ELECTION: Is the case against Trump "an historic embarrassment?"


Or is it extremely strong? Incomparably, your Daily Howler keeps churning out results.

She appeared today at 6:03 a.m. Her appearance on Morning Joe ended at 6:20. Along the way, she restated her "basic takeaway" from yesterday's Morning Joe. 

Once again, she said the prosecutors may not have strong evidence showing that Donald J. Trump played an active role in the coverup of the conspiracy. She offered the same assessment yesterday, as we reported here.

That said, legal analyst Lisa Rubin did no rooting today. She merely stated her view of the evidence as it's been previewed in court.

She didn't say that she has been, and still is, hoping the prosecutors have a whole lot more evidence against Trump. This morning, she stated her assessment of the available facts and she left it right there.

That doesn't mean that she isn't rooting for a conviction. People do have their preferences. 

It meant that she returned to the old journalistic ways, in which major journalists restrict themselves to stating the relevant facts, without signaling viewers as to which side they should be on.

Early this morning, she got it right! The analysts rose and cheered.

(Inevitably, Willie Geist offered a corrective. "Most of us believe that's exactly what happened," he said as soon as Rubin finished, meaning that everyone believes that Trump was knowingly involved in the cover-up part of the operation.)

Lisa Rubin is a good, decent person. This morning, she engaged in a bit of self-correction. 

Meanwhile, back at the New York Times, Protess and Bromberg continue to work in the wake of Monday's front-page news report, whose very strange dual headline said this:

Will a Mountain of Evidence Be Enough to Convict Trump?
Monday will see opening statements in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. The state’s case seems strong, but a conviction is far from assured.

Do the prosecutors really have "a mountain of evidence?" Based on her reports for Morning Joe, Rubin seems to think that the answer may be no. 

In Monday morning's front-page report,  Protess and Bromwich said they do—and their claim about the mountain of evidence went right into that headline.

That said, a question may seem to arise concerning that Day One construction. The question would be this: 

If the prosecutors have "a mountain of evidence," why in the world would a conviction seem to be "far from assured?"

No conviction can ever be certain. But why would conviction be far from assured, in the face of a mountain of evidence? 

Could it be that the prosecutors are saddled with a Trump-lovin' jury?  It sounds like that isn't it. Monday's news report started like this:

PROTESS AND BROMWICH (4/22/24): In the official record, the case is known as the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, and, for now, the people have the stronger hand: They have insider witnesses, a favorable jury pool and a lurid set of facts about a presidential candidate, a payoff and a porn star.

On Monday, the prosecutors will formally introduce the case to 12 all-important jurors, embarking on the first prosecution of an American president. The trial, which could brand Mr. Trump a felon as he mounts another White House run, will reverberate throughout the nation and test the durability of the justice system that Mr. Trump is attacking in a way that no other defendant would be allowed to do.

The people have the stronger hand, they instantly said. They have a lurid set of facts—and they also have the advantage of a favorable jury pool! 

Later, they backtracked a bit on the jury. 

PROTESS AND BROMWICH: Presidents have been impeached, driven from office and rejected at the polls. Mr. Trump is about to be the first to have his fate decided not just by voters, but by 12 citizens in a jury box.

And they all hail from Manhattan, the borough that made Mr. Trump famous, and where he is now deeply unpopular. A favorable jury pool, legal experts say, has given Mr. Bragg a leg up at the trial.

Yet the jury, which was made final on Friday and includes six alternates, is no rubber stamp: It includes at least two people who have expressed some affection for the former president, and it takes only one skeptical member to force a mistrial, an outcome that Mr. Trump would celebrate as a win.

Apparently, one lone juror can mess everything up! For example, one lone juror could decide—as Rubin has provisionally done—that the mountain of evidence may not be the Everest that front-page headline announced.

In our view, that front-page report by Protess and Bromwich was one of the least appropriate we think we've ever read. 

The scribes were full of high intensity right from the start of their sex-drenched report. They offered the views of exactly one (1) legal observer to back their assessment about the strength of the D.A.'s case.

No alternative legal view of the evidence was expressed.

Today, the reporters present their third straight front-page report about the ongoing trial. Even today, the question remains:

If the prosecutors have a mountain of evidence, why is conviction far from assured?

