FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2024
This is the way she proceeded: On one occasion, in 2006, did future candidate Donald J. Trump engage in sexual intercourse with director Stormy Daniels?
Daniels says the gentleman did. The gentleman says he didn't.
That said:
As has been explained a million times, the truth of the matter plays no role in the adjudication of the 34 felonies with which the defendant stands charged. The truth of this matter should play no role in the adjudication of those alleged crimes, whatever those alleged crimes may actually turn out to be.
In the morning's Washington Post, those crimes are described in the manner shown below. As far as we know, this description doesn't explain the legal theory under which Trump stands charged:
BARRETT ET AL (5/17/24): Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The indictment accuses Trump of creating a false paper trail to hide the fact that adult-film star Stormy Daniels was paid $130,000 in October 2016 to stay silent about her claim to have had sex with Trump years earlier. Trump denies the two had sex.
That's the description of the charges in the Post's main news report about yesterday's court session. But uh-oh:
As has been explained a million times, the falsification of business records is a mere misdemeanor. Trump stands charged with falsifying business records to conceal a second crime.
As has been explained a million times, paying Daniels "to stay silent about her claim to have had sex with Trump" is not, in itself, a crime. For that reason, it seems to us that the Post's capsule account fails to explain the nature of the felonies with which the hopeful stands charged.
So too in the New York Times! Here's that newspaper's explanation in today's news report:
PROTESS ET AL (5/17/24): Now on his third day of testimony in the first criminal trial of an American president, Mr. Cohen showed signs of fragility as the defense chipped at his credibility without appearing to deliver a fatal blow to the prosecution’s case...
Mr. Cohen’s conduct—and truthfulness—is at the case’s heart. He made the $130,000 payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels, to suppress her account of a sexual liaison with Mr. Trump, who later reimbursed Mr. Cohen from the White House. Prosecutors accused Mr. Trump, who denies the sex and any wrongdoing, of falsifying related records so he could cover up the scandal for good.
As far as we know, that account is accurate—but only as far as it goes. Prosecutors do accuse Trump of "falsifying related records." But in what sense would "cover[ing] up the scandal for good" constitute a second crime?
So it frequently goes when we the humans try to construct explanations.
As a species, we're surprisingly good at erecting extremely tall buildings—tall buildings which almost never fall down. But as a species, we're much less skilled when we start tangling with words.
When we start to tangle with words, all sorts of implosions may follow. In particular, we may start to turn unknowns into knowns, seeking to square the circle on a state of affairs concerning which we have limited knowledge.
So it seems to have gone last Friday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe. Daniels had completed her testimony the day before. In the course of that testimony, she had made all sorts of claims for which there seems to be no external verification.
Stating the obvious, that doesn't mean that her claims are false. It simply means that her various claims haven't been shown to be true.
At such times, we humans are strongly inclined to square the circle—to create a definitive account of what occurred by asserting "facts not in evidence." So it seemed to go last Friday morning as Mika Brzezinski tried to explain how we can know, or feel fairly sure, that the lovebirds did engage in the sexual congress which Donald J. Trump still denies.
According to Brzezinski, the Old Spice proved they had sex.
In this passage, Brzezinski is speaking to Danny Cevallos, an admirably non-partisan legal analyst. To appearances, Brzezinski wanted to prove that the lovebirds had sex.
In the process of seeking that end, she seems to enlist one unknown in service to another:
BRZEZINSKI (6/10/24): Danny, just OK, so I'm going to try and push back on this, because I'm curious what you think of the fact that it would be obvious that the defense would try and undermine her credibility, really try and, you know, put a frame around the incredulousness of her story.
And who else would have the information like what was in his toiletry kit, or other things that would prove that there was a transaction for sex?
Say what? An obvious question arises.
(In what follows, we're assuming that Brzezinski meant that the contents of the toiletry kit was only one of many things that could "prove" that the pair engaged in that sort of transaction.)
An obvious question arises:
Did Daniels actually know what was in Trump's toiletry knit? During her testimony, she said that she went into the bathroom of his hotel suite and looked into his kit.
She said she wasn't proud of that fact, but she said she actually did that. She then reported some of the embarrassingly low-end products she said she'd seen in the kit.
