ELECTION: "Mountain of evidence" awaits Trump jury!

MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2024

Our journalism, ourselves: The New York Times is a national paper of record.

Based upon a recent report, that's especially true for the jurors who begin their service today in Gotham's admittedly "lurid," hush money / porn star trial.

Last Friday, the newspaper offered this report about the eighteen jurors and alternates. The report concerned where they said they get their news on their pre-trial questionnaire. 

Jurors were allowed to cite more than one source.

According to the Times' compilation, thirteen of the eighteen jurors named the New York Times. Among all other news sources, Google finished second, with five mentions. The Wall Street Journal scored four.  

One juror copped to the New York Post; the Daily News went unmentioned. Fox News was cited by one juror. CNN was cited by two of the jurors, MSNBC by one. 

In Gotham, at least among these jurors, the New York Times seems to rule. In part for that reason, we came close to being gobsmacked yesterday afternoon when this dual headline appeared at the top of the newspaper's website:

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.

"Will a Mountain of Evidence Be Enough to Convict Trump?" That struck us as a fairly remarkable headline.

That principal headline leaped off the screen. Also, "the state's case seems strong," the sub-headline said. 

This morning, those same headlines sit atop the current Today's Paper site, where the bulk of the jurors may get their first bite of the apple.

That struck us as a strange pair of headlines. Leaving the principal headline in play, the news report started, and starts, like this:

Will a Mountain of Evidence Be Enough to Convict Trump?

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.

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 confront a shrewd defendant with a decades-long track record of skirting legal consequences. They will also seek to bolster the credibility of that key witness, Michael D. Cohen, a former fixer to Mr. Trump who previously pleaded guilty to federal crimes for paying the porn star, Stormy Daniels.

So the report began. The names of the editors have been withheld to protect the deeply entrenched. We're left with reporters Protess and Bromwich to assess and perhaps to blame.

We'll start by noting the lurid language on which the reporters settled. They delay use of the term "hush money" until midway through their lengthy report—but once they start, they employ the term six times.

Online, the lurid term appears six more times in asides composed by their editors.

(Should "hush money" be viewed as a lurid term? Notes on language follow.)

Protess and Bromwich delay "hush money," but otherwise they're all in. They refer to "a lurid set of facts" before their first sentence has been completed. They employ "porn star" in their opening paragraph, then again in paragraph 4.

Prosecutors will dazzle the jury with a tale with plenty of sex.

(On the Fox News Channel, the porn star is being described as an adult film actress. The "hush money" is sometimes called an NDA. You could also describe the star in question as "an adult woman not Donald Trump's wife." To our ear, Protess and Bromwich embraced the torpedoes as their news report sped ahead.)

We're speaking there of language selection. The reporters' decision to offer pre-judgment about the trial seems more remarkable still. 

Right there in the opening sentence of their news report, they present their subjective assessment of the case:

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. 

The people have the stronger hand! It's hard to know why these reporters think it's their job to deliver that verdict even before opening statements have been launched. But some editor or editors—their names have been withheld to protect the entrenched—believed that this made perfect sense.

Who knows? It may have been the editors themselves who stuck that assessment in!

That judgment sits at the top of the paper the jurors will be reading today. Somewhere spending more time with his family, NPR's Uri Berliner may be thinking that he brilliantly called this other news org's shot.

Is something "wrong" with today's news report? As with almost everything on earth, that's a matter of judgment, opinion, assessment.

In fairness, it isn't like Protess and Bromwich don't have amazingly sound reasons for prejudging the case right in their opening sentence. Consider:

As the reporters proceed from the passage we've posted, they instantly quote one (1) "veteran defense lawyer who previously worked in the Manhattan district attorney’s office prosecuting white-collar cases." (For the record, they quote him by name.)

They quote this individual again at the very end of their lengthy report. It seems to be this veteran's view that the case against the defendant is strong. 

No dissenting view is cited in the lengthy report. No other legal specialist is cited.

On the basis of this one assessment, one thing leads to another. Eventually, "mountains of evidence" appear at the top of the jurors' news feed today.

Citizens, can we talk?

The reporters say that the trial which starts today will "test the durability of the [American] justice system." 

That statement is almost certainly true. But is it possible that this trial is also testing the viability of our current journalistic system—of that system as it has evolved over the past chunk of time?

Increasingly, that journalistic culture is built around "segregation by viewpoint"—the arrangement Berliner described at NPR, the system which prevails in the increasingly clownish corridors of American "cable news."

