ELECTION: We're not on Fifth Avenue any more!


With what is Donald Trump charged? The future president made the statement back in the early days.

Joe and Mika were in the process of flipping on the candidate—a candidate over whom they had fawned all through the previous year. 

It was January 2016. NPR gave this account of what the hopeful had said:

Donald Trump: 'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters'

With less than two weeks to go until the Iowa caucus, Donald Trump remains characteristically confident about his chances. In fact, the Republican front-runner is so confident, he says his supporters would stay loyal even if he happened to commit a capital offense.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

It remains a famous statement. If he shot someone right there on Fifth Avenue, he wouldn't lose any votes.

Depending on the circumstances, the statement might even be true. On the other hand, let the word go forth to the nations:

The candidate was picturing a recognizable type of behavior. The average voter could easily picture what he was talking about.

Shooting someone is a crime, depending on the circumstances. Mainly though, it's a type of behavior which is widely seen on TV and in the movies.

Everyone has seen a million fictional characters as they stand in the street and shoot someone. For that reason, there was no great confusion concerning what the hopeful was talking about.

Eight years after that famous boast, we come to the crime with which the former president now stands charged in a New York City courtroom.

The gentleman stands accused of 34 felonies—but can anyone clearly describe or define the crimes with which he stands charged? In Monday morning's New York Times, Protess and Bromwich seemed to say that the case against Trump was very strong—but right at the start of their report, they offered those three disclaimers:

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...

The prosecutors have a mountain of evidence, plus a favorable jury pool and a lurid set of facts! But even as they dazzled readers with their own lurid language, the reporters cited three "apparent weak points" in the D.A.'s case:

We'll focus on the third. According to Protess and Bromwich, the case is compromised by its "legal complexity." The prosecutors' case is weakened because it's so complex.

It's hard to argue with that statement. Indeed, as Judy Garland might have said, misquoting herself, We're a long way from Fifth Avenue now! 

In the current case, Donald J. Trump isn't charged with shooting someone on the street. Nor did the pair of Times reporters attempt in any serious way to describe or define the nature of the felony with which he does stand charged.

The reporters cited the "legal complexity," then pretty much let it go. It was a good example of lousy journalism, but we can't say we totally blame them.

In best tabloid style, they quoted one (1) former federal prosecutor who said the case against Trump is very strong. They quoted no other legal observers. More specifically, they quoted no legal observer who had an alternate view concerning the strength of the D.A.'s charges.

That was comically awful journalism. Here's why:

Right from the day the indictment was revealed, waves of legal observers have questioned—rightly or wrongly—the structure of the D.A.'s legal case.  Everybody knows that's true, unless they read Monday's Times. 

The case has been questioned right from the start. Just to offer a quick example, here's a report from Politico in April 2023, when the charging documents in the case were released:

Bragg’s case against Trump hits a wall of skepticism—even from Trump’s critics


Legal experts who had awaited Bragg’s charging documents to resolve some of the lingering mysteries about the case remained confounded by some aspects of the prosecution.

“It is said that if you go after the king, you should not miss,” wrote Richard Hasen, a campaign finance law expert at UCLA. “In this vein, it is very easy to see this case tossed for legal insufficiency or tied up in the courts well past the 2024 election before it might ever go to trial. It will be a circus that will embolden Trump, especially if he walks.”

Even Ian Millhiser, the liberal legal commentator for Vox, called the legal theory on which Bragg’s case is built “dubious.”

Millhiser and Hasen aren't Trump supporters. But they joined a chorus of legal observers who expressed concern about the complicated structure of the D.A.'s legal case. 

On Monday morning, Protess and Bromwich—and their editors—blew past this extensive history. Their one lone source said the case was strong. They quoted no other observer.

One day later, a bit of pushback appeared. The editorial wing of their own New York Times published a guest essay by a legal observer beneath this punishing headline:

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

Professor Shugerman isn't a Trump supporter either. In his essay, he struggled to explain why he thinks the complicated legal case against Trump turns out to be an "historic mistake."

We're a long way from Fifth Avenue now! With no disrespect to Shugerman intended, good luck trying to decipher what the professor says:

Prosecutors could argue that New York State agencies have an interest in detecting conspiracies to defraud federal entities; they might also have a plausible answer to significant questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction or whether this stretch of a state business filing law is pre-empted by federal law.