In Monday's front-page report, they offered three reasons for that judgment. You see those reasons listed here, in their report's third paragraph:

PROTESS AND BROMWICH: Though the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, has assembled a mountain of evidence, a conviction is hardly assured. Over the next six weeks, Mr. Trump’s lawyers will seize on three apparent weak points: a key witness’s credibility, a president’s culpability and the case’s legal complexity.

Prosecutors will seek to maneuver around those vulnerabilities, dazzling the jury with a tale that mixes politics and sex...

As they dazzled readers with their own language, the reporters listed three apparent weak points. Tomorow, we'll start to focus on the third.

Yesterday afternoon, the editorial page at the Times pushed back against Monday's front-page headline. In this guest essay, a law professor offered the alternate view which was missing from Monday's news report.

What does Professor Shugerman think of that legal case? The headline above his essay gives Times readers a choice:

I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

Is the case against Donald J. Trump a legal embarrassment? Or is it simply an historical mistake?

In the end, it may turn out to be extremely strong! But in the meantime, the legal case seems to be extremely complex.

Can anybody here play this game? The year's election hangs in the balance.

With that in mind, can anyone even begin to explain the complex legal case?

Tomorrow: We're a long way from Fifth Avenue now


  1. Cecil Williams has died.

  2. Phyllis Pressman has died.

    1. Somerby's integrity has died.

    2. Arrivederci, Phyllis.


  3. Here’s a funny story:


  4. Paul Campos is optimistic:



  5. What "legal complexity"? Indeed, the Clowns of the State of New York NY have no crime to charge the defendant with. But that's not complexity. On the contrary: it's simplicity.

    1. If he was black, the cops could just shoot him. Alas, ...

    2. It is in reality a fairly straightforward case that is routinely prosecuted, a case for which the prosecution not only has ample evidence, but in essence a co-conspirator that has already plead guilty to the same crime based off the same evidence.

      The result of the trial will either be a conviction, or if there is a Trump fan on the jury then there may be a hung jury. Either way, Trump's campaign will pay a hefty price.

    3. 12:40, I can't wait to hear how Donald J Chickenshit explains it all under oath. Bwahahahaha!!!!

    4. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/braggs-indictment-even-fails-as-an-indictment/amp/

    5. I love watching magas digging their heels and fingernails in.

    6. Cecelia, is this link to the real National Review or is it a link to Trump's redacted versions where he has deleted all the parts he doesn't like? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Trump seems to think that if he could buy the Enquirer, he can just alter anyone else's published work to suit his fancy and send it out without revealing that it has been modified. Why not? He owns all the best words, right?

    7. Cecelia, your hero trump asks so much of you and gives so little. What the fuck is wrong with you? Is owning the libs so important to you that you would debase yourself so?

    8. Anonymouse 1:55pm, with some sort of grace, hopefully you’ll learn that people aren't debased by not sharing your point of view. They aren't enemies on the payrolls of foreign powers or all the craziness you spew here in endless posts with endless paragraphs, even as you accuse others of being on a payroll.

      Anonymices are just damn silly.

    9. Please explain why a voter is not debased by having voted for a rapist?

    10. Anonymouse 5:26pm, Juanita Broaddrick and Tara Reid want your input as well.

    11. The difference is that Juanita Broaddrick and Tara Reade's accusations did not survive investigation and neither Clinton nor Biden was tried much less convicted for assaulting them. With Trump, E.Jean Carroll's accusations of rape (which were not initially pursued) expired with the statute of limitations but were affirmed based on evidence the judge of her defamation trial. She presented evidence and testified and the judge ruled that she had been sexually abused by Trump, as alleged against him, which made his subsequent claims that he had never met her and had not done the things she claimed, lies and his statements about her defamation. A jury that included at least one Trump supporter agreed and found in her favor, awarding her damages. Trump then continued to defame Carroll, resulting in another trial for the current statements, and she won another verdict and more money because she was deemed truthful whereas Trump was considered to be lying and to have repeated his defamation of her (when he denied the abuse the judge ruled had occurred).

      That's a lengthy way of saying that a court affirmed Trump's assault of E.Jean Carroll, whereas the claims against Clinton and Biden never went to court because the women accusing them were considered to be unreliable (e.g., not telling the truth). In Trump's case, the judge called Trump a rapist.