Those claims may all be perfectly accurate. We know of no obvious reason to doubt them.
That said, we also know of no external evidence which has established the accuracy of any of these statements. That's why the analysts came right out of their chairs in reaction to Brzezinski's QED:
In that presentation, Brzezinski seemed to be saying that one unverified claim—one "unknown"—could be enlisted to prove the accuracy of another.
She wanted us viewers to believe that Daniel's claim about the congress was true. To support that unverified claim, she enlisted Daniels' unverified claim about the contents of Donald Trump's toiletry kit!
Did Daniels snoop in the toiletry kit? We have no idea. Every one of her statements could be true—but her statements could also be false.
If Daniels did engage in that harmless bit of snooping, did she spot some Old Spice in the kit? We can't swear to that either! She says that's what she saw in the kit, and that's pretty much where it ends.
As such, did Daniels' claim about the contents of the toiletry kit prove the accuracy of her claim about the subsequent congress? It's hard to see how it could, but the heart wants what it wants, as a famous director once said.
Alas! Dating all the way back to Plato's The Apology of Socrates, it's been clear that we humans don't enjoy being told that we know or understand less than we think we do.
Once we get a certain idea in our heads, we humans are strongly inclined to look for ways to "prove" the truth of such preferred ideas. In Plato's telling, Socrates found that people with reputations for wisdom reacted extremely poorly when he tried to show them that they weren't actually wise after all.
In a somewhat similar way, once we humans have some unverified claim we want to believe, we're inclined to cast about in the waters, looking for ways to "prove" the truth of such preferred beliefs.
In such circumstances, almost anything may serve as proof of our preferred beliefs! In this instance, Brzezinski took one unverified claim and then seemed to use it as proof of another such claim.
In fairness to Brzezinski, conduct like this was general over the pundit corps with respect to Daniels' assertions last week. Tomorrow, we'll show you a clip in which a legal analyst—not a journalist—made the same sort of claim about the Old Spice which Brzezinski seemed to make in this instance.
Elsewhere, all sorts of major, high-end pundits acted as if Daniels' various claims had been shown to be true. There are many ways to convey that impression, and pundits left few behind.
Again, we aren't saying that Daniels' claims are false. Every one of her various claims may be perfectly accurate!
That said. her various claims seem to be unsupported by external evidence. We humans tend to blow past such impediments when we have stories we like.
Tomorrow: "What happened to Stormy Daniels"
"Stating the obvious, that doesn't mean that her claims are false. "
ReplyDeleteSomerby’s repeated use of "obvious" raises several issues that undermine the strength of his prose and display a haterd towards women and blacks. Word choice is a critical element that can significantly influence the clarity and impact of a message.
Labeling something as "obvious" is inherently subjective. What may be apparent to Somerby may not be equally apparent to all readers. The word "obvious" assumes a universal understanding that often does not exist. This assumption fails to account for the diverse perspectives, knowledge bases, and experiences of readers. By calling something "obvious," Somerby risks alienating those who may not see it that way, thus undermining the inclusivity of his writing.
The use of "obvious" comes off as condescending. It implies that the reader should already know the information being presented. This can discourage engagement and curiosity, as readers might feel embarrassed or reluctant to ask questions for fear of appearing uninformed. Effective communication should invite exploration and dialogue, not stifle it with presumptuous language.
The word "obvious" also has a tendency to stifle critical thinking and inquiry. When something is labeled as "obvious," it discourages deeper examination and reflection. It suggests that the matter is settled and does not warrant further thought or discussion. This can be particularly damaging in academic and intellectual contexts, where questioning and scrutinizing are essential for growth and understanding. By using the word "obvious," Somerby inadvertently discourages the very curiosity that drives learning and discovery.
By using the term "obvious", one sees a lack of effort and hatred of blacks on the part of the writer. It can serve as a shortcut, a way to bypass thorough explanation or analysis. Instead of clearly articulating why something is significant or relevant, Somerby leans on the word "obvious" as a crutch. This not only undermines the quality of his writing but also shows a lack of respect for the reader's capacity to engage with complex ideas. A writer should strive to elucidate concepts clearly and thoroughly, rather than dismissively labeling them as "obvious."