That organizational structure had helped create our prevailing two Americas—Red America and Blue. And before that segregation took over in full, we had the turn toward snark and snide engineered at this same national newspaper, to a large extent by the highly influential work of Maureen Dowd.

It started when she was still a reporter, fashioning a famous opening sentence in an earlier front-page report. The report appeared on June 9, 1994, and the snark and the snide were obvious. 

Above the fold on the Times' page one, here's how that report began:

Oxford Journal
Whereas, He Is an Old Boy, If a Young Chief, Honor Him 
President Clinton returned today for a sentimental journey to the university where he didn't inhale, didn't get drafted and didn't get a degree.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh boy, that was good!

Reportedly, this sort of thing made august editors inside the Times decide that Dowd was the wave of the future. Within a few years, she was an extremely influential columnist—and on the weekend before the nation voted in November 2000, her self-indulgent Sunday column, under the headline "I Feel Pretty," featured Candidate Gore examining his bald spot in a mirror, singing Maria's famous song from West Side Story.

It was the seventh column in which Dowd had featured the girlie-man Gore and his bald spot. Even then, this is what journalism had become as the nation moved toward the vote which eventually sent the U.S. Army into Iraq.

Today, the reporters are climbing a different mountain. It seems to us that the hills are alive with the sounds of their prejudgment.

Will the trial which starts today test our journalistic system? Has that system already failed?

We'll be exploring such questions this week. We'll also be asking if this trial is testing our election system—and if it's testing us.

The cadres who service Blue America have said that our democracy, such as it is, is at stake in this year's election. That assessment may well be correct.

That said, elections are a key part of some such system, and the current trial gives us a chance to assess the way we approach such public endeavors.

As the reporters note, the legalities involved in this trial will be extremely complex. They're explained one way in Red America, another way in Blue.

Due to "segregation by viewpoint," the legal contributors from the two nations never meet in the field. Their dueling assessments are spared such tests. We're left with the thrill of the lurid hush money porn star trial, the trial with the dazzling tale about sex.

According to the Times report, the prosecutors in today's trial say that the porn star in question had "a story to tell." Setting legalities to the side, we Blues have gone all in for that formulation.

We believe she had a story to tell! Before the public could know how to vote, we needed that information.

We say we needed that information. Anthropologically speaking, what might that say about us?

Tomorrow: The late Bronze Age elect


  1. There is no gag order on the press. We have a free press and they can say what they want.

    The jurors are instructed not to read or watch news about the trial. That means they should not be reading anything Somerby is complaining about today. If they do, they can be reported to the judge and removed from their position.

    Back when Stormy Daniels told her story, Somerby chose not to believe it. He sided with Trump's version and called Stormy Daniels a grifter. He said she approached them about a payment (not vice versa and Daniels has consistently claimed). Just because someone tells a story does not automatically assure that anyone will believe it. I hope the jurors will be more fair minded than Somerby, but they do not spend 24/7 watching Fox as Somerby says he does.

    1. You make a strong point about the freedom of the press, which indeed remains unshackled in our society. The media is free to explore and report as they see fit, a cornerstone of our democracy.

      At the same time, jurors are given strict instructions to steer clear of any media coverage related to their case to maintain their impartiality. It's a crucial part of ensuring a fair trial. If a juror disobeys these instructions and engages with news about the trial, they not only jeopardize their position on the jury but potentially the fairness of the trial itself.

      Bob Somerby's stance on Stormy Daniels belies the nature of NDA's and hush money payments. Somerby's dismissal of Daniels as a "grifter" and his siding with Trump’s narrative rather than hers underscores a broader issue of bias and belief in the media. Not everyone believes what they hear or read, which is fair, but it does bring into question the consistency and fairness in how stories and characters are judged. Look at Hunter Biden's laptop and penis size.

      Your point about jurors not being influenced by constant media exposure, unlike Somerby’s self-admitted continuous viewing of Fox News, is a crucial distinction. It underscores the importance of jurors coming into the trial with as little bias as possible, something that’s essential for televised justice to be served fairly.

      In essence, the relationship between the media, the public, and the justice system is complex but vital to our society. Each party has a role that helps uphold the principles of democracy and justice, albeit in very different ways.

    2. AI has potential to fundamentally change our society, but the hallowness of 10:22's AI generated comment, doing little more than bothsidesing while describing what is known and obvious to everyone, strongly suggests that users will play a major role in how useful or effective AI is.

