THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2024
But what in the world does that mean? Is it true, what Stephanie Clifford said, speaking in a chilly Gotham courtroom—testifying under oath?
In an early part of her testimony, she said that she preferred to be referred to as Stormy Daniels. In news reports in the New York Times, she's routinely described as a "porn star." In news reports in the Washington Post. she's described as an "adult film actress."
However you want to score that point, is what she said accurate—true? We start today with her basic claim—with the claim which has produced so much excitement.
Testifying under oath, Daniels said that, on one occasion in 2006, she engaged in sexual intercourse with a future presidential candidate by the name of Donald J. Trump.
She says this happened on one occasion, ten years before Trump ran for office. Donald J. Trump continues to say that it never happened at all.
Everyone knows what Daniels has said. But is her statement accurate—true?
If we had to bet, we'd bet that her statement is true. In fairness, though, we can't say that anyone has ever produced any evidence establishing, or tending to establish, her claim as an actual fact.
There has been no stain on anyone's dress. There has been no testimony of a contemporaneous statement to a friend or associate.
Still, we would bet that Daniels' basic claim is true. In part, we'd do so based on a fairly obvious fact:
You can't believe a thing Trump says! Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that his denial in this case is inaccurate.
At any rate:
Several years ago, inquiring minds went into a tizzy about Daniels' claim. Ten years before he ran for president, the candidate allegedly engaged in consensual intercourse, on one occasion, with a woman who wasn't his wife!
Within the past several months, major thought leaders have flooded the zone, saying that voters needed to hear Daniels' story in 2016 before they could know how to vote. But what exactly would such voters have been hearing? At New York magazine, a lengthy profile by former "tattletale intern" Olivia Nuzzi started off like this, dual headline included:
This Isn’t the Same Stormy Daniels
The night she met Donald Trump changed both their worlds.
For months, Stormy Daniels’s life had been in a state of suspended animation as she prepared to be called as a witness in Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan. “She’s just been waiting to testify,” a person close to her said. “Her mind-set is that this is a justice system that hasn’t protected her, and yet she’s here spending her money, her own time, and taking time off work and risking her safety to show up for a legal system that didn’t show up for her.” Daniels arrived at the courthouse accompanied by her longtime bodyguard, Travis. “She was concerned about having government-appointed security,” the person close to her continued, “because she doesn’t trust the government anymore. She doesn’t trust that they’re going to protect her. She doesn’t trust that the legal system is going to protect her after everything that she’s been through.” At a social event earlier this spring, Daniels was “anxious, nervous, and talking fast” in the same manner that she would address the court, the person close to her recalled. “It’s very, very stressful for her.”
Daniels had been telling her story, in various forms and formats, for going on seven years now. She’d done TV interviews, magazine spreads, her own podcast, other people’s podcasts, a stand-up comedy tour and a Peacock documentary called Stormy. But there is a difference between telling your truth and testifying. The rule of law does not always accommodate what feels righteous, and the workings of the system can grind down even the unindicted. Another witness for the prosecution, Hope Hicks, cried when she testified. During jury selection, several prospective jurors also broke down in tears; one said she had to quit because she was overwhelmed by anxiety. Daniels has always prided herself on her toughness, but the pressure had taken a toll. “I didn’t ask for this,” she said back in April 2023, a few days after Trump was charged with falsifying business records to conceal a deal to keep her quiet about their alleged sexual relationship ahead of the 2016 presidential election. “I’m significantly more crazy now than I was before,” she said with a laugh. “Because it does wear on you.” She’d been paid off, and, as she saw it, she’d been paying for it ever since.
That's the way the lengthy profile started—and then, it continued from there. We call your attention to a turn of phrase found in that second paragraph.
In the first paragraph of Nuzzi's profile, an unnamed person "close to [Daniels]" makes an assortment of claims. As almost anyone can understand, those statements may all be perfectly accurate—but then again, possibly not!
In paragraph 2, Nuzzi turns to Daniels herself. Nuzzi starts with a statement which most people will likely accept as being straightforward, and as being plainly accurate:
"Daniels ha[s] been telling her story, in various forms and formats, for going on seven years now."
"Daniels has been telling her story?" Most people would understand what that locution means. That said, most people would almost surely, at least if pressed, accept this basic idea:
When a person tells a story, her story may not be accurate.
"Daniels has been telling her story," Nuzzi says. That doesn't constitute a claim that the story in question is true.
That's the way Nuzzi begins—but in paragraph 2, she moves to a different locution. Does anyone know what Nuzzi means when she offers this?
"But there is a difference between telling your truth and testifying."
All of a sudden, Daniels hasn't simply been "telling her story." All of a sudden, we're now told that she has been "telling her truth!"
What does it mean when a journalist says that someone has been "telling her truth?" Does ir mean that the person's claims have been accurate? Does it mean that her story has been true?
It almost sounds like that's what it means, but we can't say we're sure. In truth, this is a relatively new locution—a formulation which was invented to let us news consumers wallow in pleasing stories where the truth can't be established in any conventional manner.
Daniels has been telling her truth! But are the various assertions which constitute her truth actually accurate—true?
Late in that lengthy second paragraph, Nuzzi offers the word "alleged." That can be seen as a small reminder of the fact that Daniels' fundamental claim hasn't been verified in any conventional way, and that it's still being denied by one Donald J. Trump.
But what was it supposed to mean when we were told that Daniels has been "telling her truth?" Fellow citizens, we don't know—and you don't really know either!