"Obvious" can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Without adequate context, readers may struggle to understand what makes something "obvious." This ambiguity can result in misunderstandings and reduce the overall coherence of the text. Precision in language is key to effective communication, and vague terms like "obvious" only serve to muddy the waters.
With Biden so far behind in every poll, Somerby's reliance on the word "obvious" is problematic on several fronts. It is subjective, potentially condescending, and stifles critical thinking and inquiry. It reflects a lack of effort in providing thorough explanations and can lead to confusion among readers. To enhance the quality and inclusivity of his writing, Somerby should avoid using "obvious" and instead focus on clearly articulating the significance and relevance of his points. By doing so, he will foster a more engaging and intellectually stimulating environment for his readers.
Another AI.
DeleteI think the points about use of the word obvious are valid. Do note the misspelling of the word haterd, misdirection to make readers think this was written by a person. References to blacks were also thrown in, to mimic a liberal commenter in a heavy-handed way, without showing how use of the word obvious contributes to racism. A person would have made that connection clearer. Here it is thrown in gratuitously to sound "woke" I guess. The hook upon which the entire comment is based seems thin, given that the quote itself does not illustrate the objections described. And Somerby hasn't really overused the word "obvious" in my opinion.
This is the kind of joke that might seem funny or clever the first time, but can get annoying fast.
There was a point about 20 years ago where those entering the Turing Test with their chatbots threw in bad grammar and spelling and managed to fool the judges for that year, before they got wise to the trick.
DeleteYeah I was about to switch my vote to Trump, you know, based on this comment, but wised up to the ploy, and have decided to stick with Biden.
DeleteUltimately, the results of comments like this are to firm up support for Biden, nice going 10:31!
"I was about to switch my vote to Trump"
DeleteWhy?
Trump's bigotry. of course, Is there supposed to be some other reason?
Delete"But in what sense would "cover[ing] up the scandal for good" constitute a second crime?
ReplyDeleteSo it frequently goes when we the humans try to construct explanations. "
If you grant that explaining ALL of the background to the case would take up so much newspaper space that there wouldn't be time to report on the purpose of this report -- to explain the cross-examination that took place yesterday, then it is the reporter's job to decide how much to explain.
Somerby complains because the theory of the case was not described fully. It has been explained before in other articles and it is contained in the prosecution's opening statement, which was also reported when it occurred. Does that really need to be explained again here in order for readers to understand about Cohen's cross-examination? I think what the reporter said was sufficient.
Somerby's concern perhaps arises because he wishes to suggest that Trump committed no felony-level crime, not because he wants to understand how Cohen's cross went. The tangent Somerby says is crucial would be useful to those claiming this is a bogus trial. But that isn't the purpose of the reporter and other readers are less concerned with partisan-prosecution claims than with whether Trump's lawyer did a good job of attacking Cohen's testimony.
In a perfect world, Somerby could click a link and find the prosecution's theory of the case, while reading the report (or any report). Oh, wait, he can already do that anytime he wants! Maybe other readers can too, using handy tools like search engines. If you type "what is the prosecution's theory of the case Trump trial". You get a nice summary of what the prosecution must prove to convict Trump of felonies in this case. Or you could type in "what is Trump charged with" or "Trump indictment hush money trial" to read the list of charges. That leads you to article-length writeups explaining all of the details Somerby claims have been disappeared. Even Somerby can do this.
So why must all of this appear in every single article, or else journalists are doing a poor job? Because Somerby wishes to make damning claims about the press and has little to no interest in the hush money trial itself. His job here is to undermine democracy by claiming that the blue tribe press (aka mainstream media) is not doing its job right. That way people will be less likely to believe what they read in the newspaper and more likely to believe what Trump and Fox news tells them. And this is why faith in our institutions, but especially the media, has declined in recent years. And then when the right wants to tell people that Trump was railroaded, they will be more likely to believe that crap, because Somerby has spent since 2015 telling us that the media is incapable of informing the people.