However, this explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems. And none of the Manhattan D.A.’s filings or today’s opening statement even hint at this approach.

Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan described the case, in his summary of it during jury selection, as an allegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”

As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal. The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”


The most accurate description of this criminal case is a federal campaign finance filing violation. Without a federal violation (which the state election statute is tethered to), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade the misdemeanor counts into felonies. Moreover, it is unclear how this case would even fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the federal crime.

In stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court, the Manhattan D.A. is now pushing untested legal interpretations and applications. I see three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution upon appeal.

And so on and so on from there! 

Trump isn't charged with shooting someone—but with what does he stand charged? Quickly, let's state the obvious:

Professor Shugerman seems to think the legal case is a mess. Needless to say, that doesn't mean that his view is correct, or that his view should prevail. 

That said, a riotous comedy has ensued as the heading lights of American legal journalism have attempted to explain the crime with which Trump is charged. Or, perhaps more accurately, as they have fled from any attempt to undertake some such explication of this complexificated case.

So far, Trump hasn't shot anyone on Fifth Avenue, or even on Dylan's Positively 4th Street. Everyone agrees that there is a legal complexity to the case, but does that mean the case is unfounded or weak? 

Does that mean the case is unfounded? Mainly, though, with what felonies does this fellow stand charged?

That news report by Protess and Bromwich came straight from the old yellow press. With their lurid language and their single sourcing, they aped the kind of work which has spilled from entities like the National Enquirer over into the failing world of American "cable news."

Speaking of that segregated medium, consider what happened this past Tuesday night.

At 8 p.m., Andrew Weissmann and Melissa Murray—a pair of MSNBC legal analysts—appeared as guests on CNN. Pure conceptual chaos ensued as Professor Murray tried to explain the nature of the D.A.'s charges against defendant Trump.

Professor Murray crashed and burned in truly remarkable fashion. Shortly thereafter, in the 9 o'clock hour, two law professors appeared on Alex Wagner Tonight—and they at least were able to quote the New York statute on which D.A. Bragg's team has apparently decided to rely.

That said, the conceptual chaos was general as that second conversation unspooled. 

Tomorrow, we'll show you what Professor Murray initially said. We'll also show you what she said when her first strange remark was challenged.

From there, we'll move ahead to the Wagner program. At that point, we'll be able to show you the actual language of the actual statute (apparently) in question.

Everyone knows that D.A. Bragg has to find a way to turn misdemeanors into felonies. Given the way our human minds work, good night and good luck as you wait for some descendant of Godot to wander by and do that.

Meanwhile, this is the way our presidential elections now work. Given the limits of our species' basic skills, perhaps we should return to the ways the elect were chosen during the late Bronze Age!

Tomorrow: When humans (try to) explain


  1. Helen Vendler has died.

  2. Somerby is just pissing in the wind here, as the charges are not based on complex law or novel applications of law beyond the circumstances being novel in the sense that no one has committed the precise crimes that Trump has.

    Even the weak evidence Somerby sites cuts against his claim: he quotes a legal expert worrying that the case could be tossed or delayed due to "legal insufficiency" (whatever that means), however, clearly the case has not been tossed or delayed, a grand jury voted that the case was worthy of going to trial and the judge has denied requests to dismiss.

    Then Somerby quotes Shugerman who is a member of the right wing Federalist Society and teaches at the conservative Fordham Law. A year ago Shugerman wrote an opinion piece in the NY Times about how he thought the prosecution of Trump was an overreach, but since then, all of his objections have been adjudicated and dismissed in court, so now he is pissed and instead of apologizing for his mistake, as he has had to do in the past for making bad calls on legal theory, he is doubling down in typical right wing fashion.

    Somerby ignores the wealth of criticism against these defenders of Trump, in a way that makes Somerby look weak and foolish, a victim of his own principles.

    1. No more piss, please.

    2. Shugerman is not affiliated with the Federalist Society and is generally considered a progressive legal scholar.

    3. Shugerman is a Federalist Society contributor and award recipient, it is true it is not clear if he is a paying member.