      Tara Reade is now living in Moscow.

      Democrats who call Trump a rapist are repeating what the judge called him in court in a decision that considered the facts.

      Republicans who call Bill Clinton or Joe Biden a rapist, have nothing to justify that name-calling because the women who charged them (provably politically motivated) were found to be liars and there was no evidence to base any charges on. Yet Republicans keep referring to these men as rapists, solely because they are Democrats. That is an ugly partisan tactice and YOU Cecelia, if you are female, should appreciate that taking women seriously when they are attacked means not tolerating the hostile rape claims intended to hurt political candidates, without any basis in truth. Those women who cry wolf hurt all women, who may need to be believed if they find themselves attacked by someone. It isn't cute to use such claims as a way of politically harming an opposition candidate because it backfires on women who are actually attacked. If you are a man pretending to be female on the internet, I doubt that will concern you much, but women should care.

      Voting for someone who has been proven in court to have raped a woman and then lied about it and defamed the women, mocking her and lying about her, should be debasing to you, now that you know the truth about that situation. Rapists should be supported for responsible office, especially not when they cruelly lie and laugh about what they did and then got away with (until she sued). That is why the defamation civil penalties award to E.Jean Carroll are so high. This is a serious matter.

      So, why is this not debasing to you?

    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    13. Anonymouse 6:21pm, yes, Carroll was talked into finally bringing charges against Trump and yes, the statute of limitations had coincidentally been waved aside for the redress of all women. We get it.

      Just like we get astronomical fees and penalties against Trump in a crime where no one was defrauded. We even get why Tara Reid thinks Russia might be the only place she’s safe. Aftersll, you are now the political constituency that wants whistleblowers against intelligence agencies locked up forever and a day.

      So, yeah, I’ll have the temerity to think that so far in this case, we haven’t seen any There there. You can.spend your time being the second coming of Tailgunner Joe on steroids, loaded down with a few internal passengers by the name of Legion.

      I’ll continue to disagree with you when I do and you and your coven can keep plotting against the villainy of Bob.

    14. No, you don’t get it. Trump was not tried for rape but for defamation. It is a lie that no one was defrauded in the fraud trial. You repeat a litany of Repub disinfo descending into pure nonsense. And you don’t answer the question. I assume you are saying you don’t think Trump is a rapist. If so, I feel sorry for you.

    15. Anonymouse 7:23pm, I didn’t say Trump was tried for rape, it wasn’t a criminal trial. It’s not an argument to say.that I’m merely repeating right wing disinfo (from Putie) because I think a fantastic amount of lawfare is being engaged against a man who you simultaneously see as an oaf and a devil. It’s also crazy and unreasonable for you to have turned Bob into Rosenbergs.

      I’ll add that you don’t feel sorry for anyone on the planet. You only feel pique and exasperation at differences. It’s why you’ll never be compelling or pertinent in anything you say. You don’t possess that sort of equanimity.

    16. That last paragraph sounds like it was written by a Cecelia-imitating AI (a parody of yourself).

    17. While my uncle was getting eaten by cannibals I was driving an 18-wheeler.

      I am Corby.

  6. Putting white collar criminals in prison will lead to Prison Reform.

    1. Each criminal will get his own secret service protection?

    2. Imagine living in a country where people don't make jokes about prison rape.
      A man can dream...

    3. Women who are raped by prison guards also wind up pregnant. You'd think that would result in reform but it doesn't seem to have.

    4. That's why you need to imprison white collar criminals. They have the $$/ power to make things happen.

  7. Today is Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day.

  8. "It meant that she returned to the old journalistic ways, in which major journalists restrict themselves to stating the relevant facts, without signaling viewers as to which side they should be on."

    She [Lisa Rubin] is not a journalist, much less a major journalist. She is a correspondent and analyst on legal matters. That key difference means she is allowed to have opinions and is even invited specifically to give those opinions, based on her expertise in law (which was her main profession until 2018).

    Her opinion yesterday was that the prosecution's case was not as strong in terms of evidence, if one were hoping to convict Trump. Somerby distorted that into a complaint that she herself was hoping for Trump's conviction. Now he is suggesting that she has changed her behavior but may still hope Trump is convicted. Meanwhile, Rubin is still talking about the strength of the prosecution's case, not wishing and hoping for anything. Just as she did yesterday. This discussion by Somerby has been totally gratuitous and adds nothing to anyone's understanding of what is happening with Trump's trial.