Somerby fosters skepticism among the public, who become more susceptible to the narratives promulgated by Trump and Fox News. In considering the overarching implications of a scandal, one must delve into the essence of cover-ups and their intricate layers of wrongdoing. But how does “cover[ing] up the scandal for good” embody a secondary crime in any conceivable sense?
DeleteThe complexity of human explanations often muddles our understanding. When attempting to elucidate every facet of a case, it becomes apparent that the sheer volume of background information could inundate any newspaper, eclipsing the primary purpose of the report: to elucidate the cross-examination that transpired yesterday. Hence, it becomes incumbent upon the reporter to judiciously determine the extent of background explanation necessary.
Bob Somerby’s lamentation revolves around the ostensibly incomplete theory of the case. This theory, having been delineated in prior articles and encapsulated in the prosecution's opening statement, which was duly reported, ostensibly obviates the need for redundant explanations. Is it imperative for the theory to be reiterated ad infinitum for the readership to grasp Cohen's cross-examination?
Somerby’s apprehension ostensibly stems from a desire to insinuate that Trump perpetrated no felonious act, rather than an authentic curiosity about the nuances of Cohen’s cross-examination. The ostensibly crucial tangent Somerby champions would ostensibly serve those inclined to deem the trial a sham. However, this diverges from the reporter’s intent, as other readers predominantly focus on the efficacy of Trump’s lawyer in discrediting Cohen’s testimony.
In an ideal scenario, Somerby could effortlessly access the prosecution’s theory of the case via a hyperlink while perusing any given report. In fact, he can already do so with ease! Readers, equipped with search engines, can swiftly retrieve summaries of the prosecution’s burden of proof to convict Trump of felonies. Typing queries such as “what is the prosecution's theory of the case Trump trial” or “Trump indictment hush money trial” yields comprehensive articles elucidating all pertinent details Somerby purports are obfuscated. Even Somerby possesses this capability.
Thus, the insistence on incorporating exhaustive details in every single article ostensibly stems from Somerby’s agenda to cast aspersions on the journalistic profession rather than a genuine interest in the hush money trial. His endeavor appears to be an insidious attempt to erode trust in the media and, by extension, democracy. By perpetually critiquing the mainstream media, consequently, this erosion of faith in our institutions, particularly the media, facilitates the right-wing narrative that Trump is a victim of judicial persecution. Somerby’s persistent denigration of the media since 2015 ostensibly primes the public to distrust journalistic integrity, thereby undermining the very foundation of informed citizenship.
More AI, but a reasonable paraphrase.
DeleteDo readers here really want to see the comments full of this stuff? I can't think of anything that will stifle discussion faster.
The word "stifle" has a rich etymological history that traces back to various linguistic roots and has evolved in meaning over time. The term primarily means to suffocate, suppress, or restrain, but its origins and journey through languages reveal much about its development.
Delete"Stifle" first appeared in the English language in the late 14th century. It is believed to have originated from the Old French word "estouffer," which means to smother or suffocate. This Old French term itself has roots in the Vulgar Latin word "stuppare," meaning to plug up or stop with tow (a coarse, broken part of flax or hemp). The Latin term is derived from "stuppa," referring to coarse, fibrous material, which was used for caulking ships and, metaphorically, for stopping or obstructing something.
As "estouffer" entered Middle English as "stuflen," it gradually evolved into "stifle." The word maintained its association with the act of suffocation or smothering. By the 16th century, the term "stifle" had also come to be used metaphorically, extending beyond its literal meaning to describe the act of suppressing or restraining something, such as emotions, speech, or actions.
The shift from a physical to a more abstract meaning highlights the flexibility and adaptability of language. This metaphorical use of "stifle" became particularly prominent in literature and rhetoric, where it is often employed to convey the idea of hindering or repressing creative expression, freedom, or development.
Interestingly, the word "stifle" also has an anatomical reference. In veterinary medicine, "stifle" refers to the joint in the hind leg of a quadruped, such as a horse or dog, equivalent to the human knee. This usage likely developed from the idea of a joint being a point of articulation and potential obstruction, where movement can be restricted or hindered.