      Shugerman is also the faculty advisor for the BU Federalist Society Chapter.

      Shugerman is affiliated with the Federalist Society and is not a progressive, and he also been a contributor to the right wing CATO Institute.

    4. When the Federalist Society gave Jed Shugerman an award, it suggested recognition from the society towards him, but it does not necessarily imply formal affiliation or membership.

      Jed Shugerman has no formal connection, association, or involvement with the Federalist Society. He is not a member, does not represent, and is not sponsored by or working in collaboration with this organization.

      This is a misrepresentation on your part attempting to suggest a bias in his criticisms instead of addressing the substance of them.

    5. 12:36 your claim is false.

      It is unknown if Shugerman is a dues paying member of the Federalist Society, he may well be.

      Shugerman has proudly received an award from the Federalist Society, something no progressive would ever do.

      Shugerman is a regular contributor to the Federalist Society, as well as the right wing CATO Institute, and is in fact the faculty advisor for the BU Federalist Society Chapter.

      Shugerman is not a progressive and is in fact highly affiliated with the Federalist Society.

      This provides context for Shugerman's right wing biases, and as far as the substance of his criticisms, this was addressed by noting that all of his criticisms have been adjudicated in court and were dismissed - for legal issues, the highest form of addressing criticisms.

    6. Oh. Shugerman's thoughts about the case are discredited due to his affiliations with conservative organizations and assertions he made 2 days ago have been already judicially rejected.

      How cool.

    7. Shugerman's affiliation with the Federalist Society reasonably provides context for his criticism.

      Furthermore, he expressed his criticism a year ago in a NY Times opinion piece, and in fact those issues were brought up in court and dismissed.

      His recent piece is just a rehash of his opinion from a year ago, merely adding that it is a "historic mistake" which is just an emotional outburst, not a criticism.

      It is cool that the merits of Shugerman's criticism have actually already been addressed and been found to be empty. That he now doubles down just points to his emotional state, not that he has any credible criticism.

      This circumstance seems to trigger people - Somerby and his right wing fanboys, for example - they are so obsessed with "owning the libs" they fail to make any coherent or credible point.

    8. One important tenet of journalism is to identify the potential biases of individuals, whether of the writer himself or the officials and others being interviewed by the writer. It is routine to identify their affiliations as part of that process. Shugerman's affiliation with the Federalist Society should not be concealed from readers. They are not obvious from his vita except in his list of presentations at the very end of the resume.


      Somerby often disappears info important to readers, to put his finger on the scales in favor of his own preferred narrative, as Somerby himself has put it.

    9. I can give you a detailed analysis of the article that shows it is not just a rehash of his opinion from a year ago if you would like. Reading simple news opinion pieces is difficult for a lot of people so you're not alone.

      Just let me know if you would like a detailed analysis.

    10. Regardless of his affiliations, Shugerman's description of the charges against Trump seem to be largely accurate. If you think otherwise, tell us where he missed the mark. Be specific.

    11. Sure thing, Einsteins. Shugerman is the personification of a right wing maga.

      That’s why he’s championing/tweeting arguments that SCOTUS justices are making against Trump’s immunity case AS you type bullshite.

    12. 2:48,
      Thank you for finally supporting someone who is “woke”.
      I’m so proud of you.

    13. Anonymouse 3:39pm, I support a lot of people who are woke when they’re right about something and if I happen to find them interesting or likable in general.

      You know… the way sane human beings generally do feel about people.

    14. I don’t support people just because I like them. Their ideas need to make sense.

    15. Anonymouse 7:40pm, oh, it’s not difficult at all to support people with whom you agree and to support those with whom you differ.

      Support is a broad term.

    16. Words like support mean whatever you want them to.

    17. Anonymouse 10:56pm, no, the context matters. That’s my point.

    18. Yet, every time I bring up the context of why Republican voters support Trump, you cry.

    19. Context regarding our political divide:
      Anyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party more than two dozen years ago.

  3. Trump is being charged with falsifying business records, a felony.

    1. Quaker in a BasementApril 25, 2024 at 2:32 PM

      It's a felony when records are falsified to cover up another criminal act. There's the rub.