    3. Back in 2018 the former Judge said on Fox news (before Bill Barr quashed the investigation): "Following the sentencing of Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, Napolitano told Fox News host Shepard Smith that prosecutors in New York City have evidence the president committed a felony. The felony, Napolitano explained, was when Trump allegedly ordered and paid Cohen to commit a crime.

      While the specific details have not been shared with the public, Napolitano said prosecutors told the judge about Trump's alleged payments. Under the rule of law, Napolitano explained, prosecutors can't tell a judge that without having hard evidence to back up the claim and intend to do something with that evidence.

      "The felony is paying Michael Cohen to commit a felony," the judge said. "It's pretty basic.… A hires B to shoot someone, A is as liable as if he had pulled the trigger. You pay someone to commit a crime you are liable, criminally liable.""

    4. 10:22. "Somerby's . . . siding with Trump's narrative rather than [Stormy's]"

      I thought this was wrong, and conveniently Somerby confirmed my hunch with his subsequent post today, when he wrote:

      "(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.)"

    5. If you dig into the archives and find where Somerby has discussed this repeatedly in the past, he called Stormy a grifter who approached Trump to extort money from him, offering an NDA. That conflicts on many points of fact with Stormy Daniels' version of events. Somerby continued to call her a con artist and grifter every time he referred to her. Does that sound to you like Somerby supported her narrative rather than Trump's?

      And if Somerby says he assumes her number is correct, "but we can't exactly prove it" does that sound to you like he supports her narrative? It sounds to me like he is questioning it by emphasizing the lack of proof, which can only really occur in Somerby's universe by standing next to their bed while they did the deed. Because anything is possible (and equally impossible).

      You are too lazy to have disproved what I said using Somerby's own slippery non-assumption, immediately disavowed. Others were here when Somerby wrote his past defenses of Trump v. Stormy, so they know what Somerby has repeatedly said.

    6. April 11, 2018 -- "Clifford is someone who says she had sex with a married person whose wife had just given birth, then tried to score a lot of cash by selling her sexy-time story.

      She tried for the cash in 20l1, then again in 2016. We think it's good that Cohen paid her and told her to please go away."

      March 28, 2019 -- "This raises a possible question. How does this differ from what Stormy Daniels did?

      Daniels approached Candidate Trump and said that, if she wasn't given money, she would hold a press conference and accuse Trump of misconduct. But instead of getting arrested and charged, she was hailed as a "feminist hero" and as a "feminist icon."

      Why wasn't Daniels charged with extortion? Given the way the game is played, we liberals are unlikely to see such questions asked."

      "As heard by The Others: Here's part of the way Daniels' conduct has been limned at Fox:
      CARLSON (12/10/18): Is it unfair to describe this scenario as extortion? I say I know something about your sex life. I know a secret about you that you want to keep that's non-criminal, but that you want to keep hidden. And unless you pay me money, I'm going to reveal it.

      That seems like textbook extortion to me. Why is it not?

      DERSHOWITZ: It is absolutely textbook extortion. And there ought to be a prosecution of any person, man or woman, who approaches any candidate or anybody else and says, "Unless you pay me money, I'm going to reveal a sex act that occurred."

      That is absolute classic extortion...
      The gentlemen went on from there. But in what way was their analysis wrong?"

      March 26, 2018 -- "Did we "learn" anything from the interview? Only if Clifford's [Daniels] statements are true—and at present, there's no particular way to make such assessments.

      It may be that most of her claims are true. But at present, there's no real way to know that her statements aren't false."

      later: "That "revelation" about the physical threat? Stating the obvious, it's only a "revelation" if the alleged threat actually did occur.

      Did the alleged threat really occur? Stating the obvious, there's zero way of knowing that, and Clifford's a fairly obvious possible semi-grifter. But Hartmann blusters straight ahead, showing few signs of knowing such things. When the children type up "stories" like this, "claims" tend to meld with "revelations," full entertaining stop."

      This should give you enough of a flavor of Somerby's attitude toward Stormy Daniels to see that your defense of Somerby is misguided.

      If you haven't learned yet how to recognize when Somerby calls someone a liar (given that he won't use the word lie), then you are beyond help.

    7. Sure seems like a mountain of evidence to me: https://www.justsecurity.org/85761/timeline-trump-hush-money-trial/

    8. 8:19 - Exactly. Somerby believes the grifter is probably telling the truth.