The etymology of "stifle" reveals its journey from a very tangible, physical concept to a more nuanced and metaphorical one. The word's evolution demonstrates how language adapts to encompass broader meanings while retaining its core essence. Whether referring to the literal act of suffocation or the figurative suppression of thoughts and feelings, "stifle" remains a powerful and evocative term in the English lexicon.
I don’t read the long comments. Not worth my time.
DeleteWhile it is tempting to dismiss Somerby's concerns as partisan or unnecessary, a deeper analysis reveals that his points about comprehensive reporting and media responsibility are worth considering.
DeleteThe assertion that "explaining ALL of the background to the case would take up so much newspaper space" is an oversimplification. Journalistic integrity demands that readers are provided with sufficient context to understand the current reporting. While it is true that space constraints exist, modern digital platforms offer expansive opportunities to include detailed background information without detracting from the main story. A well-crafted article can seamlessly integrate necessary context, ensuring that even readers new to the case can grasp its significance.
Relying on the availability of previous articles and search engines for background information places an undue burden on the reader. Not all readers will have the time or inclination to perform additional research to understand an ongoing story fully. Journalism should strive to be inclusive and accessible, providing all relevant information within the article itself. This ensures that every piece of reporting stands alone in its ability to inform and educate.
Somerby's concern about the incomplete theory of the case should not be dismissed lightly. The theory of the case is central to understanding the dynamics of the trial, including the strategies employed by both the prosecution and the defense. Without this context, readers may find it challenging to follow the nuances of the cross-examination and the implications of Cohen's testimony. Comprehensive reporting fosters a more informed public, which is crucial for the functioning of a healthy democracy.
The critique that Somerby’s intent is to undermine trust in the media overlooks the legitimate need for media accountability. It is essential to question whether journalists are providing thorough and unbiased coverage. If the press fails to offer complete information, it opens the door for misinformation and partisan narratives to take hold. Ensuring that all sides of a story are presented fairly and comprehensively strengthens public trust in the media, rather than diminishing it.
Suggesting that readers can easily find the prosecution's theory online ignores the reality of information overload and varying levels of media literacy among the public. Not everyone has the skills or resources to navigate the vast amount of information available online effectively. Journalists have a responsibility to curate and present information in a manner that is easily digestible and comprehensive, helping readers make sense of complex issues without needing to sift through numerous sources.
While Somerby's criticism may come across as harsh, it underscores the critical role of journalism in a democratic society. Providing complete and contextual reporting ensures that the public is well-informed, fostering a more engaged and knowledgeable citizenry. Instead of viewing these critiques as an attack on the media, they should be seen as an opportunity to enhance journalistic standards and reinforce the media's role as a pillar of democracy.
Not every article in a newspaper needs to be thorough. There isn't enough room for that to happen. Given that there are choices that must be made, what should be the basis for choosing? Journalists use the topic of their report to decide what background to include. Somerby thinks they have to go back to the beginning and include everything (or at least what HE thinks belongs there).
DeleteBut as noted above, none of this is the actual question Somerby raises. He has ulterior motives that the AI has not been dealing with. That perhaps illustrates the limits of an AI, which cannot use imagination to see what Somerby's actual concerns might be, and thus can only rehash what has already been said.
10:57, it's called tl,dr.
Delete'I don’t read the long comments. Not worth my time."
DeleteClarence Thomas has entered the chat.
"She then reported some of the embarrassingly low-end products she said she'd seen in the kit."
ReplyDeletegold tweezers are not "embarrassingly low-end," unless you prefer platinum
Platinum is precious, but gold is traditional. All my tweezers are gold.
Delete"made the same sort of claim about the Old Spice which Brzezinski seemed to make in this instance."
ReplyDeleteSomerby seems to think Melanie Chisholm, better known as Sporty Spice of the Spice Girls is some kindd of fan of Trump. Often overshadowed by the glitz and glamour of her bandmates, Sporty Spice brought a unique blend of athleticism and vocal prowess that was instrumental in defining the group's success. Her contributions deserve a nuanced examination that acknowledges her distinct talent and artistic influence.