    1. Somerby is not a big enough person to ever admit he misunderstood anything or was wrong about anything. Not even that time he got it wrong about the MS reading score improvement and Kevin Drum changed his statements (in the light of correction by commenters) but not Somerby. He gets things wrong every once in a while, but he never even corrects typo or other facts, much less statistical mistakes or matters of fact, such as whether experts must maintain objectivity about their subjects in the same way as journalists. Is Dershowitz "objective" when he comments on Trump's trial? Is George Conway? Has Somerby ever demanded that they be?

    2. Somerby’s remarks about Einstein’s explanation of relativity were a genuine howler.

  9. "Based on her reports for Morning Joe, Rubin seems to think that the answer may be no. "

    Seems to me Rubin was discussing the choices made by the prosecution in presenting the evidence, not how much evidence is available to them as they construct their case. She wanted to hear proof of an assertion and "hoped" it would be forthcoming as their case is laid out. That isn't a suggestion that insufficient evidence exists to convict Trump -- it is about telling the jury about the support for specific statements.

    I think Somerby may be in over his head if he cannot listen to and understand what legal analysts mean when they talk about this case (or when he reads the NYTimes discussing it). He seems confused.

    1. Somerby is obviously upset that Trump is having to face criminal charges, and this has led Somerby to make some nonsensical claims.

    2. Sad for me to say, but I think this trial has finally broken TDH

  10. The NY Times is trying to present the trial as a horse race, trying to gin up suspense and interest readers in the outcome. I don't see why that is necessary, but Somerby's claim that it is inappropriate is unsupported. What exactly is wrong with reminding readers that the jury could hang or that the prosecution has strong evidence? He may not like what the article says, but why shouldn't the NY Times say what it wants about the trial, even present varying opinions, and why must a report include more than one legal opinion, or even none? The points made are pretty obvious.

    As he did yesterday, Somerby may be trying to create the impression that everyone talking about the trial must be strictly objective or else the readers might be biased, but he once again neglects that it is only the jury who must remain fair, and the jury has been forbidden from reading news articles, watching TV and even discussing the trial with others. They are not reading the NY Times and have no opportunity to be influenced by whatever "bias" Somerby assumes may exist in a news article, editorial or other story. The jury is hearing only what occurs in court.

    Is Somerby really that fundamentally ignorant about how trials work? Voters, who are also reading the NY Times and watching TV and also following the trial itself, can be exposed to as much biased info as they choose and must make up their own minds. Somerby cannot turn the NY Times into an even-handed objective source of news any more than he can do so with Fox. To the extent that NY Times authors are not permitted to express their views freely, Somerby is calling for the left to fight Trump in his campaign, with one hand tied behind its back, simply because Trump is being tried for his crimes. There is no requirement for that to happen, much as Trump supporters might wish to limit press coverage to only what is favorable to their guy.

  11. Somerby says: "As they dazzled readers with their own language, the reporters listed three apparent weak points. "

    Actually, the reporters enumerated three approaches that Trump's lawyers will use to attack the prosecution's case. That doesn't make them "weak points" or even "apparent weak points." They are simply the line of attack they expect Trump's lawyers to use.

    It is a small point, but whether the approach used by Trump's lawyers will work or not remains to be seen. Calling them weak points reflects Somerby's bias that there is something wrong with the prosecution's case. Trump's people have to argue something. These three points may be the best they could and have no impact on the prosecution's case at all. But Somerby really really wants us to think that the prosecution is going to lose because it has insufficient evidence, etc. That is the whole reason why Somerby is objecting to the headline that refers to a "mountain of evidence" and emphasizing Rubin's criticism. Somerby wants us to know that the evidence may not be there to convict Trump and that the charges are manufactured in a political prosecution, which are the Republican talking points.

    The evidence is what it is and the jury will decide. Somerby and Trump are busy talking to the voters. As Geist said, most of us know that Trump is guilty and that there is a ton of evidence against him. But "most of us" doesn't refer to Somerby or his Republican friends.

    1. "most of us know that Trump is guilty"

      Actually, you don't know any such thing. But go ahead and pretend that you do, if you want to.