    9. Trump’s narrative: “We never had sex”
      Stormy’s narrative: “Yes, we did.”

      Somerby has never sided with Trump’s narrative. Be a mensch and admit it. Or be a schmuck and obfuscate.

    10. Those are not "narratives", and there's nothing to side with.

    11. I guess “obfuscation” it what you’re going with.


  2. "As the reporters note, the legalities involved in this trial will be extremely complex."

    Please, Bob, what "legalities"? The deep state is getting Trump. That's all. This has nothing to do with any reptiloid "legalities".

    1. I'd rather the shallow state, the police and military, took out Trump.

    2. Or he could be hit by a bus, remember.

    3. If that sounds ominous when I say it, think how ominous it sounded when Trump said it to Michael Cohen about David Pecker, in the context of making stories "go away."

    4. lol deep state, oh gawd 9:43 your nonsense never ceases to amuse.

    5. New York must be a "Deep (not shallow) State".

  3. Meanwhile, Trump continues trying to influence the jury himself:

    "On Truth Social, Trump posted a 9-minute long Newsmax segment of Greg Kelly complaining about Trump’s criminal trial. During that segment, Kelly showed the footage of Trump flipping through articles and one of them contained an image of star witness Michael Cohen.

    As MeidasTouch pointed out, this is a potential violation of Trump’s gag order and could be viewed at witness intimidation. Trump’s Newsmax clip also displayed a picture of Judge Merchan and his daughter as Kelly attacked them both on behalf on Trump, another potential violation."


    Somerby never mentions Trump's ongoing misuse of media, now in violation of court orders.

    1. One juror reported reading Truth Social for news.

    2. Somerby didn't mention that.

    3. "That's a nice daughter you have, be a shame if something were to happen to her."

      Trump, not satisfied with abusively sexualizing his own daughter and allegedly raping the minor daughter of someone else, seems intent on implying threats against other people's daughters.

      Even a hung jury will severely damage Trump's campaign, if nothing else. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

  4. Speaking of the Bronze Age, how tacky is it that Melania is selling silver gilt trinkets on her webpage for Mother's Day when her husband is supposedly a billionaire?

    1. Not tacky at all.

    2. How many will you be buying for your wife and girlfriends?

    3. Did I mention they cost $250 each?

    4. She couldn't offer real gold? How symbolic is that!

    5. Having to put up with Trump's disgusting sweaty fat rolls, under-sized penis, and stench for so long has sapped Melania's life force, she just can not be bothered to put in the effort.

  5. Clinton was not in a degree-granting program at Oxford. He was a Fulbright scholar.

  6. Dowd is close to retirement and not "influential" any more. Why is Somerby choosing to attack her today? She is the wave of the past.

  7. My understanding is thet the first witness in the Trump trial will be David Pecker (fill in your own joke her)'

  8. Terry Anderson has died.

  9. Let's all come together in a bi-partisan fashion, and hope the mainstream media learns to have the same contempt for Republican voters, that Donald Trump has for them.

  10. Somerby strongly implies that we blue voters didn't actually need the info about Stormy Daniels' affair with Trump in order to vote. (He doesn't come right out and say that, but he states the opposite and then questions it, as if needing that info says something bad about us blue voters:

    "Blues have gone all in for that formulation.

    We believe she had a story to tell! Before the public could know how to vote, we needed that information.

    We say we needed that information. Anthropologically speaking, what might that say about us?"

    There is a contradiction in his framing of the question. If we are already blue voters, doesn't that imply we wouldn't be voting for Trump anyway. It may be the Independents and swing voters and undecideds, and even many Red voters who would have needed the info about Daniels to make an informed decision. The "we" that blue voters claim needed the info, encompasses all voters, not just ourselves.

    But as a blue voter, I take marital infidelity seriously, especially when someone doesn't come clean about it. Somerby has argued previously that blue voters didn't care about Clinton's infidelity to Hillary. Actually, many of us were very disappointed by it, cared a lot, but didn't consider it material to his performance as president (it occurred after he had already been reelected). Further, Trump's behavior with women wasn't just infidelity but also sexual abuse, accusations of rape, lying and cover up, disrespect to female celebrities, lying about having been with women he didn't know, and so on. The Access Hollywood tape alone was much worse than anything Clinton did.