For the record, nothing will ever turn on the question we ask, except to the extent that it quite possibly will. In truth, though, the larger story Daniels has told includes a very large number of smaller claims, none of which have been established as true.
For example:
Did Daniels look in Trump's toilet kit when she went in the bathroom of his hotel suite? When she did, did she spy the embarrassing, cheapo toiletries she says she saw in his kit?
Indeed, did she ever go into the bathroom of his hotel suite at all? There is no evidence to establish the truth of that assertion—but all across the upper-end press, the words "alleged" and "allegedly" were given the week off last week as major journalists blew past the lack of evidence in support of such pleasing claims.
It's the most basic journalistic distinction known to us the humans. It's the distinction between things a journalist knows to be true, as opposed to thigs a journalist has merely heard someone say.
We know of no obvious reason to doubt the claims that Daniels has made. That said, we also know of no obvious reason to assume that her various claims—the claims which are said to constitute "her truth"—are actually accurate, true.
Is it possible that her basic claim is accurate, but some of her lesser claims are not? Yes, of course that's possible—unless you were on the set of Morning Joe on the morning of Friday, May 10, when Mika Brzezinski seemed to blow past the most obvious rule in the book.
Fellow citizens, hear us out! We're speaking here of the basic way our upper-end press corps has been inclined to function over the past thirty to forty years.
When they get a story they like, they tend to rush past the basic gateposts which remind us that the story in question may not be accurate—true. Using the language of Donald Rumsfeld, they're strongly inclined to take a bunch of "unknowns" and turn them into "knowns."
In the matter under review today, a peculiar state of affairs obtains. As has be explained a thousand times, when it comes to the criminal charges against Donald J. Trump, it doesn't even matter if Daniels' statements are true!
It doesn't matter if Daniels and Donald Trump didn't have sex. If Daniels is lying through her teeth, that doesn't affect the 34 felonies with which the defendant stands charged.
That said, our high-end journalists loved the story which Daniels told last week. And so, they gave the words "alleged" and "allegedly" the week off as they transformed her story into "her truth."
We lost a couple of days this week, and so we're a bit behind in our exposition. That said, we're suggesting that you look at the way our journalists tend to behave when they find themselves in the presence of a story they like.
We'll start tomorrow with something Mika said—something which seems to make no earthly sense. That said, the tendency involved in this matter—the tendency to look for ways to assert that some preferred story is true—is a tendency which has ruled the roost across the mainstream press over the past many years.
Tomorrow, we'll start with what Mika said. We'll suggest that what she said last Friday made no apparent sense.
That said, Mika was hardly alone in her rush to turn an unknown into a truth. As we end today's submission, we'll tease the headline which appeared above Quinta Jurecic's essay in The Atlantic:
What Happened to Stormy Daniels Is Not Salacious
That headline implies that Jurecic actually knows "what happened to Stormy Daniels." As we'll show you, Jurecic never makes that claim in her actual essay.
To appearances, some editor worked a sleight of hand which turned some unknowns into a known. This blows us past the world's most basic journalistic distinction:
There are certain things a journalist can sensibly say she knows to be true. There are other things a journalist has merely heard someone say.
It's the world's most bone-simple distinction. As we noted on Monday, it was even understood by the author or authors of the western world's first great poem of war, thousands of years in the past.
It's the world's most basic journalistic distinction! For decades, our journalists have been highly skilled at honoring it in the breach.
Tomorrow: What Mika (strangely) said
"That's the way the lengthy profile started"
ReplyDeleteSomerby implies the word "start" is a simple term, yet its meaning can be subjective. This subjectivity arises from differing perspectives, experiences, and contexts in which people find themselves. While "start" generally refers to the beginning of an action or event, the exact moment that constitutes the start can vary significantly.
Consider a marathon. For some, the start is when the gun goes off, signaling the runners to begin their race. However, for a marathon organizer, the start might be months earlier when planning and logistics are set in motion. For a runner, the start could be even further back, perhaps when they begin their training regimen or decide to register for the race. These different viewpoints illustrate how the concept of starting can shift depending on one's role and perspective.
In everyday life, starting a task is equally subjective. When does the process of writing an essay start? For some, it might be when they sit down at their computer and type the first word. For others, it could begin when they brainstorm ideas or outline their thoughts. There's also the argument that the start occurs even earlier, during the initial moment of inspiration or realization that an essay needs to be written. Each individual might have a unique point at which they believe the task has truly begun.
In professional settings, the subjectivity of "start" can lead to misunderstandings. In project management, a project’s start date might be defined differently by team members. A project manager might consider the start date as the kickoff meeting, whereas a developer might view it as the day they begin coding. This discrepancy can cause misalignment in expectations and timelines if not clearly communicated and agreed upon.
Personal relationships also demonstrate the subjective nature of starting. When does a relationship begin? Is it the first date, the first kiss, or the moment both parties acknowledge their mutual feelings? Each person in the relationship might have a different answer, which can lead to differing perceptions and expectations.
The start of a journey can be subjective. A vacation might start when one leaves their house, boards the plane, or arrives at the destination. For some, it could even start when the vacation is booked, as the anticipation and planning phase begins.
For Somerby to use the word "start" in the way he does embodies subjectivity due to the varied perspectives, contexts, and experiences that influence individuals' perceptions. Whether in sports, daily tasks, professional projects, personal relationships, or journeys, the exact moment something starts can differ greatly from person to person. Understanding and acknowledging this subjectivity can improve communication and align expectations in various aspects of life.
Somerby is an asshole.
Whoa! A classic! Well done!
DeleteDon't you feel silly praising an AI?
DeleteNo. I think it's a work of art.
