Important word enjoys night off!


Blue America's faux journalism: Last night, a key word was largely given the night off on Blue America's "cable news" channel.

The key word is "allegedly." At issue was the testimony by Stormy Daniels, very little of which can be confirmed for its accuracy.

Daniel's various claims might be true—but also, her various claims might be false. There's no obvious way to tell. An actual journalist would know that.

As you may have heard, Daniels said she had sex with Donald J. Trump on one occasion in 2006. Trump says it didn't happen.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Daniels has the more accurate number. That, of course, doesn't tell us if her ancillary claims are accurate—and, of course, it's always possible that Trump's number is more correct.

In short, there's no obvious way to know when Daniels is making accurate statements. Unless you're watching MSNBC, where a gang of actors posing as journalists spent the evening reading the transcripts of her testimony as if her statements are the received word of God, brought down from the mountaintop by none other than Moses himself.

Lisa Rubin should be frog-marched away from her current job based on her performance on last evening's The Last Word. As she spoke with a highly receptive Lawrence O'Donnell, she acted as if every word Daniels spoke was the booming voice of God.

Where in the world—where on earth—do they go to find these people?

Question! is there any reason to doubt anything Daniels said? For example, what she said about the lack of a condom? What she said that Donald Trump said about his daughter? About his wife?

Answer: Yes, of course there is, as there is with any witness in such a high-stakes forum! Even in the tabloid-adjacent New York Times, Protess and Bromwich decided to offer this tantalizing passage in this morning's front-page news report

Outside the jury’s presence, the judge said that “there were some things better left unsaid” in her testimony and suggested that Ms. Daniels might have “credibility issues.”

Yet he rejected the defense’s bid for a mistrial, instead inviting Mr. Trump’s lawyers to mount an aggressive questioning of Ms. Daniels.

“The more times this story has changed, the more fodder for cross-examination,” he said.

Susan Necheles, the Trump lawyer who led the cross-examination, heeded the judge’s advice.

“The more times this story has changed?" What did Judge Merchan mean by that? The Times is publishing trial transcripts at this site, but yesterday's transcript isn't available yet. For that reason, we have no way of checking the transcript to fill in the missing context.

Rubin might need to go somewhere else, but everyone has been playing the fool on our Blue Tribe's corporate channel. For a further example of what we mean, consider the confessions of Saint Nicolle, as delivered on yesterday's Deadline: White House TV program.

It started at 5:14 p.m. Eastern. The extremely belated confession started off like this:

WALLACE (5/7/24): I feel bad that I always describe her as "porn star Stormy Daniels." I mean, she was a person, with a life, and a child, and a mother who disappeared when she was 17.

And but for having sex in Tahoe with Donald Trump where basically—I don't want to use the word "seduced" because the sex she describes isn't particularly sexual—but lures her in with conversations that she thinks are about her career, about the films she directs. And then she's so, for whatever reason, eager to keep the story silent—she talks about her partner, her husband who's struggling himself with alcoholism and some postpartum issues after her daughter is born—but she's desperate to keep the story silent...

And so on from there. Wallace seems to think she knows what happened that day at Lake Tahoe. Also, she's suddenly full of regret about using the term "porn star," as she has done and done, and done quite compulsively, in recent months. 

A few minutes later, she expressed her regret again:

WALLACE: All the details certainly remind us that this is a human being. I'm guilty of this too. 
"Porn star Stormy Daniels! Porn star Stormy Daniels!" We say it like it's all one word. She brought herself to life today in a way that's beyond the caricature.

We say it like it's all one word? Actually, Wallace has been saying it like it's all one word, usually tied to "Playboy Playmate" with a visible sense of loathing and a class-based air of disgust. 

We've suggested a different formulation: "adult woman not Donald Trump's wife." But these hounds from Hell have been selling Approved Blue Storyline hour after hour and day after day. 

It's what they're paid to do by their corporate owners.

Wallace has no way of knowing if various parts of Daniels' testimony are true. It may be that everything Daniels said was true. It may be that various things pretty much weren't.