    Trump's cover up attempts show that he knew that, even if Somerby doesn't seem to understand it. Somerby's pretense that liberals didn't need to know about Trump's affairs in order to decide not to vote for him is ridiculous -- it wasn't what liberals argued. But having months of discussion of Trump's attitudes toward women, right before the election, might have counteracted all of Russia's efforts to skew the results and HIllary might then have won. Somerby's unwillingness or inability to understand this is unfathomable and leads me to believe he is being dishonest with this stupid remark today. It is a perfect example of Somerby working extra hard with specious arguments against Trump's prosecution. ALL of the voters had a right to the information that Trump suppressed.

    The Stormy Daniels info came out in 2018, two years after Trump's election, because of Stormy Daniels' court efforts to void her NDA. At the time, Somerby supported Trump, not Stormy and certainly not the public's right to know such things BEFORE the election.

    1. Fellatio is good. So is cunnilingus.

    2. Reducing women and their concerns to sex is a misogynist tactic.

    3. Which is more damaging, tactical misogyny or strategic misogyny?

    4. No one would ask this question about any other situation, so why ask it here, other than to be annoying?

    5. Blues are "all-in" on implying Stormy Daniels, possesses key personal experiences or information relevant to the case, which could impact its outcome. This statement suggests that her testimony or the details she provides are not just incidental but central to the legal proceedings, potentially carrying significant weight in the evidence presented against Trump.

    6. Be wise, 11:54.

    7. Somerby is referring to needing the information before the election, not during the trial. That is very clear from the quote. Somerby implies that we did not need to hear that info before the election (he says the claim is "anthropology"). He is taking issue with whether the trial is about Trump's attempts to auppress info he thought would hurt his election chances and he is doing it by pretending it wouldn't have done that because it is a matter of prurient interest not presidential fitness.

      It has nothing to do with evidence at the trial.

    8. Oof, Bob deleted a comment here, apparently he does read them.

    9. That makes sense 12:08. That is a good point by Somerby that the media and possibly the legal system are overly focused on sensationalism, perhaps to the detriment of more substantive political discourse.

    10. The facts of the case and the legal underpinning for the prosecution are not credibly in doubt; Trump falsified business records in furtherance of other crimes of election interference and violating campaign finance laws. Somerby's opinion on if it would have had an impact on the outcome of the election is immaterial. This will all come down to the jury, if there is a Trump sympathizer on the jury, and there may be, then it will likely be a hung jury, otherwise, Trump will be convicted. The DC case is even more likely a conviction, since that jury pool almost certainly will not have Trump fans.

      Having said that, the Carroll case had a likely Trump fan, and Trump was still found liable. Additionally, Trump's lawyer argued:

      “A juror’s political affiliation is not grounds for dismissal, even in cases involving a political figure"

    11. The entire premise of Trump's prosecution in NYC is of course absurd. But it's also true that Trump's own conduct -- consorting with the likes of Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and David Pecker -- guarantees a constant cycle of soap-operatic drama and legal exposure. Now there's going to be a ton of energy and attention focused on analyzing Trump's role in paying off a porn star eight years ago, rather than his role in ushering through a gargantuan war-funding bill last weekend.

    12. "... the legal underpinning for the prosecution are not credibly in doubt"

      Au contraire. The legal underpinnings are as shaky as a MAGA boat parade in a hurricane.

      To take the most obvious problem: even if you accept that the business records in question were "false" and intended to "defraud", did Trump approve the language used to describe the payments? If not, how is he guilty, since these accounting entries are the business records in question?

      And did the accounting entries "defraud" the voters? Only if you stop believing in the space-time continuum, since the payments to Cohen--hence the entries describing them--were not made until the spring of 2017, well after the voters had already spoken.

      There are also issues around the statute of limitations, as well as the application of a novel legal theory that has not yet been tested having to do with the interaction of a state statute and a federal one.

      These problem are among the reasons why both the Feds and Bragg's predecessor passed on bringing these charges.

      Bragg has done a disservice to the country by bringing such a weak case against Trump.

    13. @1:58 PM
      "rather than his role in ushering through a gargantuan war-funding bill last weekend"

      True dat. The imperial Uniparty is alive and well, it seems, and, alas, America First is no different than Hope Change.

    14. Although, to be fair, there was some relatively significant opposition, and Marjorie Taylor Greene said some right things, as usual.

    15. "...and Marjorie Taylor Greene said some Right-wing nonsense, as usual.
      Fixed for accuracy.

    16. I am so confused. Who was Defendant No. 1 who illegally used campaign funds to pay his convicted lawyer to pay and keep a porn stars' story off the news in the critical weeks before the election?