DeleteIt fits the description of AI that I’ve read- dumb, dense, and dreary.
DeleteHow could anyone distinguish it from an anonymouse post?
CC - It's mocking anon posts.
DeleteThat's priceless! Cecelia is so dumb she cannot recognize an attempted AI parody. Either it wasn't very good or she isn't following the plot here. Perhaps both. Hilarious!
DeleteAnonymouse 1:18pm, you’ve again raised my question. How could anyone distinguish AI from the posts of anonymices (let alone any sort of parody). It’s all dumb, dense, and dreary.
DeleteHow to distinguish? It is fairly easy for anyone literate. You seem to be either a non-native speaker of English or an undereducated person. It doesn't surprise me that you can't tell real writing from fake here.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:46pm, it’s far less difficult to distinguish AI from normal human communication, but NOT from anonymices.
DeleteSays the person who didn't realize what the AI was saying.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:21pm, says the person telling you that before there was dull, dumb, and dreary AI, there was dull, dumb, and dreary anonymices.
DeleteAI is literally a chip off your blockhead.
It's a great rumination on the meaning of "start". However, this is quite unambiguous in this instance, as Bob quotes the opening paragraphs of the article. There's no subjectivity here.
DeleteCecelia, if you find a comment boring, just skip it and go on the to the next one. It is what you do with most of what you read anyway.
Delete"There has been no stain on anyone's dress. There has been no testimony of a contemporaneous statement to a friend or associate. "
ReplyDeleteThere has been no testimony of a contemporaneous statement but she says she did tell others about it. There was no testimony by others to support any part of her story, except that concerning the hush money payment. That is because this trial is about what Trump did, not about what Stormy Daniels did.
As Somerby has pointed out, none of Daniels' story has to be true in order to make Trump's actions a crime. Her testimony speaks to Trump's motive for paying the hush money. It shows why he wouldn't have wanted her to be talking about what she says happened, right before the election, in the context of the Access Hollywood tape.
So, this more misdirection from Somerby. But it does, once again, display Somerby's attitude toward women's testimony against sexual misbehavior by men. If women cannot present ironclad evidence (and who has that?), then men must be treated as entirely innocent, because women lie. For the record, men lie too when they are guilty and say they didn't do it. These are he said/she said lying opportunity, not a situation in which women lie and innocent men have their lives ruined, as Somerby seems to conceptualize things.
That's why he says Stormy is likely telling the truth but if there is no proof, then it didn't happen. And the distress experienced by women doesn't count as evidence.
Somerby insists that the words allegedly must be inserted in reports of Daniels' testimony, but a reporter who is stating what she said under oath in court is not require to use those words. That is because the reporter is reporting on what Daniels said, not what Trump did. And if the reporter heard Daniels say things, she didn't allegedly say them, she was witnesses as having said them. Daniels is entitled to state her account of what happened to her without biasing any reader with doubt that she said it. She is testifying.
It took social change before women were allowed to participate on juries at all. Previously, they were also not allowed to give evidence at trial as witnesses or defendants without a husband or father's permission. That's because women did not have equal standing before the law. Somerby appears to want to introduce a second-class status in which women's sworn testimony cannot be introduced without substantiating proof or evidence. Men have no such obligation (none that Somerby states). That is misogyny.
Another in the “Somerby appears to want” genre. I like the “Somerby seems to conceptualize” variation.
Delete“Somerby is a misogynist. I say that not because of anything he actually said, but because of what I imagine he seems to want.”
DeleteRinse and repeat.
Although I'm a Trump voter, I disbelieve Trump's denial of sex with Daniels. Furthermore it matters to me. although less than policies. I wish I could vote for someone less personally repulsive.
DeleteHistorically Biden has been more of a neoliberal and establishment corporatist Dem, but as president, he has governed as our most progressive president in modern times (excluding Israel, which he is changing on, and frankly, we do not know what he is doing behind the scenes - it might be very commendable).
DeleteIt is well established that Trump is corrupt to the core and only interested in circumstances from which he can personally benefit, therefore he is poorly suited to be a competent president, as his term demonstrated.
I will vote for Biden.
Me too.
DeleteI don't see how you read the post and came to the conclusions that you did about it's meaning. I think you are seeing what you want to see and not what was written.
DeleteAlthough I'm a Trump voter,
DeleteGo fuck yourself, Dic.
ReplyDelete"What does it mean when a journalist says that someone has been "telling her truth?""
See, this is exactly what I was saying a few days ago.
Suppose she was masturbating looking at Mr Trump's picture in a magazine (just like our resident spammer Corby does several times a day every day), and she is now convinced she had sex with him. In that case it's her truth.
And by the way, I heard much more truth from Mr Trump over the years than from your silo's Great Leader.
I think the webpage you're looking for is called Gateway Pundit?
DeletePicture in a magazine? What country (or decade) do you think this is?
DeleteIt is sad to consider the miserable lives of the resident trolls.
T's ok, they are compensated by Soros.
DeleteIsn't it odd that the Republicans only seem to know the name of one donor (Soros) and don't know about their own millionaire and billionaire donors, including the ones paying bribes to the Supremes?
DeleteThis is largely because Soros is the one being targeted for being Jewish and part of the Global World Order in the Q-Anon cult conspiracy theories. He has become shorthand for "Jews," who are supposedly funding the entire Democratic Party so they can control Biden and the govt.
This is ugly stuff that Somerby shouldn't tolerate at his blog. There was an article yesterday in the NYTimes describing how Biden has way more contributions from small donors than Trump has. Everyone should have read about Trump's attempt to sell the planet to big oil for $1 billion contributed by oil companies to his campaign.