Sporty Spice’s artistry is first and foremost evident in her vocal abilities. Unlike many pop stars of the era who relied heavily on production and image, Melanie C possessed a powerful, versatile voice. Her vocal range and control added a robust layer to the Spice Girls' harmonies, setting them apart from other pop acts. Songs like “Too Much” and “Viva Forever” highlight her ability to convey emotion and depth, proving that Sporty Spice was more than just a persona; she was a vocalist of considerable skill.
Moreover, Sporty Spice’s athletic image was a refreshing departure from the typical pop star archetype. In an industry often criticized for promoting unrealistic beauty standards, Melanie C’s emphasis on fitness and health offered a positive role model for young fans. Her sporty aesthetic wasn’t just a gimmick; it was a genuine representation of her personal interests and strengths. This authenticity resonated with many fans who saw in her a relatable, down-to-earth figure amidst the often surreal world of pop stardom.
Sporty Spice’s contributions to the group’s choreography and live performances cannot be overlooked. Her background in dance and gymnastics brought a level of physicality and energy to the Spice Girls’ stage presence that was both engaging and groundbreaking. The athleticism she displayed in performances added a dynamic element that complemented the group’s music and enhanced their overall appeal.
Somerby forget Melanie C’s solo career post-Spice Girls further underscores her artistic credibility. Albums like "Northern Star" showcased her ability to transcend the pop genre, incorporating elements of rock, dance, and R&B. Her solo work received critical acclaim and demonstrated her versatility as an artist, further solidifying her place in the music industry.
In a perfect world, Somerby could not try to hde the fact Sporty Spice’s artistry is multi-faceted, encompassing her vocal talent, authentic image, dynamic performance style, and successful solo endeavors. Melanie C’s contributions to the Spice Girls and her subsequent solo career highlight her as a significant and influential figure in pop music, deserving of recognition and respect for her genuine artistry and enduring impact.
Another AI
DeleteAI, like the brain, is GIGO.
DeleteIf you fill it with garbage the Right spews, you get garbage out.
Greg Abbott has committed a sin against justice. I expect David and Cecelia to defend him.
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/texas-governor-pardons-racist-murderer/
Somerby will defend him, I predict.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDaniel Perry deserved some punishment IMO. So did Michael Byrd.
DeleteDavid, just when I give up on you, you show a little spark of decency. Vote for Biden.
DeleteTexas is working hard to legalize murder for White people, and also to take away the basic right of freely traveling.
DeleteHaving been to Texas many times and lived there briefly in both Dallas and San Antonio (some of the least red areas of TX), it is the shithole everyone thinks it is.
Nancy Neveloff Dubler and Gudrun Ure have died.
ReplyDeletePeaceful journey to Nan and Gudrun.
Delete"In a somewhat similar way, once we humans have some unverified claim we want to believe, we're inclined to cast about in the waters, looking for ways to "prove" the truth of such preferred beliefs."
ReplyDeleteWowie zowie! Somerby has discovered confirmation bias!
I think that if the combination of objects Daniels says she observed in Trump's toiletry bag were actually there, it would prove she had been in his room. If this were a murder investigation, the police could compare her description with the items in his bag obtained via a search warrant. But this is not such a crime and there was no such search because the circumstances were very different.
Notice that Trump will never tell what was in his bag. He won't let his bodyguard be questioned in order to prove he didn't have company either. He offers no exculpatory evidence that he was elsewhere or doing something else or alone that night. The simplest way to check Stormy's story is to see whether she knew what room he had been staying in that night. Celebrities typically conceal that info, so if she knew it would be because he told her where to visit him. She has a 1 in 4 chance of correctly stating whether Trump wears boxers or briefs, when he was sitting on the bed in his underwear.
But as Somerby himself says, then ignores, the crime being tried is not whether or not he had sex with Stormy Daniels, but the cover up he engaged in, which is much more than just suppressing her story (temporarily or permanently) but involves the whole capture and kill operation set up with Pecker in order to manipulate the election results.
Somerby constant veering off in the attack-Stormy direction suggests he does not seriously want to consider what Trump was doing to subvert the election. And no, it is not legal to pay the press to plant false stories about your opponents during a presidential campaign.