  4. Is the mere fact that Trump is on trial having an impact on his chances of getting elected?

    None of us are mind readers, but we can not help but notice that the trial is making Trump look weak. There are no Trump supporters outside the court, there are no Trump personal supporters inside the court - none of his children, no Melania, etc.

    Trump's whining as he enters and exits the court come across as lunatic rants.

    Trump has been falling asleep and passing gas in court, this possibly makes him look worse to his potential supporters than murdering someone on Fifth Avenue.

    Trump limped to the finish line in the recent PA primary, having ceded a significant amount of votes to someone who is longer even running! This is very bad for Trump.

    Trump's chances are slowing circling the drain, and Somerby, emotionally triggered by this circumstance, hops on his blog to express his dismay at what is happening.

    1. News reports of flatulence don't convey its stench.

    2. No one put a gun to the Republican Party’s head and told them to enter a
      death embrace with a self destructive

  5. Another tough day for those arguing Bob is
    not a shill for Trump. Bob can’t seem to discribe
    ANY crime against Trump. The new indictments
    from Arizona reminds us of Bob’s outrage at
    Rachel Maddow for using the word “forgery”,
    now that imitation electors have been
    convicted of that specific crime.
    Bob try’s to play the no nonsense
    Everyman here, but it is no big secret that
    white collar crime can get quite complex
    and that’s no excuse to ignore it.
    I like to think Pecker’s testimony wounds
    Bob at least a little. It reminds us the
    Beast Bob’s good friends and neighbors
    still presumably embrace rose for
    a moral sewer.

    1. This comment seems to misunderstand the main focus of this post, which is a critique of how the media report on legal cases involving complex issues. The comment instead interprets Bob’s criticisms as partisan bias, which misrepresents his argument about the need for more effective journalism.

    2. One issue with 12:06's claim is that there is in fact effective journalistic coverage of Trump's trial, but Somerby simply ignores this.

      Furthermore, there are many complex legal cases, far more complex than Trump's relatively straightforward case, that Somerby completely ignores the coverage of. This is a reasonable indication of Somerby's bias towards Trump over any real concern of effective journalism.

      We do not have to take Somerby's (or anyone's) claims at face value, that would be pure folly.

      11:47 in their own interesting style of prose, well expresses Somerby's inclination towards using performative virtue to hide his more pernicious agenda.

    3. Bob's post does not defend Trump’s actions but criticizes the media's handling of the legal narrative, suggesting a lack of clear, balanced information. The comment mischaracterizes Bob's critique of media coverage as a defense of Trump.

    4. 12:38 you are struggling with being excessively literal, taking Somerby's claims at face value, which makes it likely that your stance is irrelevant.

      If one does not limit themselves narrowly to Somerby's post today in a literal sense, but instead, takes into consideration context and the broader sweep of Somerby's work, then 11:47's assessment is quite reasonable and likely accurate.

    5. Actually, you are the one taking Bob's claims at face value. As any regular reader knows, Bob has, in every instance, gone to great lengths in taking Trump's part in any and every instance. Yes, he did say he could shoot someone on fifth avenue, but thats not what
      he actually did, so.... oh brother.
      I understand Bob find's the coverage of
      Trump's crimes to be unfairly biased (only by the
      outlets he deems too liberal, of course if Bob wanted
      someone with him in Trump's corner such people
      couldn't be easier to find) but again, his over
      coverage has been consistently silly.
      Also, Bob Dylan's "Positively 4th Street" has zero
      to do with the subject at hand. When Bob gets
      desperate, his mind wonders.

    6. 12:58 Thank you for sharing your passion about Somerby’s broader work. Could you share specific examples from his past work that impact the interpretation of this post and its theme of how high-profile news outlets report on legal cases involving complex issues?

    7. Anyone can find and read enough Somerby to put today's remarks into context. The Daily Howler helpfully provides a search function. Just type in some relevant keywords and read what Somerby has been saying. Or you could pick a date, such as the beginning of this trial, and just read Somerby's output. I doubt anyone here has the time or inclination to spoon-feed you.

    8. As a right wing Somerby fanboy, I am also passionate about Somerby's work, since he daily defends against criticism of Trump and the broader right wing agenda. 12:58 doesn't need to share specific examples, Somerby does it daily, just read through his posts. I will be as smug and self satisfied as Somerby if Trump is elected.