Meanwhile, those of us working hard to get Biden reelected are supposedly being paid, when we are mostly trying to protect ourselves and those we love from the destruction that will ensure should Trump return to office. Keeping Trump out of office is pay enough for us.
Soros-bots' coping rituals are hilarious.
DeleteYou’re talking some cognitive dissonance from the pit of hell. You couldn’t make it up.
DeleteAnonymices will call David, who is a Jew, every thing in the book and say that TDH is brought to us by Russia.
But Bob should be screening the blog for disrespect and antisemitism, because… Soros…
Someone said the alt-right is anti-semitic. Haul David, your token Jew (who knows if he really is) front and center to discredit the FACT that Q-Anon does have a conspiracy theory about Soros, Jews and a Global World Order, and the right has been accusing everyone from Catholic Biden to the lowliest commenter here, of participating in that plot.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:44pm, Q-Anon, AND anonymices are brothers from different mothers.
DeleteFuck off.
DeleteCC - I've always thought that, too. The familial resemblance is found in the conspiracy theorizing.
DeleteI’ve always found it interesting that Anonymices demand that people not equate their criticism of Israel or of Israel-centric Jews and gentiles as being the same as antisemitism.
DeleteAgreed.
But they’re the first ones who will yank out the antisemitism card at any criticism of creepy George Soros
CC - Soros is "creepy"? Seems to me you should back that up.
DeletePP, I’m required to back up my opinion that Soros is creepy in the way that
DeleteI’m required to back up my fondness for French onion soup.
Cecelia, the anti-semitism comes from the conspiracy theorists and Q-Anon followers who invented these attacks on Soros.
Delete"Antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish elites, globalists, and bankers are part and parcel of the QAnon belief system, and George Soros and the Rothschilds are consistent targets (see Soros, Rothschild). The use of children in the conspiracy — the need to rescue children from the hands of the powerful globalists — harkens back to medieval blood libel accusations against Jews (see blood libel, Globalist)."
https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/QAnon
You really need to think about who your fellow travellers are here, when they keep calling Democrats Soros bots.
Trump really believed he didn’t have sex with Daniels, therefore he isn’t lying when he says he didn’t. Because he’s some form of mentally ill, according to Somerby? Is he willing to deny it under oath?
ReplyDeleteTrump doesn't really believe he didn't have sex with Daniels. He knows what he did. He is trying to slide out of the consequences of his actions, as always.
DeleteSomerby's conceit that Trump really believes his own lies is ridiculous. It colludes with Trump in his wrong doing. If Trump had an alibi, such as being somewhere else with other people, he would have brought it forth. It is hard to imagine Trump at a golf tournament but spending his night alone in a hotel room when there are cronies and admirers to fawn over him at the bar or in the restaurant. And in that case, he would have been able to prove Daniels wrong, had she fabricated her story. Trump's personality and past actions are the best proof that Daniels told the truth under oath. But Somerby never considers any of that. His knee jerk go-to response is that women lie, so the compulsive liar Trump, who NEVER tells the truth about anything, must be innocent.
I think that Somerby's conception of sex-positive women as whores and loose women who never say no and always lie (but why would they?) might be coloring his reaction to this case.
DeleteSomerby likes younger women, but those women do not like him back.
DeleteGet a clue, Somerby, you bitter old man.
You Anons are nuts. Somerby does not have a "conceit that Trump really believes his own lies." He does not have a "conception of sex-positive women as whores and loose women who never say no and always lie." He doesn't have some perverse interest in younger women. All of this is nothing but the product of your perverse imaginations.
DeletePiper, Somerby very much claimed that Trump believed (or seemed to believe) that he really won the 2020 election. That was Somerby’s way of telling us that Trump was delusional and please don’t call him a liar. How can you have missed this?
DeleteLike here, for example:
Delete“For what it's worth, we often get the sense that he actually does believe his various crazy claims.)”
Does Donald J. Trump believe that he won?
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2022/10/does-donald-j-trump-believe-that-he-won.html?m=1
Yes, Somerby has argued that Trump believes he won and the election was stolen, so he wasn't lying when he said those things. In advancing that argument, he has mused about what it means to lie -- the liar has to be aware that he is telling false info in order to deceive others. So if Trump really believes he won, he is not a liar. This is an application of that same reasoning to the Stormy Daniels situation. Pretending you've never read anything else Somerby has said, then calling for quotes which you will not accpet, is your game here.
DeleteWe cannot know what Somerby's sexual preferences are but we do see what he writes here. We are not imagining his essays. Over the years, Somerby has expressed distaste for overtly sexual and crude women, such as Chanel Miller, Rachel Maddow (with her jokes about those teabags). It may be his Catholic upbringing that seeks to force women into demure, innocent, sexually naive behavior, or maybe the worldliness of mature women disgusts him while the innocence of youth is a better fit for the Madonna/whore stereotypes. Look at how repulsed he is by Gutfeld's jokes about women.
A sex-positive woman like Stormy Daniels is not ashamed of her profession. Somerby clearly is, which may be why he protests so strongly that Daddy Trump couldn't possibility have sought out sex with a woman like that.
possibly
DeleteHere's the lie: You don't know whether Trump and Stormy had sex, but you pretend to know that they did.