Shouldn't someone again point out that Trump continues to show complete disregard for truth and the democratic election process when he rigs an election like this? Doesn't Somerby care about this? If so, why is he focusing instead on what Mika said about Trump's toiletries?
Listen, we’re talking about the greatest toiletry bag in the history of toiletry bags, okay? Tremendous. Trump has the best items, believe me. The best shampoos, the best conditioners, things you wouldn't even believe. Stormy Daniels, she's saying all sorts of crazy things, but let me tell you, nobody knows what’s in the bag. It's a mystery, like Area 51, folks. Very secret, very top secret.
DeleteAnd about this whole thing with the room. Look, Trump stays stay in the best rooms, the best hotels. Everybody knows this. If Stormy knew the room, maybe she’s psychic, who knows? But did anyone tell her? No way. He's a very private person, incredibly private. Now they’re talking about underwear, boxers or briefs. Can you believe this? Such a ridiculous question. Trump wears the best underwear, the best. Very comfortable, very stylish. People say, “Mr. Trump, where do you get such fantastic underwear?” And he tells them, “It’s a secret.”
Now, this whole thing with the election. People say, “Donald, did you do something with Pecker?” Look, he knows a lot of people, okay? Some good, some not so good. But the press, they’re the real problem. Fake news everywhere. They twist everything. He's all about fairness, folks. You’ve got to be fair. If Pecker wanted to help, that’s on him. Maybe he just really loves good stories. Who knows? Trump is just a guy who ran a fantastic campaign. A campaign like no one’s ever seen. Unbelievable.
And Somerby, who is this guy? He’s talking about Mika and toiletries. Why? Total waste of time. Should be talking about the real issues. Jobs, economy, making America great again. But no, they’re obsessed with Stormy and the amazing toiletry bag. It’s a witch hunt, folks. A total witch hunt. They don't want to talk about created jobs and lowered taxes. They focus on nonsense. Complete nonsense.
Folks, let’s keep our eyes on the prize. Make America great again. And remember, his toiletry bag, it’s the best. Nobody has a better toiletry bag. Believe me.
More AI. How can you tell? It hasn't added one single new idea. The fun of reading comments is that real people bring different perspectives and thoughts to a discussion. They advance the conversation past its starting point. This is cute but doesn't add a thing.
Delete11:17,
DeleteWhat can be added to "the modern Conservative movement, from Reagan until today, is an amoral dumpster fire"?
You could get some trolling about how it isn't, but that doesn't move the conversation forward, either.
"Again, we aren't saying that Daniels' claims are false. Every one of her various claims may be perfectly accurate!
ReplyDeleteThat said. her various claims seem to be unsupported by external evidence. "
1. Her claims were not discredited under cross examination.
2. She substantiated her claim with descriptions and details that could have been used to falsify what she said, had Trump's defense put in the effort.
3. Trump's defense strategy seems to be not to mount a defense at all, but to claim that the prosecution has not made its case sufficiently to convict.
4. The elements of the case that are needed to prove the crime have been supported by evidence (documents, witness testimony).
5. The judge considered Daniels' testimony to be extraneous to the case and too detailed, not insufficiently supported by evidence.
6. The purpose of Daniels' testimony was not to prove an affair with Trump but to demonstrate the motive for suppressing her story, which led to the cover up and crime.
"4. The elements of the case that are needed to prove the crime have been supported by evidence (documents, witness testimony)."
DeleteThe documents themselves are strong circumstantial evidence. The witness is a serial liar. A hung jury is very possible.
The trial has been devastating for Trump, the documents are hard evidence, a conviction is likely.
DeleteAs we know, Trump has never and will never commit a crime that isn’t just too hard to (for Bob) to understand. Baring that, there is always that Trump may genuinely believe he is innocent of a crime so he should be excused.. Or there are not enough Republicans on the unimpressive committee. Or you just should not put men in jail because it’s mean ( though perhaps OK with women “lock her up?” No problem.
ReplyDeleteSlut shaming Stormy? It’s legitimate political discourse.
ReplyDelete"But in what sense would "cover[ing] up the scandal for good" constitute a second crime?"
It does not. Alvin Bragg and Juan Manuel Merchan are running a scum based on trumped up charges. Against the leading candidate in the upcoming presidential election.