As a compromise, Wallace did what she and her most favorite friends did all day and all night. They went on the air and behaved as if they knew that everything Daniels said was accurate.

We have a new word for Wallace and Rubin and Lawrence to learn. That new word is "allegedly." 

As actors, they aren't inclined to use that word. In the old days, top journalists would.


  1. Steve Albini has died.

    1. So long, Steve.

    2. He rocked my world, for about 15 years.

  2. A Georgia appeals court will think about removing Fani Willis from the RICO case against Donald Trump. So he's unlikely to go to trial before November.

  3. Wouldn't it be funny if these trumped-up cases helped to elect Trump?

    1. There are things that are funny about Trump:

      1. The way he cheats at golf.
      2. The diaper jokes, fart jokes and the way he smells.
      3. His sleeping in court, when his freedom is at stake.
      4. His inability to read while being President of the US.
      5. His combover.
      6. That no one showed up to protest his trial.
      7. That he had to force Eric to attend as family.
      8. That every day of this trial looks worse for Trump.
      9. The incompetence of his legal team.
      10. That Stormy got to expose his sexual secrets finally, after he maneuvered her into bed and then wouldn't let her tell anyone about it.
      11. That Melania is getting revenge now by not standing by him.
      12. That Trump thought Ivanka looked anything like Stormy, and that his fantasies (obvious to all) are finally being admitted.

      No one could make any of this stuff up.

    2. @3:05 -- These are criticisms of Trump the person. I agree that Trump is personally scummy.

      OTOH his policies turned out to be pretty effective. During his Presidency
      1. Inflation stayed low
      2. Russia didn't invade Ukraine
      3. Hamas didn't rape, torture, kidnap and murder over a thousand innocent men, women, and children. Barbaric attack led to a war in Gaza that's costing the lives of many thousands of Palestinians.
      4. College campuses were calm. Students could study and learn. Normal graduations could be held.
      5. Illegal immigration was under control.
      6. Schoolgirls didn't have to put up with naked men in their locker rooms.

    3. Trump felt that because he owned the beauty pageant, he was allowed to walk into the dressing rooms while the contestants were dressing and in various stages of nudity. He did that with his Miss Teen America pageant too.

      Would the girls be more distressed about seeing a naked Trump in their dressing room or about Trump seeing them naked while they were getting ready for the pageant?

    4. Under Trump, economic indicators held the same trend established under Obama, so Trump did not contribute positively or negatively to the economy.

      This was the case until Trump mishandled the pandemic, which then led to massive inflation, massive job loss, and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths - that is blood on Trump's hands, regardless of their tiny size.

      Trump functioned as Putin's puppet, there was no need for Putin to invade Ukraine at that time, and Trump did not enforce sanctions, so Putin then felt emboldened to invade Ukraine. Unfortunately for Putin, Biden is not playing and as a result Russia has been exposed as a paper tiger and a joke of a country - this is a hugely significant historical aspect that Biden will be praised for in the decades to come.

      Netanyahu, with support from Trump, permitted funding of Hamas, regularly attacked Palestinians, and kept them from negotiations. It was Trump/Netanyahu's actions that led to the Hamas attack. Netanyahu responded by attacking innocent civilians - men, women, and children - that included rape, torture, kidnap, and murder, but not just for a thousand, but for over 34,000 and counting.

      Trump's mishandling of race relations and police abuse led to one of the largest and most significant protest movements in history, including on campuses. Trump's presidency was one of the most perniciously chaotic in history.

      Under Trump, there was in fact high levels of immigration, and worse, Trump started policies of treating these people, who are in many ways the backbone to our country, inhumanely.

      Trump lost 35k+ manufacturing jobs, Biden has brought back 170k+ manufacturing jobs.

      There are no schoolgirls dealing with naked men in their locker rooms, however, Trump bragged about walking into the dressing room of a pageant, as well as bragging about other abusive behavior towards women.

      Trump rolled back 50 year old abortion rights for women.

      DIC, your views are ahistorical, false, and frankly, psychotic.

