Media Inc. (AMI) admits to in a 2018 non-prosecution agreement."
I'm not going to go through and correct the rest of your errors. You are not a serious person, just a troll.
From one of Hector's sources:
DeleteMay 2011: Clifford “agreed to tell her story to a sister publication of In Touch magazine [Life & Style] for $15,000.” At the magazine’s request, she and other witnesses reportedly took and passed polygraph exams about her alleged affair with Trump. Two employees of the magazine at the time later claimed that “the story never ran because after the magazine called Mr. Trump seeking comment, his attorney Michael Cohen threatened to sue.” Clifford has also claimed that she was never paid (60 Minutes; The Fixers, p. 121).
May 2011: Weeks after the In Touch story was squashed, Clifford alleges she “was threatened by a man who approached her in Las Vegas.” Clifford claims that the man came up to her and said, “Leave Trump alone. Forget the story,” before looking at her daughter and saying, “That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom” (60 Minutes; CBS).
October 2011: TheDirty.com, a gossip site, published rumors about an extramarital affair between Clifford and Trump in July 2006 (Cohen Warrant, p. 39).
October 11, 2011: Clifford’s attorney, Keith Davidson, “sent a cease and desist letter to TheDirty.com” and demanded that the site remove the article about Trump and Clifford (Cohen Warrant, p. 39). https://www.justsecurity.org/85761/timeline-trump-hush-money-trial/
8:39 - You say that Somerby “accused Chanel Miller of derserving her rape.” Prove you’re not lying. With an exact quote, not with your tortured inferences.
DeleteLeave the inferences to Bob Somerby.
DeleteAll others must have direct quotes.
A pitiful and transparent deflection.
DeleteSee Oct 31, 2019.
DeletePied Piper,
DeleteDon't forget to blow that one off, and ask for another form of proof.
Dear 11:11,
DeleteYou ignorant slut. Could it be possible that both McDougal and Daniels were represented by Davidson, and that he made approaches to the Enqjuirer for both of them? Apparently, because my Axios source also says:
"Davidson, who now also represents Daniels, tells the Enquirer she's willing to share details about her alleged affair on the record".
Yours,
Hector
9:37 - I read 10/31/19. Nowhere does Somerby say Miller deserved to be raped. I think your difficulty is in distinguishing between "It's not wise for a young woman to get blackout drunk at a frat party" with "If a young woman gets blackout drunk at a frat party she deserves to get raped." The first is obviously true; the second is obviously false. But they're not the same thing.
DeleteThis whole trial is a waste of time. Trump is guilty and should be exiled to Russia.
ReplyDeleteOK with me. Putin has already offered him asylum.
DeleteThis is interesting:
ReplyDelete"Trump Is Already Testifying
April 22, 2024 at 8:37 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard [Political Wire]
As testimony opened in Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial in New York, one of the big questions is whether Trump will take the stand in his own defense.
Trump doesn’t have to testify, but he insists he wants to.
Said Trump: “I don’t know, I’m testifying. I tell the truth. I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there’s no case, they have no case.”
However, it’s almost certain his lawyers don’t want him to testify. When Trump did take the stand in earlier civil fraud and defamation trials, it did not go well.
But what’s incredibly odd is how Trump insists on talking to the news media after he leaves the courtroom. He gets into details of the case. He is, in effect, testifying.
That almost never happens in a criminal trial. Everything Trump says outside the courtroom can be used against him by prosecutors.
His lawyers can’t be pleased."
"BREAKING: There is no trial but the one true trial!"
ReplyDeleteWhatever Somerby means by this, there are a whole lot of trials coming down the pike for Trump. This is one of many, including criminal trials with much greater consequences than this one, and more civil trials (such as income tax fraud). He is going to be busy attending trials for a long time, whether he wins the presidency or not.
So what on earth can Somerby mean? Is he perhaps only capable of thinking about one trial, one news story at a time because of his own limited attention span, or is he trying to suggest that Trump is only in jeopardy from this trial, or even confuse readers into thinking there is just this one trial and if this one goes away, Trump is free and clear?
It makes no sense, but one does sound better than a lot of trials (which is the truth of the matter).
I'm not a punishment freak, far from it, but if anyone deserves and might even benefit from a stretch in the cling to cool his heels it's Donald Trump. No pity for him, it's just karma catching up to him. Let him do some time just to make up for all those many contractors and workers he's stiffed down through the years.
ReplyDelete“Ten years later, we needed to hear her tell us that before we could know how to vote!”
ReplyDeleteWhat’s important is that Trump thought it was important enough to hush it up. He apparently felt it would hurt his chances.
How can such a simple concept elude Somerby with all of his multitudes of words?
I looked at the paycheck of $4103 , I be certain that my friend woz like actually taking home money in their spare time at their laptop. . there friend had bean doing this 4 weeks less than and bought a great Bugatti Veyron .
ReplyDeleteOpen this web………. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.SmartApp1.𝐜𝐨𝐦
does this really work? I mean the whole working at home stuff? Has anyone tried this yet? Looks promising..
DeleteI just wanted to tell everyone I got my first check today for $800!
DeleteHey Jen, I'm using it now and it's awesome! I've signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made $302 and the second week I doubled it and then it kinda snowballed to $120 a day! juet folllow the course.. they will help you out...
DeleteGreeting to you Mr. SmartApp1
DeleteI have queston for the program. At time I in roll for it can I have sign bonus pay $5000? I have want and love the $$$ for hole life. I work hard for 3 hours day. With program I in future live on beach with drink and friends. Also this SmartApp1 help me grow big schwantz? I have small schwantz.