    9. Then, to summarize: You believe Bob's criticisms of the media's coverage of legal cases are invalid because of his partisan bias, despite not providing a source for this claim.


    10. I don’t take Bob literally. I don’t take him seriously. I don’t take him at all.

    11. The source is his blog, it's something he does daily. Even the original comment references a specific instance, but 1:35 is correct, do your own work.

      Furthermore, Somerby's biases are clarified by his cherry picking of subjects, which all just happen to be defending against criticism of Trump and attacking "liberals", all while Somerby pointedly ignores the wealth of journalism that does effectively cover the trial.

      It does appear that your own biases and inability to consider context are your own stumbling blocks.

    12. Bob is not a shill for Trump.

    13. No one knows what Somerby's true views are on any topic. He conceals them and obfuscates by talking on both sides of an issue. Then he denies holding any opinion one way or the other, except for fatuous statements such as: We don't think anyone should be put in jail. or Anything is possible. We cannot know.

      He may be impoverished, living on pet food and scratching out a living by shilling for the Republicans. His true views may still favor Bernie and he may loathe Trump (many people do). But what he writes here is consistently reflecting right wing memes and talking points and he goes out of his way to argue against Biden's candidacy, against liberal viewpoints and he wastes a whole lot of space quoting Gutfeld's rancid jokes.

      When someone is frequently incoherent and all over the map in what he writes, often obscure, usually nihilistic, contradictory and fatuous and sophistry instead of argument, there is no way to accuse him of "partisan bias." If we ask who Somerby's essays benefit, the only answer is that he is supporting the right wing. That isn't bias -- it is an obvious fact emerging from his own words. Because Somerby seems to be deteriorating at as fast a rate as Trump, it is difficult to claim he is saying anything coherent.

      For his sake, I wish he would find something else to do with his time. Whatever credibility he ever had is long gone and he is embarrassing himself here. I suspect that doesn't matter to Somerby because he is too far gone to tell but it implies he has no one close to him, to urge him to stop his foolishness and live out the rest of his years in some dignity. No one seems to care enough to help him out of this embarrassment.

    14. At 1:58, to summarize, you are too lazy to click on any post Bob has ever made on Trump and see that what I said is obviously true. This "History begins now" stuff is probably something that makes you feel very clever, but it also shows you have no respect for the truth. One can post "Bob is not a shill for Trump" but going to his archives, the statement is impossible to support.

    15. And for the record, at 1:58, I did mention Bob's Trump friendly outrage at Rachel Maddow for using the word "Forgery" in reference to the fake electors scam. Again, Forgery has put people in jail in reference to said, and, it is part of the new charges in Arizona, where Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator. A first rate example of
      Bob having his head up is ass in service of Trump.

    16. Hi 2:53 - we pretty much agree. You believe Bob's criticisms are invalid because of his partisan bias despite not providing any sources for this claim. Thanks.

    17. Every time Somerby makes his "criticisms" there are numerous commenters who point out why they think his criticisms are invalid. None of them claim "partisan bias" as a reason supporting that invalidity. They do tend to conclude that Somerby must be biased in support of Trump/Republican talking points because of the example just shown to be invalid. They are not claiming partisan bias as a support for or reason why Somerby's statements are "invalid" or mistake or wrong or fabricated or specious or even outright lies compared to sourced links to truth (as today where Justice.gov is the source for Somerby's suggestions that it is an "imitation of life" to claim that Cohen went to jail over the hush money scheme).

    18. How have you or anyone shown his criticisms to be invalid with sourced links to truth in this post?

    19. Someone posted a link to Shugeman’s own resume showing his Federalist presentation and award.

    20. Sorry 3:31, I would not agree with a bullshit artist like you if I had a gun to my head. Again, any reference to any Trump Crime at the Daily Howler utterly backs up what I say, and you have access to said at your finger
      tips. Bold face lying is the sport of the Trump fan,
      I guess.

    21. 3:40, I don't put Bob's crappola down to partisan bias, exactly, He is mentally ill, and or being paid off by a right wing sugar daddy. His vanity in refusing to admit when he is wrong is not that far a cry from you know who.