    5. Thanks for your response, @3:49. I often see the claim that Trump mishandled the pandemic, but seldom see the explanation. Can you please explain
      -- what Trump did wrong?
      -- what he should have done instead?
      -- how he should have known that the alternative actions were preferable?


    6. "but seldom see the explanation"

      It's in the Bible.

    7. Look at what Biden did, then do it all sooner.

      Trump withheld ventilators and PPE from blue states. He promoted quack remedies that cronies benefitted from financially. He organized White House events without precautions so attendees got covid. He forbade testing early on so there cold be no contact tracing when covid might have been stopped or slowed down. He misreported stats. He attended the debate with Biden while infected, trying to give it to Biden. He lied to the public about the effectiveness of masks and vaccine, told people covid would go away soon, on its own. He urged businesses to open before it was safe. And more…

    8. He xenophobically banned flights from China.

    9. Quaker in a BasementMay 8, 2024 at 5:52 PM

      Worst of all, he appointed himself the top government expert on Covid and made useless daily TV appearances that served no purpose other than to show he was "in charge."

    10. 1. Inflation stayed low - Under Biden post pandemic inflation is lower than any other industrial nation. Remember COVID DIC? Remember it cratered the economy. How do you take yourself seriously?
      2. Russia didn't invade Ukraine - Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Putin has been at war with the west since 2009.
      3. Hamas didn't rape, torture, kidnap and murder over a thousand innocent men, women, and children. Barbaric attack led to a war in Gaza that's costing the lives of many thousands of Palestinians. - Israel did not get rid of the corrupt POS Bibi who ignored all warnings (including from Putin) that an attack was imminent
      4. College campuses were calm. Students could study and learn. Normal graduations could be held. - Antifa & BLM DIChead. No normal graduations during COVID you ass.
      5. Illegal immigration was under control. -- Asking for asylum is not illegal. Stripping children from their mothers is not "under control"
      6. Schoolgirls didn't have to put up with naked men in their locker rooms. - That is just fucking stupider than the rest of you stupid BS..

    11. It is interesting, when DiC makes his list of Trump's achievements of his presidency, he always fucking forgets to include the most signature and long lasting one. How he abdicated his responsibility for picking SC nominees to the Federalist Society and installed 3 lying christo-fascists on the court who immediately turned this country into a dystopian hell hole for women. David always fucking forgets to put that at the top of his lists.


    12. I am a lying christo-fascist, but I am not a Democrat. One has to draw the line somewhere.

    13. Biden's reelection hopes may depend on whether he can effectively communicate with his political base.

    14. Trump tried to gaslight a viral pandemic like it was some common NY Times political reporter.
      Trump is a moron.

  4. "At issue was the testimony by Stormy Daniels, very little of which can be confirmed for its accuracy...There's no obvious way to tell."

    Somerby has continually declined to believe Daniels, but he is wrong that there is no obvious way to tell whether statements are accurate are not. Here are a few of the ways to evaluate the accuracy of her testimony:

    1. Her testimony was given under oath. There are serious penalties for saying false things under oath -- it is a crime called perjury and you can go to jail for it.
    2. This is not a trial in which Stormy Daniels has anything to gain by lying. She will receive no money or useful publicity or other benefit, beyond the satisfaction of getting her side of things into the public record.
    3. The facts do not reflect well on her, so there is no obvious reason why she might have lied about them in a way that makes her look bad when she might have embellished and made herself look better, if she were going to lie about details.
    4. The consistency of her reports over time can be examined. There will be greater consistency when truth is being described because there is a different memory burden when trying to recall lies. Daniels was consistent about details of what happened, but changed what she said about her own consent to having sex, her emotional reactions at the time (blacking out, hands shaking). She was more positive about the sex in her earlier reports. Otherwise the details were consistent across time.
    5. The emotion-related changes to her story are consistent with what happens when traumatic sex is recalled. The emotional responses are not reported initially but may be later. When that happens, the discrepancies tend to be similar to what Daniels described, making her report similar to the literature on recollections of sexual experiences, especially non-consensual ones. That lends credibility to her details -- it doesn't impeach her.
    6. The amount of detail suggests accuracy (assume details such as the color of tile can be verified). It is harder to recall many details that are fabricated from previous retellings than details that emerge from a memory of an event.
    7. If the verifiable details are found to be accurate, then the non-verifiable ones are more likely to be accurate too. Many of the details were verified, using sources like phone records and witnesses to later meetings.
    8. The reputation for truth-telling can be used to evaluate who is likely to be lying in a he-said/she-said situation. Trump has a massive negative reputation for lying, even in situations where there is proof he is lying. Stormy Daniels does not have such a reputation.
    9. There is evidence supporting the accuracy of Daniels story. For example, Trump says he did not know her and didn't have sex with her. Daniels says she met him at a golf event in Lake Tahoe and produced a picture of them together. Does it take a genius to figure out who is lying?