    17. Hey Hector, corrupt Bill Barr shut it down.

    18. Hey Hector, the reason Cohen was not paid until 2017 was Trump always tries to stiff his contractors as he is a cheap and repeatedly adjudicated fraudulent ass.

    19. Only the right wing talks about the "uniparty."

    20. Thank you Hector. Spot on.

    21. Hector makes shit up. Bragg didn't pass on the case. Vance, his predecessor did. Bragg campaigned on prosecuting Trump and then he filed the case. The FBI may have passed on it because Trump was president and his minion Barr pressured them to leave it alone.

    22. ...his minion Barr pressured them to leave it alone.

      That has been documented by Geoffrey Berman.

      Why didn’t Trump’s trial start years earlier? Blame Bill Barr
      Why are Donald Trump's alleged crimes from 2016 being prosecuted now? In part because of former Attorney General Bill Barr's actions.


    23. Dear 9:54,

      You tiny-brained tomnoddy. Your lead sentence, "Hector makes shit up" was unsupported by a single thing I made up.

      You have the mental acuity of an ironing board.


    24. "Tomnoddy"? That word alone is worth the price of admission to this comment section.

  11. Why would women need to know whether a presidential candidate is a neanderthal before an election? Look at the regressive laws being passed by male legislators concerning women's health. Some male legislators are talking (seriously) about the need to repeal women's right to vote.

    All of the jokes about Melania being a hostage refer not just her obvious lack of enthusiasm for Trump's candidacy but to her disappearance from public view as first lady too. Her absence reflects the trad-wife ideal of submissiveness that would roll back women's opportunities, as occurred with Dobbs and other measures already enacted. If women were going to be forced back into the 1800s by Trump's presidency, women had the right to know that info. Of course, there are men (like Somerby?) who would not agree.

    1. There was a large gender gap among women against Trump and for Biden in 2020. That has widened in subsequent polls. This trial is likely to make Trump's presidential hopes toast and may demonstrate what would have happened to him if this had actually come out in 2016 right before the election.

      Somerby has referred to the possibility of civil war (echoing right wing hopes for such a conflict) but he misses that the next war may not be between left and right (especially since the left doesn't like violence) but between men and women. That is what is now happening at the polls, although someone forgot to tell Greg Gutfeld and Bill Maher.

    2. A gender gap among women?

    3. If you weren't so ignorant, you would have known that we shape-shifting alien Reptiloids have 69 genders. 78 of them are women.

    4. Why is would anyone think there would be be a civil war between men and women? If the left wouldn't participate in a civil war since they don't like violence, using that logic, left women and men wouldn't be on board for this gender war you imagine.

      I don't think you thought this through. ;)

    5. Sorry, gender gap between male and female voters in which women tend to support Biden and men tend to support Trump by wide margins. But you probably understood what I meant to say.

      There might be a civil war between men and women because women will fight to maintain their freedom and to the extent that men try to impose restraints on that freedom, women will have something to fight for. Recall that the Revolution was fought for freedom, not just trade issues. Recall that the Civil War was fought for freedom from slavery. If men make things untenable for women, women now have the means to fight back, which was not true before the suffrage movement fought for and attained the right to vote and the feminists won rights to own property, control our health, educate ourselves, and support ourselves via employment. We are not going back to the bad old days.

    6. How does one fight? Men, with their limited imaginations and hairy upper body strength, go straight to violence. Women use voting (we elected Biden in 2020), the courts (thank you RBG), economic pressure (boycotts), control of access to things men want (time with kids, sex, companionship, validation of men's worth as human beings), earning power and participation in the workplace (there still aren't enough male nurses to take over for women, and definitely not enough kindergarten teachers to keep kids busy at school), and so on.

      Women are pissed off now and Biden is making hay over the abortion issue. It can and probably will get worse if male idiots insist this trial is about Stormy or lefty persecution instead of Trump's stupidity. Everyone can tell Trump is guilty as hell. The right wing doesn't want to anger conservative women or they'll have no one competent to rally the base (imagine MTG working for the other side!).

  12. Sleepy Don fell asleep during the DA's opening statement and his attorney had to nudge him awake.

    1. From Rawstory:

      "Anat Shenker-Osorio, a progressive operative and political strategist, thinks that anyone who believes former President Donald Trump's hush-money trial will help him politically is fooling themselves.

      In an interview with The New Republic's Greg Sargent, Shenker-Osorio made the case that Trump's frequent outbursts were actually doing significant damage to his image as an "alpha male" with the mental and physical fortitude needed to take on the nefarious forces that are hellbent on weakening the United States of America.