    22. It’s long past time to punch Right-wing fascists.
      Not doing so makes just makes Bob blame us for the Right being fascists.

    23. Sorry, Bob had that covered. He will damn you for punching them or not punching them. All you can do is call out his BS.

    24. 4:31 Just a reminder you claimed Bob's criticisms were invalid because of a partisan bias. After repeated requests, you failed to provide a source for this claim. Therefore, I am going to have to declare it invalid and untrue.

    25. Say what you want. Several of us responded already.

    26. None of "you" responded with a source for the claim.

    27. I did mention Bob's Trump friendly outrage at Rachel Maddow for using the word "Forgery" in reference to the fake electors scam. Again, Forgery has put people in jail in reference to said, and, it is part of the new charges in Arizona,

      Excellent point. I was about to comment on this.

      The indictment released Wednesday names 11 Republicans who submitted a document to Congress falsely declaring that Trump won Arizona in 2020. They include the former state party chair, a 2022 U.S. Senate candidate and two sitting state lawmakers, who are charged with nine counts each of conspiracy, fraud and forgery.

      The identities of seven other defendants, including Giuliani and Meadows, were not immediately released because they had not yet been served with the documents. They were readily identifiable based on descriptions of the defendants, however.

      Trump himself was not charged but was referred to as an unindicted co-conspirator.

      Another example of Somerby getting it totally wrong and never acknowledging.

    28. You don't show exactly what his complaint about Maddow's use of the word forgery was or how this lawsuit invalidates it.

      So, to summarize:

      You believe Bob's criticisms are invalid because of his partisan bias. But you haven't provided any source at all for this claim.

    29. "But you haven't provided any source at all for this claim."
      This could be true, or not true. None of us truly knows.

    30. He mocked Maddow repeatedly for daring to use the words "fake" and "forgery". He accused her of over hyping the matter by saying it was a crime.
      It was a fucking crime.

      TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022

      Maddow had started making this claim on Tuesday, December 21, 2021. On that evening's program, she had used voiced some version of "forgery / forged" 18 separate times.

      That's well short of 39 times, but it was still a lot of repetition. "Look, we have the paperwork they forged," she excitedly said at one point.

      Maddow has been saying "forgery / "forged" again and again and again. As she does, she keeps implying that the Others she is able to see have been involved in crimes.

      That said, we don't know why she's using that term. (She continued to do so last night.) We've never seen her explain her use of the term. We don't think she's ever tried.

      We don't know why the terrified star has been using that deeply fraught term. Is it simply an artefact of terror—and of otherization?

  6. Hamas can gather by the thousands and chant KILL JEWS on Fifth Avenue and no one would care. Democrat identity politics have come home to roost.

    1. And yet most Jews still vote Democratic. :(

    2. So now you have it that blacks and Jews vote against their interests, David. Maybe we should make a list.

    3. Blacks vote against their own long-term interest but not their immediate interest of collecting entitlements and vilifying cops. Half of Jews are secular and detached from their Jewishness but that isn't going to matter to the growing eradication movement brought about by the mental illness of identity politics that has consumed and defines the campus and Democrat party.

    4. If they could, why don't they do it? You have a
      rich, if twisted, right wing fantasy life.

    5. Technically, Hamas opposes Zionism not Jews, per their update in 2017 to their charter.

      Hamas is not supported by the majority of Palestinians, they are a right wing group that has engaged in violence, but Hamas has been supported by Netanyahu, who is similarly right wing.

      Hamas' violent actions are terrible but pale in comparison to Israel's ongoing genocide of innocent Palestinian civilians, half of those being murdered are children.

      Blacks vote against the Republican Party because that party represents those who oppress Black people.

    6. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/black-voters-views-on-biden/id1192761536?i=1000652783945

    7. Quaker in a BasementApril 25, 2024 at 2:37 PM

      Anon 11:55 Thousands of Hamas members in the US?

    8. Quaker. Bill Barr was head of the DOJ. Anything's possible.

    9. I’m not a haw. You’re the haw.

    10. Bob is finally correct,
      Us librrals, and the Right-wing ‘media (AKA the media) were derelict in not stressing how much the GOP is a fascist cult.
      And why? Because the fascists would whine and cry.
      Big fucking deal. The Right have always been the snowflakes they warn us about.