    2. Trump is guilty of being Trump. Many people consider that a jailable offence.

    3. If anyone can look at Trump's ongoing behavior and think he is innocent in this case, they are the ones with intractable bias.

      Trump is insisting he did not have sex with Stormy Daniels, just as he insisted he never met E.Jean Carroll, despite appearing with her in a photo of himself, Ivana, and Carroll and her husband. And the problem with Trump's denials is that so many women have come forward independently to complain about sexual abuse, each describing the same M.O.. And it is the same behavior that Trump himself described to Billy Bush in that Access Hollywood tape. The details of Stormy Daniels' story are much more plausible than anything Trump has said about her, because of all that corroborating evidence, which Somerby ignores and you may not have personally been aware of, if you don't much care how Trump has behaved with women over the years.

    4. I think Trump is guilty; but I don't know if he's guilty. Can you grok the difference?

    5. Don't use the word grok if you don't know what it means, please. It hurts my ears.

      Somerby patiently explained almost every day for the last decade or more that we don't KNOW anything for sure because anything is possible and there is no real way to ever know anything for sure, so you can pick and choose when you want to say something is true or not or you "know" it (which is what he does). @3:22 illustrated how a person can use evidence from various sources to decide whether something is most likely to be true or not. The judge will instruct the jury that it does not need absolute perfect knowledge of truth to make their judgment. Or you can play games splitting hairs like Somerby does, grok that?

    6. Here's something that I know is NOT true: That Somerby says "you can pick and choose when you want to say something is true or not."

    7. That is what Somerby does.

    8. I know without thinking that Trump is guilty.

    9. That’s why you aren’t on the jury.

    10. I would never consent to serve on such a charade jury. Trump is guilty and there should be no trial.

  12. "Is the case against Donald J. Trump a legal embarrassment? Or is it simply an historical mistake?"

    This formulation reminds me of:

    Ronald Reagan, great president? Or greatest president ever?

    1. I know. What a laughably absurd false dilemma. Somerby is just trolling at this point.

  13. "In the end, it may turn out to be extremely strong! But in the meantime, the legal case seems to be extremely complex."

    In the end? What about today? Was anyone else shocked by the complicity between Trump and Pecker in which they fabricated negative stories against Trump's opponents and positive ones to support Trump? I knew Hillary didn't have a brain tumor but I had no idea Trump had corrupted the tabloid to attack Cruz and Rubio.

    Because this trial centers on manipulation of the press to suppress sex scandals involving Trump, this bombshell information on the first day of evidence strikes me as very strong indeed. Trump bought the Enquirer! No one thinks that was right to do. Of course it is illegal during a presidential campaign and no, that wasn't reported as a campaign expense either (but that is a federal crime). Trump is shown from day one to be cheating in the election.

    How can Somerby think the evidence is not already extemely strong?

    And the thing about Trump is that just when you think you know the depth of his criminal depravity, something new is revealed that is worse than you ever imagined.

    There are people who don't follow politics, who are unaware of this fact about Trump. The NY Times is performing a public service by telling its readers about this stuff. And that is what Somerby is trying to do damage control on today.

    1. The complexity is why both prosecution and defense use lawyers. Lawyers are trained to not only know the law but also think clearly about complexity. Judges are lawyers too in this situation. There is no case where someone throws up their hands and says, "This is too damned complex" and then dismisses the case.

      The suggestion that Trump might get off due to complexity would only be true if Trump were the judge. The function of the defense and prosecution lawyers is to explain and simplify the case so that the jury can decide despite complexity.The jury is instructed to ask questions during their deliberations. They cannot come back and say, "Sorry, judge, it was just too complicated to think about."

    2. When you're trying to prove something, simplicity is a virtue. Complexity is the defense's best friend.

    3. There are all kinds of complex cases put before juries every day.

    4. And the more complex, the greater the likelihood of a defense verdict.

    5. Actually, not true.

  14. "Can anybody here play this game? The year's election hangs in the balance."

    Here Somerby reveals his own motives. He is always playing a game, every day, but certainly today.