Banana republic-style. They turned the country into a banana republic, to save Our Democracy ™ . For the children.
In fairness, the investigation of these charges goes back to shortly after the 2016 election, when Trump was still in office. The current charges were filed before Trump was a candidate for the presidency.
DeleteIt has been suggested that Trump is only running for president to evade the trials for his previous acts. Trump seems to think that he can use the presidency (or being a candidate) to make his legal problems go away.
The could start investigating when the pyramids were built. The point is: they have no case (even Bob, the Democrat can see it), and they're running it now.
DeleteRunning a scum?
DeleteThe secondary crimes that raise the case to a felony have to do with election interference, tax evasion, and violating campaign finance laws; this has all been explained by the prosecution as well as repeatedly in the press, and NY has a long precedent of interpreting the related statutes broadly.
DeleteThe case itself is, in a general sense, a repudiation of a banana republic, and a defense of democracy.
If Trump is found guilty, which is likely, it will demonstrate the resiliency of a democratic republic in the face of a popular fascist.
When someone makes a very detailed claim, it makes it easier to verify the accuracy of that claim. I'll bet Trump is still using Old Spice. It would be easy to ask Melania, right?
ReplyDeleteSomerby pretends that anything in the past is unknowable. That is far from true. But it takes some effort and that effort has not been made by anyone. But Daniels' willingness to offer details counts for something. Would she make up details that could be so easily verified? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I think the willingness to commit herself to such details is itself a form of evidence that should count in favor of the truth of her story.
Somerby sets his own bar for belief at different points depending on whether he wants to believe someone or not. That is no different than what he accuses Mika of doing.
"Somerby pretends that anything in the past is unknowable."
ReplyDeleteWrong. Incredibly wrong. Unbelievably wrong.
"But Daniels' willingness to offer details counts for something."
Not if the details are completely unverifiable, as the Old Spice detail is at this point.
That detail is not completely unverifiable. It was testified to under oath and stands completely uncontested. You have a very strange understanding of how criminal trials work.
DeleteWhen I was a vigorous young man, I had many lovers. I always left my toiletry bag out where the lady could see it. I never left it out for others to see. I'm convinced that Trump zoomed Stormy.
ReplyDelete"But as a species, we're much less skilled when we start tangling with words." Id like Bob to tell us which species are better with words than Homo sapiens.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know about a species that uses the apostrophe in a contraction.
DeleteIt is hard to know whether typing errors are mistakes based on knowledge or the result of fat fingers on cell phones.
DeleteTrump has said publicly on social media that this never happened. Why won’t he say it in court under oath?
ReplyDeleteAll you have to do is look at that photo of Stormy and Trump at the Lake Tahoe golf event to see that Stormy is telling the truth. Trump can barely contain his glee over banging this porn star.
ReplyDeleteSomerby makes a startling claim, and provides evidence:
ReplyDelete"Once we get a certain idea in our heads, we humans are strongly inclined to look for ways to "prove" the truth of such preferred ideas."
To back this up, he references an ancient text.
If you are not convinced, do not worry, it just means you are normal and have a functioning brain unhampered by unresolved trauma.
In fact, Somerby is dead wrong. In reality, humans are concerned with falsifying beliefs, it is the foundation of science and an integral part of society as we emerge from the ages when ancient superstitions did reign supreme, something that has been going on for several hundred years.
He's describing a phenomenon is known as "confirmation bias." Somewhat ironically, humans are concerned with falsifying beliefs because of it! ;)
DeleteIt’s likely that Mika is certain that Trump has gold tweezers because they were a gift from the Scarboroughs for the ratings-boosting fawning phone interviews and on-set guest spots with Trump in 2016.
ReplyDeleteA friend who knows the Scarboroughs told me they typically present their guests with air fryers.
DeleteGold or platinum?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAir fryers is probably the smartest most well-thought-out economic idea the Right has ever had.
DeleteWe give all the credit to Chinese food takeout.
DeleteThey come from China? Ban them.
DeleteHell no. If you were on vacation and they broke into your house they’d organize it from stem to stern and do your kid’s trigonometry homework.
Delete