    11. FYI:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party

    12. Trump’s crimes were victimless. Like someone crossing the Southern border without ID.

    13. Trump’s crime was not victimless because had voters known about them, Hillary might have won and those unnecessary covid deaths might not have occurred. So, lives were at stake and the crimes may have been closer to murder than Somerby thinks. But predictably, I doubt he really cares.

    14. @1:30 Poll: Over 70% Palestinians still maintain Hamas ‘correct’ to commit Oct. 7 atrocities


    15. 1:30: HaMAs AkShuLLy LoVeS JoOs

    16. 1:03 PM Whitey knows best. Of course if you are voting Republican for their stewardship of the economy, see my link at 5:11 and get back to us about who is delusional.

    17. Quaker in a BasementApril 25, 2024 at 8:26 PM

      DiC: Your point is?

    18. The Times of Israel headline is disingenuous. The first Palestinian poll was in December, 2023, after over 18 thousand citizens in Gaza, mostly women and children had been bombed into oblivion. Only 10 per cent of Palestinians believed Hamas had committed atrocities on October 7th, not having seen videodocumentation, per the poll cited. Therefore to headline that the Palestinians approved of the Hamas atrocities when 90% of Palestinians did not believe that they occurred is a misstatement of fact. A lie.

    19. Remember, complaining about ObamaCare is ant-American.
      Now, which party is the one that complains about ObamaCare?

    20. 10:03 has a severe case of ADHD apparently. That said, The Affordable Care Act is widely used and popular to the extent that Republicans stopped running campaigns against it. Not a perfect law by any means but better than the nothing they have offered up, including the BS promoted by DJT. They have consistently voted against reigning in pharmaceutical costs as well.

  7. The point of coverage of Trump's trial is not to present a horse-race between legal experts supporting Trump or the prosecution. It is to report what happens in court and the eventual outcome when the jury decides on the charges. The rest is noise.

    Prior to asking the jury to deliberate, the judge will outline the charges and the elements that must be proven in order to find Trump guilty. That will simplify the process and boil it down to what must be proven by the evidence presented during the trial. The speculation that makes the case seem complex to news readers will not exist for the jury, whose members are NOT following the trial in the papers or on cable. They are forbidden to hear any of the things Somerby has been discussing and complaining about.

    Somerby seems to be trying to portray the media as biased, in support of claims by the right that Trump is not getting a fair trial. But the things said on news shows have no ability to bias the jury because the jury is forbidden to listen or read them. That makes Somerby's claims moot.

    1. Well. Are you assuming that all of the jury faithfully obeys?

    2. I think Bob would say, if pressed, that both sides of the media spectrum are biased in this Trump case. His mantra is that they are equally unreliable. In pressing this point, he says a lot of obnoxious, silly things, and is himself happy to mislead his readers.

    3. If the jury does not obey and someone tries to introduce extraneous statements or ideas during deliberations, they can be (and often are) reported to the judge and removed from the jury. Other jury members are the check against violations of the judge's instructions to the jury as a whole. This is not a perfect world, but jury members do try to conscientiously carry out their instructions. If they did not, the jury system would not work as well as it does. Jurors are often interviewed after the verdict and asked about their deliberations. If there were wrongdoing, a trial could be reopened.

  8. David Pecker is the great truth-teller of our time.

    1. He is under oath now. That means something because he can go to jail for lying on the stand.

    2. I consider myself lucky to be living in the Age of Pecker.

    3. You and Senator Graham.

    4. I got a kick over Pecker saying that though he is not a bank and had never heard the term “catch and kill” that he’s done the same thing for unfavorable stories concerning his friends Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Perelman, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

    5. What’s funny about that? Perversion of journalism is a big joke to you?

    6. Anonymouse 10:55pm, you using the term “perversion of journalism”. as to the Nation Enquirer certainly is.

    7. Cecelia,


    8. The NY Times already perverted our journalism with that Tom Cotton op/ed piece.

  9. Crimes do not have to be simple, like murder, to be worth prosecuting.

  10. Somerby is minimizing Cohen & Trumps crimes by comparing them to murder and equating the trial to an absurdist play (Godot). The law matters to the rest of us.