    Does the election hang in the balance? I don't think so. The election will be determined by the voters who go to the polls all over the country. It will not be determined by the NY Times or by Trump's violations of gag orders to threaten witnesses. Voters can and should be following this trial, but either way, they will hear the outcome eventually. For myself, I have enough info to know that I would never vote for Trump, after hearing about what he did in collusion with Pecker and Cohen to rig the 2016 election in his favor. How could even a Republican vote for Trump after hearing that info? Trump cheated!

    But I also believe that this election cannot be about Trump because there are insufficient Trump supporters left to elect him. In the latest primary in PA, Nikki Haley got 17% of Republicans (not an open primary) despite not being on the ballot. He cannot win that way. If you throw in the undecideds and Independents and women concerned about abortion rights, Biden will get too many votes for Trump to prevail in the election. His goose is cooked, whether he wins this trial or not.

    But how can even a Republican vote for such an obvious crook? I think Hillary deserved a fair chance at the polls, but I also think Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio did too. Trump stole their chances. Trump is not any kind of winner but a massive loser to have rigged his own primary that way. No wonder he was willing to let Russia help him beat HIllary. He knew he couldn't do it on his own.

  15. 2:09 - "But how can even a Republican vote for such an obvious crook?"

    You ask this as if it's a rhetorical question, but it's not. So many voters will vote for "an obvious crook" that Trump would almost certainly win if the election were held today.

    The question you're asking is, I think, the big question that Somerby keeps asking, and it's the question that fuels all the Somerby-hate around here, because Somerby is asking this question to search for an answer! He thinks we should look at ourselves and ask why we libs are so incompetent that we can't craft a winning message against the most despicable candidate to ever throw his hat in the ring.

    1. Analyses are suggesting that it would not be almost certain for Trump to win today. The latest national polls shows Trump/Biden tied at 46% each. RFK is pulling more votes from Trump than Biden. Trump lost 17% to Nikki Haley in the PA primary yesterday. A look at those disaffected Republicans suggests about half would vote for Biden in the general. Abortion continues to be important and there is speculation it might swing AZ Democratic which would make a Trump electoral college victory impossible. One problem for Trump is that he has been underperforming compared to his polling, so if he is tied with Biden but underperforming by 8-10 points in terms of actual votes in primaries (compared to polls), simply being tied with Biden won't be good enough to win. Women are upset over loss of abortion rights, even among Republicans. So this is not as much of a slam dunk as you might assume. In terms of campaign cash, Biden is way ahead and that will translate into ads as the election nears. We should see a major shift in polling then, so the situation will be worse closer to the election.

      It makes no sense to ask why Democratic arguments do not appeal to Republicans. But the idea that we lost to Trump in 2016 because we could not craft winning messages is clearly wrong in the light of emerging info about how Trump was supported by Russia, manipulated social media, interfered via wikileaks, hearings and defamation of Hillary, capped by Comey's letter (which polling shows had an immediate, strong negative effect on her poll numbers). It was clearly not a fair election (as Trump's current trial is also showing), so it is not right to claim that our messages didn't have appeal against Trump. Much of what makes Trump "most despicable" has come out since Trump's election, not before it, which is again, what this trial is about. For Trump to win in 2024, substantial numbers of voters have to not care about the insurrection, for example.

      Somerby calling Democrats incompetent is unhelpful if he truly wants Trump to lose. He should be reminding voters of Trump's failures, but Somerby doesn't do that. He is laser focused on attacking liberal strengths, defending Trump, and mocking Biden.

      So, in light of this, do you want to offer a better explanation for why so many voters on the right will vote for an obvious crook. Somerby is only saying that they want to own the libs because we are smug elitists, and somehow I don't really think that's true given the horrible thinks Trump has done.

    2. A head in the sand analysis. Look at the swing state polls - Trump would most likely win in an electoral college landslide if the election were held today (even if the national vote was close).

      But, deny that reality if it makes you feel better.

    3. I'm going to say this one fucking time, PP, it's not my fucking fault that Trump has amassed a cult bordering on religious fanaticism. I also had nothing to do with James Jones and the kool-aid gang or the Heaven's Gate cult.

      You want to know how the trump cult got that way? Try thinking about 30 years of Rush Limbaugh shoveling bullshit into their skulls 5 days a week and replayed on weekends.