DeletePied Piper is right, people read into Somerby's articles what they want to. No where does he say Stormy Daniels is lying, in fact he did say quite directly that he thinks Trump is lying. His commentary, as far as I can tell, is simply that journalists rush right past the part about "is it true" because it is a salacious story. Nowhere in this post did i get the impression that Somerby hates women, or sex positive women, or overtly sexual or crude women. If he criticizes these women (like Maddow) it's cause she isn't doing her job, she's selling a product for her employer.
DeleteOh, and by the way, we do know that Stormy is a liar: Now she says she had sex with Trump; previously she said that she didn't.
DeleteOf course, we don't know if she was lying then or is lying now.
It's the same problem we have with Juanita Broaddrick's allegations..
Daniels has said under oath that she was forced to sign a letter about no sex with Trump because of the NDA. Statements signed under duress are not considered truthful.
Delete@1:37 Somerby has written a lot of essays. The things people are saying about him rest upon all of his essays, not just the one you are reading today, with blinders on.
Delete"Daniels has said under oath that she was forced to sign a letter about no sex with Trump because of the NDA."
DeleteAnd you believe that? It's a highly, highly implausible statement. No NDA that I have ever seen forces someone to lie.
The letter exists. Daniels subsequently went to court to have the NDA removed. Those are facts. What is unbelievable about it?
DeleteWhat part of Cohen and Trump are mobsters who bully people into and out of things, do you not understand? Daniels is an adult film actress, not an attorney. Are you aware that the same attorney represented McDougal and Daniels, sent to them by Trump/Cohen via Pecker? They didn't even have their own lawyers in the negotiations.
People lie in public statements all the time. For example, they sign statements that conceal and modify circumstances in exchange for a larger severance package when leaving unemployment with a large corporation. They sign statement absolving others of liability, when settling after a car accident or injury case. Those may or may not be lies. Many settlements contain signed public statements that moot the cause of the suit in the first place, in exchange for money.
An NDA says, "Don't talk about X." An NDA doesn't say, "Lie about X."
DeleteStormy Daniels says she was coerced. I look at Trump and Cohen, both thugs in every sense of the word, and I believe her.
DeleteAn NDA says whatever the wording of the agreement says. A lie by omission is still a lie.
Has anyone ever worked harder than Pied Piper and Somerby to rehabilitate Trump's reputation? Why? Both say they believe Stormy Daniels' "story" and yet they are attacking every commenter here and won't agree to anything anyone says that is the least bit negative toward Trump (or truthful, for that matter). They are both determined to portray Daniels as a sleaze ball, even though believing her story means you accept that she didn't do the sleazy things these men keep accusing her of doing.
DeleteActually, I’ve never done anything to “rehabilitate Trump’s reputation,” ever. He’s a scummy con-man.
DeleteAs I understand it, whether or not Trump actually had sex with Daniels would not affect the crimes he's accused of. Yet, the Democrats have succeeded in getting us all focused on this issue.
ReplyDelete@DiC:
Delete"the Democrats have succeeded in getting us all focused on this issue."
Beg your pardon?
Who are you talking about, David? Which Democrats. Prosecution is making sure to connect the dots. Payments were made; to conceal the sex; which did take place; to insure that voters are not put off.
DeleteIlya -- payments were made to conceal the assertion of sex. The assertion would have done the same damage to his campaign and to his marriage whether it was true or false.
DeleteThe Democrats have been focused on Trump's illegalities, it is Fox News and mouthpieces like Somerby that have focused on the sex, something Somerby in the past would have found distasteful, but now he fully engages in it.
ReplyDeleteAs tight-fisted as Trump has shown himself to be, would he pay off a woman who was telling a made-up story that she couldn't prove with any actual evidence (as Somerby says)? If Trump were innocent, he would get the benefit of the doubt, much as Biden did when Tara Reade accused him. Biden didn't try to pay Reade off.
ReplyDeleteSomerby isn't reasoning very well about this matter.
I'm not sure if you're the one who should be commenting about the quality of anyone's reasoning.
DeleteI agree the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels makes the story look true. But the fact that he paid her off does not automatically mean that the story is true. It's also possible that he was running for president and true or not didn't want the bad press, and saw $100K or so as a cost of doing business. And again, to be clear, I am not saying that is what happened, or even that it is what I believe happened, just that it is possible and the fact that he paid her off doesn't automatically mean the affair happened.
DeleteYou are missing part of the facts that came out at trial. He said he was going to pay her $130,000 but then kept delaying (hoping to push the payment past the election so he wouldn't have to pay her at all. Her lawyer complained about that, so Cohen mortgaged his house to give her lawyer the money, then Trump attempted to stiff Cohen on the reimbursement. That is essentially why Cohen, who had been arrested, agreed to cooperate with the D.A.
DeleteThat means your speculation about thinking of this as a "cost of doing business" is nonsense.
No one said this "automatically" means the affair happened. We have been saying that the facts at hand don't support Somerby's view and DO support the view that the "date" happened. Daniels and Trump have both stated that it was not an affair, because it only happened once and because there was no romatic relationship (or in Trump's case, because nothing happened, even outside the bedroom). There was an affair with McDougal that last most of a year while Melania was pregnant. That was a love affair on McDougal's part and she has said she thought Trump was in love with her. More lies perhaps from Trump. That affair was paid off by the National Enquirer, but Trump stiffed them on the reimbursement, so they refused to front any money to Stormy Daniels.
David in Cal did not have sex with that woman, Ms Buck.
ReplyDelete“If we had to bet, we'd bet that her statement is true.”
ReplyDeleteSo why is Somerby trying to discredit or cast doubt on Daniels here? It also implies that Trump is either lying or … what? Delusional?