    Somerby tends to imply that if there was not an eyewitness to everything Daniels' testified to, then there is no basis for calling her statement accurate (the word used is credible, which means believable), so it is OK to suggest that nothing she said was accurate. That isn't how this kind of thing works either. Memory is fallible, so there may be details that were not strictly accurate, but if the gist of her story is substantially true, that is close enough for the jury to buy her story and not Trump's -- which is that he didn't know her, that none of the later meetings took place, and that she was trying to extort money from him. Somerby's (and Trump's) version makes no sense in the context of the payoff scheme, his nickname and subsequent interactions with her (some in public) and her knowledge of him.

  5. Quaker in a BasementMay 8, 2024 at 2:32 PM

    So when reading the transcript of testimony given under oath in court, news presenters should append the word "allegedly" at intervals and also cast doubt upon the accuracy of the testimony?

    I can't possibly be reading Our Host accurately. That makes no sense. Allegedly.

  6. The presenters on that MSNBC transcript constantly say “Daniels said/says…” or “Daniels testified…” etc. They are relating what she said, after all, not what she allegedly said. And No one on the show says something like “and her story is 100% factually correct.”

    Then there was this, just a sample of that word that Somerby missed:

    “Under cross-examination, responding to Donald Trump’s attorney, when asked whether she is making money off the fact she had sex or alleged to have had sex with Donald Trump, she responded that this is my story…”

  7. The judge was not trying to suppress the details of Daniels' testimony but trying to maintain the possibility of Trump receiving a fair trial by keeping irrelevant and extraneous details out of the testimony. He was doing that not because he thought she was lying, but to keep her answers direct and to the point. Daniels wanted to include everything she knew, to tell her full side of things. The judge suggested to Trump's defense that they be more aggressive about objecting, in order to limit her testimony.

    In the context of the request for a mistrial, the judge pointed out that if Trump's defense thought Daniels was lying, the way to point that out was via their cross-examination, not by demanding that the judge exclude her testimony or stop the trial (something Trump's defense requests every day).

    Somerby is misrepresenting the Judge's remark in order to suggest that he didn't think Daniels was credible. He is not making that judgment -- it isn't his place to do so -- that is the jury's job. He is telling the defense that if THEY thought Daniels was lying, they had the opportunity to challenge her in cross-examination. The judge was irritated with Daniels because she was wandering and saying too much, which consumes time and lengthens the trial. But it is not the judge's role to decide whether she was telling the truth and he did not tell Trump's defense that he thought she was lying or not credible. He thought she was difficult to control because she said too much and wandered in her testimony. Obviously, it is not in the prosecution's interests to limit what Daniels said, since the details were damning to Trump, not to the prosecution's case.

    Somerby's misrepresentation of this interaction is dishonest, in my opinion. He is attempting to portray the judge as agreeing with his own opinion about Daniels, which is that she has always been a liar and grifter, extorting money from poor old Trump based on a lie. Back in the day, we raised the issue of the many other women Trump is accused of assaulting and Somerby never responded to that evidence of Trump's lack of character, which is yet another piece of evidence that Daniels is more likely to be telling the truth about what happened than Trump is. We have all had amble opportunity to know what kind of man Trump is, which suggests that her version is more accurate than his.