    4. I went to a lot of trouble to explain to Pied Piper why Trump would likely not win in an election held today and what does he do? He repeat his incorrect statement adding that Trump would win in a landslide (he didn't even do that in 2016 when he had his best chance and yet lost the popular vote bigly and just sqeaked by in the electoral college). I think Pied Piper may be deaf, but accusing us of being "head in the sand" is 100% ironic given his falure to listen to anyone else.

    5. 4:09 - Don't take my word for it. Look at 538's polls for Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. If the election were held today, Biden would be very lucky to win even one or two of those states.

    6. 3:54 - You seem upset, but I'm not sure why. I agree that Rush and Fox and Gingrich and Trump and the right wing echo chamber have created a bizarre cult on the right. In my mind, the question for us libs is what can we do about that? And the first order of business seems to be: Win some elections!

      So, how do we do that? I believe Somerby thinks that trying to persuade even 1% or 2% of the Others might be a big help. And to do that, maybe stop calling them all unredeemable racists and sexists would be a start, and maybe engaging with issues that matter (such as bragging about the truly-amazing Biden economy) might help.

    7. Polls are not votes. Trump has been underperforming his polls. This is why it is annoying when you don’t read what people try to teach you. Trump lost 17% yesterday compared to PA primary polling. Why? Because Republicans voted for Nikki Haley who wasn’t polled because she dropped out of the race. You need to listen to what is said about poll accuracy, which was horrible in 2020.

    8. Dems have been winning beyond expectations. You don’t seem to know that. What kind of lib are you to come here saying Trump will win when Biden has made large gains in the last week? You are reeating Repub disinfo and have no idea what you are talking about. Just go away.

    9. Look, I don't care if you want to believe that Biden's winning right now. Go ahead.

    10. If you don’t read and understand about polls you shouldn’t keep writing ignorant things about them.

    11. Look, I’m pretty confident that despite your paternalistic smugness, you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

    12. That could be true. Or it could be not true.
      I am Somerby.

    13. I believe Somerby thinks that trying to persuade even 1% or 2% of the Others might be a big help.

      I don't know what Somerby thinks. Life is too short to waste time engaging with close minded haters with their heads up their ass. We are winning elections. They are worshiping a criminal sitting in a courtroom every day because own the libs is their only goal.

  16. Why would anyone think it is an embarrassment to defend our democratic system, including the integrity of elections? That's what this case is about. A loss by the prosecution would be tragic, not embarrassing, since at least they tried.

  17. Somerby's message - Get the beam out of our own eye, so we can see clearly to remove the splinter from our neighbor's eye - has been an unpopular message for over 2000 years.

    1. Until Biden starts campaigning on “lock Trump up” (remember lock her up! At Trump rallies?), then quit going along with the notion that the “blue tribe” or “we” is/are pinning its hopes on convicting Trump, because we think it’s out only hope, and that is Somerby’s complaint, pure and simple.

    2. Piper perhaps doesn't know what Somerby's real message is, but I think he probably does. Democrats are doing fine with their messaging and campaign activities and Somerby has nothing to teach us. He scolds in order promote Trump and for no other reason.

    3. 4:07 - Tell me: What is Somerby's real message?

    4. It is to support Trump and advance right wing talking points. The concern trolling Dems is his cover. His purpose here is to advance Repub interests. So, on an average day he jumps up and down about Gutfeld, tells us we’re just as bad, but really wants us to know Biden is still old, or Trump’s trial is unfair, depending on his marching orders.

  18. Bob hypes the use of the phrase “mountain
    of evidence.” It is very offensive to him.
    Bob tells us that one juror can hang the
    jury, this is very helpful to all of us that
    didn’t know that, but the way Bob hypes
    it, he makes it sound like it’s a waste of
    time to bring a criminal charge ever against
    anyone, and indeed, Bob has piously bragged
    that he doesn’t like to see people sent to
    prison, unlike us morally cruel people who
    think Trump should be held accountable
    for sitting on his ass while the riot he
    provoked defaced the Nations Capitol.
    Bob didn’t think the Jan 6 committee
    had a mountain of evidence either.
    He was unimpressed with their presentation.
    Too biased. His good friends and
    neighbors wouldn’t like it.
    Bob didn’t think the Florida case should
    be brought against Trump either. He
    thought Trump should be excused because
    He might really believe he did nothing
    wrong. Also, one juror might get Trump
    off so it’s a waste of time.
    Bob had never expressed any problems
    with Trump’s use of the Presidential Pardon.
    Bob has never expressed any problem
    with people going to jail for their involvement
    in the matter Trump is now charged with in
    New York. But the prospect of Trump going
    to jail bothers him a lot.