Why? Read all the way to the end:
Delete"That said, we're suggesting that you look at the way our journalists tend to behave when they find themselves in the presence of a story they like."
As if to prove Our Host correct, various anonymoose show up to focus on sex, Sex, SEX! His point, as it has been for many, many years, is about the strange behavior of the press.
how is he trying to discredit or cast doubt? He is basically saying that he thinks she is telling the truth!! What he isn't saying is that he, himself, personally knows it to be true, which how could he?? and as far as i can tell, that is the whole point of the article that journalists shouldn't be doing that either. Somehow, commenters have totally twisted and tortured the article into misogyny or a defense of Trump.
DeleteYes Corby/Perry/a, he's not trying to discredit or cast doubt on Daniels. There has been no concrete evidence to establish they copulated 18 years ago. He's criticizing the media for blurring the line between truth and storytelling with regard to these allegations. I know it's kind of an annoying distinction for him to make.
DeleteWhat's going on with you otherwise? Do you have any bridge tournaments cooked up?
You say that Somerby has not been trying to discredit or cast doubt on Daniels. Is that why he has repeatedly called her a grifter and con artist?
DeleteSure. It’s the same reason he kept accusing Daniels of extortion and election interference. That wasn’t to discredit her, it was press criticism. 🙄
DeleteThe original question was "So why is Somerby trying to discredit or cast doubt on Daniels here?"
Delete"he has repeatedly called her a grifter"
DeleteI don't think this is true.
March 26, 2018: "Clifford and Cooper got along well; sometimes it's like that with grifters." also, later on: "Did the alleged threat really occur? Stating the obvious, there's zero way of knowing that, and Clifford's a fairly obvious possible semi-grifter."
DeleteAnd this from Apr 11, 2018:
"For now, though, Avenatti continues to strike us as a transparent music man. Clifford is someone who says she had sex with a married person whose wife had just given birth, then tried to score a lot of cash by selling her sexy-time story.
She tried for the cash in 2011, then again in 2016. We think it's good that Cohen paid her and told her to please go away."
So that's one time he called her a grifter. You said repeatedly.
DeleteHe's never called her a con artist once.
DeletePlease read more carefully. It is several times on different dates. There are other similar things he said that use different words than grifter and con arist but mean the same thing. This is as much work as I am going to do for you. The Search function can be used by anyone. If you put in those terms and came up with nothing, your point would be made, but that isn't what happened.
DeleteI did the search and he never called her a con artist once. Just like he did not repeatedly call her a grifter. So your statement about is false.
DeleteThis statement you made is 100% false: "he has repeatedly called her a grifter and con artist"
DeleteDid you misread him or something? What's up?
It's an eerie feeling when we see things that aren't there, like supernumeraries in a dream. You may want to take some time this afternoon and apply a cold compress to your head while doing some deep breathing.
Delete"Bombastic barrister Michael Avenatti strikes us as perhaps a bit of a fairly obvious con man."
DeleteAvenatti was Daniels attorney. Apr 11, 2018
"That said, all over cable, they were were selling Stormy Daniels last night. More precisely, they were selling the product called Stormy Daniels, and the product called The Chase.
Those are the products these con men sell. " March 8, 2018
"How many elections have been waylaid by childish, dishonest nonsense like this? Still and all, to this very day, one of our liberal Internet moguls wants to sell you photographs of Stephanie Clifford's extremely large breasts, and Colbert King says he wants to "protect our elections" by letting Clifford mouth off."
and this:
"We care about our elections too. That's why we think Donald J. Trump and his helpmate, Michael Cohen, should be awarded highest national honors for their ongoing efforts to hush Clifford up—to keep her from telling her story."
Both quotes are from March 14, 2018
"Michael Avenatti, an obvious con man, had become a liberal god through his representation of Stormy "Stephanie Clifford" Daniels, another fairly obvious hustler and all-around fraudster. " Oct 18, 2018
Yes. “Had become a liberal god.” That’s worthy of Jesse over at Fox, but Bob is childish like that all the time,
DeleteOkay thank you for confirming that the statement you made was 100% false. He never called her a con artist.
DeleteI guess you're seeing things as if you were walking through a foggy marsh at midnight.
DeleteTo summarize, the statement you made "he has repeatedly called her a grifter and con artist" has been discredited.
DeleteSee, this is why it is foolish to respond to demands for quotes by Somerby. You post a bunch of them and someone nitpicks because he said con instead of con artist. There are lots of quotes showing what Somerby called Stormy Daniels. Others can read them and form their own opinions.
Delete"because he said con instead of con artist."
DeleteYou didn't post a quote where he said con instead of con artist. Why would you lie about this?
"What does it mean when a journalist says that someone has been "telling her truth?" Does ir mean that the person's claims have been accurate? Does it mean that her story has been true?
ReplyDeleteIt almost sounds like that's what it means, but we can't say we're sure."
Somerby knows very well that the phrase "her truth" does not imply a journalistic endorsement of her side of things. It implies the opposite. It acknowledges that this is a he said/she said situation in which there are two sides to a story without clear support for either side. "Her truth" refers to her side of things, her story as she has been saying she experienced it.
What makes it necessary to refer to "her truth" is that there was a longstanding attempt by Trump to suppress her side of the situation. The NDA prevented that from 2016 to 2018, when she went to court to have it vacated. Daniels says she was coerced (bullied) into agreeing to the NDA. She tried to sell her story to several publications and Trump's goons prevented that. That is her version of how telling her story because important to her and was contested by Trump, who could have simply told his side of things to the media, as he has been doing (since he is under no NDA and can say what he wants).