    1. The judge was right that no one needs to know whether they did it missionary style or not, but it is the defense's job to object to such details, not the judge's. Weak minds, like Somerby, will interpret the judge as siding with Trump against Daniels, when he is just moving the trial ahead and trying to protect Trump's privacy (when he own defense attorney's fell down on the job).

    2. If I had the unenviable position of advocating Trump's defense, I'd jump all over Ms. Daniels's "black out." That seems to be a new detail and one that might be exploited to cast doubt on her credibility.

      Tnankfully, not my job.

    3. "Somerby is misrepresenting the Judge's remark in order to suggest that he didn't think Daniels was credible"

      Somerby quotes the judge as suggesting Daniels may have "credibility issues." Learn to read.

    4. Jack Smith has to be one of the dumbest sons- of-bitches on the planet.

    5. Yes, Somerby quotes the judge that way, but it isn't what was said by the judge to Trump's defense team.

    6. Our Host further notes that yesterday's transcripts were unavailable at the time he wrote his post and that important missing context could not be verified.

    7. Where does Bob say that she's a liar?


      Nowhere on MSNBC either did they address her contradictory statements to Anderson Cooper a few years ago about having dinner with Trump, nor did they delve into the idea that her depiction of the sex act itself constituted rape.

  8. Quaker in a BasementMay 8, 2024 at 2:56 PM

    From today's Washington Post:

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent presidential candidate who has marketed himself to voters as a younger, healthier alternative to the two major contenders, contracted a parasitic worm that got into his brain years ago and ate a portion of it before dying, his campaign said Wednesday.

    1. Wow!

      At 70, RFK jr is no spring chicken, he has a host of health issues, and now a possible explanation for his transition away from being mildly progressive, to a neoliberal and conspiracy loon.

      "And the worms ate into his brain" - Waters

    2. What I read said that he was having cognitive problems and went to the same doctor as did the surgery on Ted Kennedy (who died of a brain tumor). He was told he had a tumor and they wanted to operate immediately. RFK Jr. instead found a doctor who told him it was a parasite and said he needed no treatment. RFK Jr. believed the parasite diagnosis and did nothing about it. That was in 2010.

      It isn't clear that the parasite diagnosis was ever confirmed medically. It may be that RFK Jr. still has a brain tumor. The more important question is whether his cognitive symptoms have disappeared or not. If he has problems with memory and thinking, he shouldn't become a candidate, no matter what the cause. His team is presenting this parasite theory as a done deal, with no further concern for his health.

    3. RFK Jr. said the stuff about the parasite and also about mercury poisoning while trying to reduce child support payments.

      I think that a candidate for president is damaged by evading his responsibility to his children. I wouldn't vote for someone who went to court to avoid paying like that. Men should love and take care of their children and not be forced into court to do so.

    4. @3:27
      "It's not uh TOOOOmah!"

    5. Great story which would explain a lot if it were plausible. Which it is not. I vote to keep this guy on the campaign trail for entertainment value alone. Trump should be thankful that there may be a candidate with more screws loose than himself. If it ever gets serious between them he can call him wormbrain.

  9. One genuine question that occurs to me: why exactly did the prosecutors want Daniels to testify? It makes no difference to their case whether she is lying or inconsistent or what not, (although she was under oath.) It only matters that Trump paid her to be silent to help his campaign and then falsely declared it as a business expense. Cohen seems more important.

    1. I wondered that too, but some reports have said that they needed her testimony to show why the Trump team was so strongly motivated to suppress her story. True or not, the impact of her story would be to confirm the Access Hollywood tape as more than boys locker room talk, right before the election. Daniels job in court was to show that her story would have been scandalous enough to motivate Trump and Cohen to fear it would lose him the election. The problem with Cohen is that he is an unsavory guy who would be easy to discredit on his own, so they are presenting a great deal of corroborating evidence in case Cohen is impeached as a liar and crook (convicted criminal) and thus unreliable. So it is Cohen + Daniels, not Daniels instead of Cohen. He is coming on the stand later.