    I want Trump to be convicted. Yet clearly
    I don’t want that half as bad as Bob wants
    him to escape all responsibility.
    Why? Well, Bob is clearly far too vain to
    ever admit he got anything wrong, though
    he has many times. Also, he sees MSNbC
    as the kind of northern Yankee liberals he
    had made it his life’s work to despise.
    Also, like Trump, he is indeed very
    disordered, but also stupid as a fence

    1. You say Somerby is as "stupid as a fence post," yet you have read him every day for years. Has doing so made you smarter, or dumber?

    2. I’m smarter because I can easily point out the problems with his nonsense. And because I don’t ignore them like you do.
      I fully concede, that does not make me
      very smart, perhaps just not willfully

    3. Like @3:46 -- I don't read things to become smarter or dumber. I read things to become informed and use my intelligence, such as it is, to decide what is true or not.

      Initially, I read Somerby because we share an interest in education, 60s folk music, Willa Cather and Tolstoy, and the 2000 election. His press criticisms used to be legitimate, but then he veered off into Maddow-spite and accused the press of all making too much money (houses in the Hamptons) and then he got wierd and cagey and coy and I couldn't figure out where he was coming from but his odd use of language was like catnip to a psychologist. Then I realized he was lying about a bunch of things while repeating right wing talking points, with occasional dog whistles to the alt-right. And then he went off the deep end, around the same time when certain standup comedians, bloggers and even some journalists were making a hard-right turn for money. That may be when Trump and his Russian handlers began meddling with the media and seeding social media with fake accounts and bots and trolls. Now I see this as an information war (but not Alex Jones style) that needs to have combatants on our side, if we are not to have more creatures like Trump foisted upon us.

      I agree with @3:46 that Somerby may be too mentally impaired to be effective in his role any more. Pied Piper is getting paid -- that may be his little verbal joke, but his intentions are obvious.

    4. "Pied Piper is getting paid"

      So Putin's money is flowing to comedians, bloggers, journalists, Somerby, and now even me! And it doesn't bother you that you haven't a shred of evidence to support this defamation! And this, in your view, is using your "intelligence"?

    5. My agent was able to persuade Putin that I exercise a profound and comprehensive influence over the discourse, and so I was able to cut a deal that will make me financially secure for the rest of my life. After the election, I'm going to retire to a South Pacific island and live lavishly on all the money that Putin is paying me.

      But don't tell anybody. It's supposed to be a secret.

    6. Psst. By the way, Putin and I are buddies, so if you want in on the gravy train, just let me know. All you've got to do is pretend to be a lib but push rightwing talking points. And the money is GOOD!!!

    7. Sorry, here is the Jimmy Dore Wikipedia link:

    8. On a more serious note, accusing me of accepting money to undermine our democracy is maybe the nastiest thing you could possibly say. I'd prefer never again to interact with you. Since you don't have a nym, I don't know how to avoid you, but I'd appreciate it if you would never respond to me ever again.

    9. Interacting with others here is why most people come here. You might try being more open to other people's comments, so that you appear to be less of a right wing shill. I will, of course, respond to whoever I want. Does it make any sense to you that I would let right wing trolls come to this blog and just spread their fertilizer without response? Others won't do that either, so that compounds your problem of not knowing who is who. You might try focusing on ideas instead of people, but then how would you be able to attack anyone? You have a right to speak, but not a right to have no one respond.

      But that does sound a lot like Trump's concept of narcissistic freedom: (1) freedom to do as I want, (2) freedom to make others stop doing things I don't want them to.

    10. I wish to make it very clear that I was serious about the possibility of paid internet "influencers" receiving money to spread right wing disinformation and talking points on blogs like this one. That is why I posted that long list of other sources talking about it elsewhere, including instance where it was proven that Jimmy Dore (a formerly left wing comedian) had changed his public views in exchange for money, back in 2015-2016.

      That is serious stuff. So serious that we are in the midst of a trial about similar efforts for money to influence and control voter reactions before an election. Sorta like now.

    11. The Piper gets paid. I get laid.