In a he said/she said, when he can say whatever he wants but she is forbidden to speak under a $1 million penalty, the restraint that she sought to remove concerns her ability to give her details. Most of us have the right to do that about any aspect of our lives.
That imbalance is what makes this "her story" or "her truth". Only the wealthy have the ability to suppress other people's speech for money. By stating that this is hers, her truth, her story, she emphasizes that this is her right to speak. Somerby gives her no such right, perhaps because he doesn't like what she has been saying about Trump. Or maybe he is just being paid to say what others want himself, which is another way truth becomes disinformation?
Somerby's misreading of this phrase gives him yet another chance to bash journalists, but he has to distort meaning in order to do it. But what else is new?
A new poll suggests that young voters are not as ideologically progressive as some may assume, with many holding moderate or conservative views. The poll also found that young voters trust former President Donald Trump more than President Joe Biden when it comes to the economy.
Delete"Most of us have the right to [say what we want] about any aspect of our lives."
DeleteThat's because most of us haven't sold this right for $130K.
She has said repeatedly that she was coerced into signing the NDA by being visiting by Trump's goons in a parking lot while she had her daughter with her. She said they threatened her and told her to sign the NDA. She did it because she didn't want to endanger her daughter or her relationship with her sig. other.
DeleteAs we have seen over and over, the capacity for MAGA to threaten and carry out violence against the people Trump targets is real. It is why the jury is not named and why there is a gag order against Trump. Trump behaves like a mob boss and Daniels was made an offer she couldn't refuse.
So, yes, she did have to. There are very few women who wouldn't have done so.
Another attempted AI parody?
DeleteIt is the same reason she had sex with Trump to begin with. He took off his clothes and confronted her, she felt intimidated and didn't feel she could say no. When men are aggressive on dates, women yield to sex even when they don't want to, because they want to avoid a potentially violent scene that could be much worse for them.
DeleteThat was Stormy Daniels' choice too. But if a choice is not freely made, is it really a choice?
And you know she's telling the truth about the goons how, exactly?
DeleteNothing is certain, except that Trump should be pitied.
DeleteBecause she wouldn't have signed the NDA otherwise and would have gone on to sell her story to another publication or talk show for more money. It was very marketable given the Access Hollywood tape. She was shopping the story around because she was approached by her Lawyer (who also represented McDougal) and National Enquirer.
DeleteThe details of what Daniels said Trump's goon said to her sound highly similar to what Michael Cohen said he did for Trump in a variety of situations where he wanted to either not pay a contractor or pay less than originally agreed. Cohen talks like a mobster and so does Trump, who dealt with mobsters at the beginning of his career as a developed in NYC. He still talks like a mobster at his rallies. Bullying women via intimidation is not that farfetched in that context.
All you're telling me is that her story is plausible. It might even be true - who knows?
Delete"story around because" should be "story around before"
DeletePied Piper, when you are on a jury and they are presenting circumstantial evidence, that is often all you have at hand but you still must reach a verdict. If you or Somerby are expecting to have more proof than exists, you are not being reasonable in making your decision about what happened. There is rarely iron clad proof in any trial much less many situations arising in life. We do the best we can. When you ignore the things that make something plausible in favor of a denial by someone with no evidence at all, you are showing bias toward Trump and against Daniels. As I said, is it likely Trump would have sat in his hotel room by himself (with no one, not even his bodyguard to vouch for that)? Trump cannot prove his denial because he has no alibi, which is evidence that TRUMP is lying. But Somehow Somerby never considers that. And in this situation, Trump is not being charged with any sex crime, so there is no presumption of innocence on his part, no automatic benefit of the doubt about what occurred. That isn't what he is being tried for. But Trump could clear this all up by simply saying who he had drinks with, or where he ate, or producing his bodyguard to testify. Why wouldn't he do any of that if he were not with Daniels (as she claims)?
DeleteCircumstantial evidence can indeed be sufficient for reaching a verdict in a trial, but the press should avoid labeling the evidence as "true" or "false" but rather describe it accurately (e.g., "The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence suggesting...").
Delete3:27 - Exactly.
DeleteYou have only Somerby's word that the press has been doing that at all.
DeleteIt would show bias to label evidence as circumstantial unless some legal authority (judge, attorney) labeled it as such, given that reporters are not lawyers and unprepared to evaluate whether evidence is circumstantial or not.
It is better to report: "Cohen testified to the events surrounding Trump's request that he pay Pecker for his cooperation in killing negative stories." The details are attributed to Cohen, not evaluated as true or false, but describe what happened on the stand.
Somerby is nitpicking this stuff because he doesn't like it that Trump is looking guilty as hell. He thinks that if he can create some confusion, it opens the door to MAGAs believing whatever they want about Trump's guilt, and may save some votes from defecting from Deal Leader due to the trial. That makes Somerby a right wing operative, not any kind of media critic. But we already knew he wasn't musing about the media here.
I'm not touching that one! 😂
DeleteDaniel Kramer and Arthur Irving have died.
ReplyDeleteAuf Wiedersehen, Dan and Artie.
DeleteHere's my truth: Cecelia is a tall woman, and her last name isn't Buck.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is overthinking this. Daniels is telling her truth in comparison to the lying she was forced to do by the NDA.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 2:20pm, Stormy was not forced to sign the NDA and she wasn’t forced to abide by it. SHE broke her NDA.
DeleteShe broke the NDA, but kept the cash!
DeleteShe kept the NDA before the election, which is all Trump cared about. He was going to stiff her if he could delay payment until after the election, when he told Cohen it wouldn't matter any more.