  10. "That, of course, doesn't tell us if her ancillary claims are accurate—and, of course, it's always possible that Trump's number is more correct."

    But couldn't they both be equally correct? Suppose he didn't have sex with her. And she realistically fantasized about having sex with him. She has a realistic recollection, which means that in her mind it actually did happen. And since only the two of them participated (allegedly), her recollections are just as good as his. Which means that it both did and did not happen, simultaneously.

    1. Would anyone realistically fantasize about having sex with Trump? As Daniels pointed out, he was twice her age, old enough to be her father. She gets paid for sex, so why fantasize about doing it for free with a guy who looks like Trump.

      She provided details about his penis. Why couldn't that be verified? She says he called her Honeybunch. Mary Trump has verified that Honeybunch is a favorite endearment in the Trump family (used by Trump's father). Trump says he didn't meet her at Tahoe, but she produced a picture of herself with Trump from that tournament. That doesn't verify the sex but it reveals Trump's lie.

      They will not put Trump on the witness stand because he will tell such lies again, they will produce evidence and his lies will be shown to be lies and he will then be liable for perjury, which is a crime.

    2. "Would anyone realistically fantasize about having sex with Trump?"

      But of course. He already was, at that time, an A-list celebrity. You're fantasizing about Trump all day, why not her?

    3. Trump was never an A-list celebrity, that is hilarious.

      Nobody has ever fantasized about Trump, other than MAGA folks dreaming of White Christian Fascism.

    4. That's a funny way to cope.

    5. Trump always was and always will be a short-fingered vulgarian.

  11. What would Agamemnon say?

  12. Did Stormy say anything about the size of Trump’s penis?

    1. She said it looked like a small brown mushroom.

    2. Anonymouse 3:30 pm, no Stormy merely said that she hates Trump and that she will never pay him the 500k that she owes him.

      She needs a better attorney.

  13. A worm ate part of RFK Jr’s brain. I am not making this up.

    1. A human politician whose brain is eaten by a worm is still better than a shape-shifting Reptiloid.

    2. Don't forget about fanny worms.

  14. Trump recently made an illogical and false claim about Venezuela, it made no sense, and he thought it was to a friendly audience, a local Fox tv station in Michigan, but the reporter asked what his source was and Trump's response was priceless: Trump was stopped dead in his tracks, took on a deer-in-the-headlights countenance, said "uuuuuuuhhhhh" for a long time and then weakly offered "the papers?".

    Here, a journalist did their job, but crickets from Somerby because Trump looked like a chump.

    Trump is not doing well, and Somerby is mad as hell and is fighting back, to defend the honor of Trump.

    1. This raises questions about whether Joe Biden personally benefited from his son's business dealings.

    2. The answer is no he didn’t.

    3. Biden's son's business dealings have nothing to do with real wages decreasing and the costs of housing, cars, groceries, and gas increasing under his presidency.

    4. 4:12 Hunter Biden admitted in court testimony that he had been paid substantial sums in China even though Biden, in a debate, denied his son had ever earned any money there.

    5. Citation 4:12. Also too Trump's mideast peace advisor Kushner, and his Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, collected over $3.5B from Qatar, KSA, UAE, etc. Hunter has never worked in Government. GTFOH

    6. From CNN:

      "Did former Vice President Joe Biden receive $1.5 billion from China?

      Trump conflated his accusations against former Vice President Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden -- railing against Hunter Biden's business dealings, then saying that Joe Biden "takes a billion-five" from China and "he goes on and he allows China to rip us off." He added, "So the Bidens got rich while America got robbed."

      There is no evidence Joe Biden has received large sums of money from China or has otherwise gained wealth as a result of his son's business dealings abroad.

      Trump has previously made the "billion-five" accusation against Hunter Biden. While a conservative author has used this figure, it has not been proven. A lawyer for Hunter Biden, George Mesires, says the investment company in which Hunter Biden has an equity stake was capitalized with a total of about $4.2 million at today's exchange rates, "not $1.5 billion." Even this investment was not a direct payment to Hunter Biden; Hunter Biden holds a 10% stake in the firm, Mesires says, and has not made a profit to date."