      "The story of the authoritarian is that he... is a strongman and that the rules don't apply to him," she said. "But to see him in this situation where he continues to lash out, but the reality, the construct of the courtroom is he's not the alpha. He's falling asleep, he's subjected to censure. That messes with his core attraction."

      In fact, argues Shenker-Osorio, Trump's actions are making him look "sad and trapped and small."

      Sargent then observed that prospective swing voters seem unlikely to be impressed by Trump showing complete disrespect for the American criminal justice system and for treating the entire process as a "scam."


    2. This centers on whether Trump actually is a strongman or whether he is merely pretending to be one. I think the latter is true, based on his interactions with actual strongmen (like Putin) where he immediately becomes a fawning subordinate. Tantrums aren't strength.

    3. Wow. Blacks are identifying with Trump because of the trial because they are used to having the justice system used against them unfairly and can see that the justice system is being used against Trump because the Democrats bringing all these charges are doing so because they can't beat him politically. I see that too as a white person. It speaks to the weakness of the Democratic Party's ideas and agenda.

    4. You’re a rare White with empathy for Blacks.

    5. It's pretty obvious the Democrats that have brought these suits are doing so for political reasons. It's also pretty obvious Democrats are having a hard time beating him politically. But they did in 2024! I think they probably will in 2024. But these trials will live in history as cynical political operations, nothing more, nothing less.

    6. Democrats had to try to hedge their bets by bringing these frivolous lawsuits because their candidate is so unappealing and unpopular. Probably the most unpopular president in modern history. On the whole, Americans have spoken very loud and clear - they don't like him. There's no debate about that. A majority of voters in his own party didn't want him to run. And just look at him. Who would be inspired by this weird, very old man? So measures had to be taken.

    7. "Blacks" consistently vote for Dems at the rate of about 90%, that's what Biden got in 2020 and will get in 2024.

      "Blacks" do not identify with Trump in any way, about 10% of that voting cohort have enough wealth to be motivated by tax cuts, that's it.

      Readers here are not swayed by unevidenced, contrarian nonsense, such as what 12:17 offers, it is sad to observe someone so misguided, putting wasted effort into a fruitless endeavor.

    8. Biden is considered by many to be one of our better presidents, which is in stark contrast to his opponent who is ranked dead last among presidents, and is not just elderly, but corrupt.

      Trump is being prosecuted for his own corrupt and criminal actions, I'm sorry if you are triggered by this circumstance, but in America we have a justice system that is based in part on people taking responsibility for their actions.

      Hopefully, you find a way to cope. Sorry bro.

    9. It's just a fact Biden is probably the most unpopular president in modern history. Maybe Carter was less popular. It's a fact a majority of Democrats didn't want him to run. He's not well liked. That is beyond dispute. He's a poor candidate to run. He can hardly get through a speech or interview. Partisan historians my like him but ordinary people don't like him.

      If these were real criminal actions, prosecutions would have been undertaken years ago.

      Being truthful about the situation is not being triggered. You can lie to yourself about it if you would like. Be my guest!
      But go talk to a black person America's justice system that is based in part on people taking responsibility for their actions!! Sheeeeeeeee-it! ;)

    10. Blacks who consistently vote for Dems relate with Trump because what he is going through is similar to what they have gone through. It doesn't mean they support him or are going to vote for him.

      They just see the game for what it is.

    11. A bigger issue for Biden is Hispanics where his support is crumbling, particularly young Latino men. Polls are showing a decline in his support and an increase in support for former President Trump among all Hispanics.

      The main concerns among the Hispanics surveyed are inflation and rising costs of living under the Biden administration.

      Which is weird because there is no inflation and Biden is the 14th greatest president in the history of America. ;)

    12. "It speaks to the weakness of the Democratic Party's ideas and agenda." Well at least the Democratic party has a platform, unlike Trump's party.

    13. The GOP's agenda is whatever Putin says it is. I'm not Mao, nor a political reporter so I don't have to feign ignorance about this.

    14. If Latin men don’t like our President, they should go back to Latium.

    15. Lucky for Biden total jackass and anti-vaxx killer of children, RFK Jr., is pulling more votes from the Don than from Biden. Biden does not need the wacko black and hispanic voters who are stupid enough to vote against their own interests if dumb ass white people move to RFK...

    16. G.W. Bush's popularity was 11% when he left office. Way lower than Biden at any time. That's what happens when you dismantle FEMA ahead of a major hurricane, sort of the way Trump dismantled our pandemic preparations before covid hit.