    8. Adding - Mitch McConnell is married to Elaine Chow, and was Spanky Von Shitzhispants Transportation Secretary. Elaine's Chinese family runs a multi-billion shipping company. No conflict of interest, honest.

    9. @4:12
      No, the post you replied to does not raise such questions. You're just troling.

    10. Some people feel Biden's re-election campaign is currently in trouble, with:
      1. Low approval ratings
      2. Concerns about his policies and leadership
      3. A splintering coalition of voters.

      Trump is in a strong position to win the White House if the election were held tomorrow.

      Allies hope Biden can save his candidacy by giving more believable press performances that refrain embarrassing gaffes.

    11. "Some people"

      Some people believe the earth is flat. Some people believe DavidinCal argues in good faith.

    12. Blacks are increasingly sour on Biden for lacking political skills and relying too much on depicting Donald Trump as a crook.

    13. @7:04
      "Some people feel..."

      Really? Which people? And is it a feeling they have? Or are they judging based on, you know, evidence?

      Weak post. Try harder.

    14. Trump:
      1) Low approval ratings.34% at the end of his presidency.
      2) Concerns about his policies and leadership. Ask numerous ex cabinet members in his regime. You get none of this criticism for Biden from his appointees.
      3) A splintering coalition of supporters. Ask Indiana Republicans who wrote in Haley for 20% of their primary votes on Tursday, and the Trump acolyte MTG who embarrassed herself with a failed attempt at expelling the House speaker, same day. Splintered indeed.

    15. 10:03 PM "Or are they judging based on, you know, evidence?"

      Yes, these are based on evidence:
      1. Biden has low approval ratings
      2. Biden's policies and leadership are poorly received
      3. Biden has a splintering coalition of voters.

      Did you not know this?

    16. 10:09

      Yes - Trump is bad.

    17. Unamused 10:09 PM:
      "1) Low approval ratings.34% at the end of his (Trump's) presidency."

      I find it curious that Soros-bots are bringing this up in the context of Biden's low approval ratings now (in response to 7:04 PM).

      What's the point here? Are you implying that despite (allegedly) low approval ratings at the end of his presidency, Trump still won the election in 2020? I don't see any other logic for bringing it up.

  15. Today Congressmen Jordan and Comer made a bald attempt to intimidate a witness in Trump's trial. They're giving Trump a way to trash Cohen without violating the judge's orders.

  16. More news. Marjorie Taylor Greene pulled the trigger on her motion to vacate. The motion was soundly defeated.

  17. Somerby is inclined to doubt Stormy Daniels' account of her sexual encounter with Trump, but it is supported by her friend Alana Evans. According to Evans, Daniels and Trump were on the phone to her the evening Daniels went to Trump's room. Trump himself confirmed their liaison that evening, settling a bet that Daniels had with Evans about whether it was really Trump. Evans heard his voice, was invited to join them in his room, but declined.

    "Before questioning Evans, CNN's Jake Tapper read out the transcript from the examination in court. "Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, Stormy Daniels on the stand, quote, did you end up calling your friend Alana from the hotel room? Answer, yes. Did you put her on speaker? Answer yeah. What, if any, conversation did you and Mr. Trump have with Alana on speaker? Answer, he said hello, which meant that I won that bet. She said, what are you guys doing? And he said we're just hanging out, why don't you come over and hang out with us. And she, I can't remember what kind of excuse she made."

    Unless Somerby wants to doubt every source of evidence of all types forever, I think he needs to admit that she has support for her version of what happened.

  18. Marjorie Taylor Green has failed to unseat speaker Mike Johnson. Democrats supported him.

  19. A non-entity won 20% of the vote in the Indiana GOP primary.

  20. Biden might stop sending some weapons to Israel.

  21. "Outside the jury’s presence, the judge said that “there were some things better left unsaid” in her testimony and suggested that Ms. Daniels might have
    credibility issues.'”

    The phrase "credibility issues" appears twice in yesterday's transcript. Neither instance is said by the judge.

  22. I got fanny worms.