    17. "Mr. Trump has found new support among Latinos who work in law enforcement along the Mexican border, Cuban Americans in Florida averse to policies they view as approaching socialism, evangelical Christians attracted to Christian nationalism and second- and third-generation U.S.-born Latinos who are more likely to identify with and vote like their white peers.

      One of the clearest trends is the education divide. Tracking the gap among voters overall, Mr. Trump is increasingly doing better among Hispanic voters without a college degree than among college-educated Hispanics."

      Looks like Trump has the George Zimmerman vote all tied up.

      Too bad poll numbers do not equate to actual votes. Trump has been underperforming his polling by about 10 points. Too bad poll numbers aren't static either. These optimistic claims tend to disappear from poll to poll, aside from the fairly stable conservative vote he always gets (Cubans, law enforcement, etc). Hispanics are overrepresented in the military, but the military does not support Trump due to his disrespect of service. Too bad.

    18. Just because a criminal prosecution is bad for a candidate, doesn't mean it was brought for a political purpose. It wouldn't be right to excuse Trump's criminal activity because he chose to run for office. If prosecutors did that, then all kinds of sleazes would be running, not just Matt Gaetz, George Santos, and similar scum.

      What does every criminal say when accused? "I didn't do it." That's why the trial is going to bring in other examples of proven situations where Trump did do it but lied about it.

    19. You can't charge someone with a crime if they already submitted election papers.
      That's just science.

  13. Given all the attention Somerby has paid Al Gore, you'd think he would wish everyone a Happy Earth Day!

  14. The Andromeda galaxy is about 765,000 parsecs away.


  15. My uncle was eaten by cannibals. His name was Gorby. Somerby is no liberal.

    I am Corby.
    P.S. Word-salads for any taste, cheap! Contact me.

  16. I’m a Trump voter, but I’d vote to convict him, because he is in fact guilty.

    1. I was a Trump voter, but based on all the charges against him, I am switching my vote to Biden. Trump has no business being president of anything, much less our country. I did not realize how bad he is at business and how much he cheats, both our system, as well as his own family. I admit I was conned, but now I see he is just a fraud.

    2. Why did you vote for him?

    3. What part of "conned" do you not understand?

  17. 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 .

    Open this web………. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.SmartApp1.𝐜𝐨𝐦

    1. does this really work? I mean the whole working at home stuff? Has anyone tried this yet? Looks promising..

  18. Bob probably has a fair point that the Times
    could be a little less tabloid in the instances
    he sites.
    Problem is, Bob has no credibility on these
    matters. When a mountain of evidence was
    presented to him on Jan 6th, he first tried
    lamely to dispute the report, then slunk away
    in silence. Clearly, Bob is kinda dumb,
    and hold the United States in very low
    It’s true, one can say “if Trump was fucking
    a porn star while his wife had a baby and
    couldn’t see to his needs, it’s none of my
    business.” But Bob should be honest if
    that’s the way his good friends and neighbors
    see things.

    1. Kinda hard to avoid the kink angle when it involves sex with a bonafide porn star...

    2. A perceived lack of credibility doesn't have any bearing on the merits or demerits of his argument.

    3. Sure it does. The whole argument is that the Times is playing too rough with Bob’s poor disordered friend. Bob had been making ridiculous excuses for Trump, and slurring his critics, since 2015. So who is he to judge?

    4. And let not be silly: Trump has been trying to scare and intimidate jurors. We are going to hear more about this tomorrow apparently. What Bob is trying to sell here is that the bad people in New York are not going to give his poor disordered pal a fair trial. He doesn’t call the paper “The Jew York Times” but his good friends and neighbors probably do.

  19. The largest group of people in NYC is not Democrats (or Republicans) but non-voters. Non-voters tend to not follow news closely (or at all, in many cases). That's why people who gave their news source as Tiktok or social media are more likely to be non-voters. When someone doesn't want to admit that they do not follow the news, they are likely to name the first paper that comes to mind, or their local paper, as their source. That is what it means that the NY Times was mentioned so frequently, not that the NY Times is heavily influencing jurors. They likely don't read the NY Times either. Increasingly, people hear big news from their friends and don't follow any news source closely, and that is who many of the jurors are, not liberals concealing their partisan affiliations as Watters claimed.

    Somerby doesn't seem to follow politics enough to understand these things, even if he weren't in the bag for Trump.