DeleteAs the courts decided when she filed suit to void the NDA in 2018 (after the story broke via Cohen and the Wall Street Journal, NOT Daniels), the NDA was unenforceable.
But portraying her as a bad person is totally what you, Somerby, Cecelia, and the right wing is about. Facts be damned. Just make up whatever you want to be true.
Look, if you want to believe Stormy is a paragon of virtue, that's fine with me.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:09pm, I portray Stormy as a person person. You portray her as the little girl down by the garden gate. Stormy admits that she and Trump had sex after he said he would try to find her a role on The Apprentice. That’s a quid pro quo. Nothing in this suggests that Stormy was star struck or besotted with the physical specimen that is Trump or with his powerful personality and intellectual prowess. (Sarcasm Alert!! on behalf of deaf and literally dumb anonymices) Nothing suggests that she was under duress when she decided to shyly open like a flower in the gleam of spring or to surrender her soft form to the cold as steel brute who threatened her existence.
Delete"she decided to shyly open like a flower in the gleam of spring or to surrender her soft form to the cold as steel brute"
DeleteI'm feeling a little flushed. Is it getting kind of warm in here?
Somerby pretends to be criticizing journalists but his actual purpose here is to help Trump out at his trial, by once again suggesting that Stormy Daniels was lying. Don't be fooled by the part where he said he thinks she's probably right. The cumulative effect of his work today is to leave wiggle room for Trump by suggesting that journalists have been insufficiently critical of Daniels, who may just be lying about Trump after all. And the more confusing he is, the better, since it will let any credulous person who really wants to believe Trump, do so.
ReplyDeleteEvery moron knows what it means when they say Stormy wanted to tell her truth.
Yes, but thankfully Bob isn’t really able to help Trump. All he can do is demonstrate to us that he is a moral idiot, which most of us get by now.
DeleteBelieve whatever you want, but only a moron would think they know - know! - whether Stormy is telling the truth now or whether she was telling the truth when she denied having sex with Trump.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's a truth we can all agree on, right? -- Stormy double-crossed Trump by taking money for silence but then telling.
DeleteIt is obvious she was not telling the truth about denying having sex with Trump. She signed that statement at the request of Trump's people, for money. She then went to court to vacate the NDA, prevailed in her lawsuit (the judge ruled the NDA was unenforceable and awarded her court costs). After that she went back to her original story.
DeleteIf you cannot see what happened, that is on you.
Both Daniels and Cohen "double-crossed" Trump. But is it double-crossing to rat out someone who is breaking the law in massive ways? Cohen flipped on Trump because Trump stopped reimbursing him and because Trump and his people indicated they were about to abandon him and not stick by him.
According to Wikipedia: "The story broke in 2018, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to Daniels for her silence during Trump's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign."
This arose because of the investigation and testimony of Cohen, not because Daniels came forward to break the NDA. After the story, broke, she gave interviews, was threatened by Trump with "financial ruin" and went to court to remove the NDA. Trump made some derogatory tweets about her and she sued him for defamation but lost.
That isn't exactly the situation Pied Piper portrays of a double-cross. The silence was already broken by the legal problems of Michael Cohen.
My problem with you here Pied is that you seem to believe Stormy can’t be believed because She signed an NDA. I’d feel better about that if Bob’s client Trump took the stand and told us what really happened.
DeleteHey, Congresswoman Boebert can’t understand what the crime is either. Did She fail to explain to her her son that armed robbery was a crime? Lots of playing dumb on Team Trump!
"My problem with you here Pied is that you seem to believe Stormy can’t be believed because she signed an NDA."
DeleteActually, I believe Stormy DID have sex with Trump. But I know she's a liar, so that degrades my degree of certainty about this.
"It is obvious she was not telling the truth about denying having sex with Trump." This is just another way of saying you "know" something, when you don't.
Porn stars always tell the truth. Always.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's why Trump bangs them.
DeleteTrump complains today that "he has the only illegal NDA!" No doubt Bob, Pied, and Quaker will back him up on this.
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth makes you think so?
DeleteLet's don't get too cute. What Stormy did was blackmail adjacent. She sold her silence for money. She then told anyway and kept the cash. If you want to defend all this, be my guest.
ReplyDeleteRemember this?
Delete2011:
“Daniels is interviewed by In Touch magazine, but the story isn't published after legal threats by Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen,”
2016:
“Daniels and her attorney Keith Davidson tell the National Enquirer she is willing to go on record about the alleged affair with Trump.
The Enquirer's CEO and editor contact Cohen, who offers Daniels $130,000 for story rights and for her to sign a nondisclosure agreement,…”
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/04/17/timeline-trump-trial-stormy-daniels-hush-money/73328892007/)
She didn’t threaten Trump with disclosure if she didn’t get paid. She and her lawyer contacted the National enquirer, whereupon Cohen offered her money in exchange for the NDA.
Does this sound like blackmail to you?
She was selling the story for money in all those cases. She's a gross sleaze ball which makes sense because those are the kind of people that orbit around Trump and make their living in an industry dedicated to degrading all women.
DeleteThis is why David Pecker testified first. So that jurors would understand that Trump, Cohen and Pecker colluded in a catch and kill scheme in which they bought and suppressed stories negative to Trump while also planting false negative stories about Trump's opponents, including Hillary, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. All that preceded Stormy Daniels' approach to the National Enquirer (and Karen McDougal's).
DeleteNot everyone considers sex degrading to women. That's what is meant by the term "sex positive". Calling someone a sleaze ball because they have a different attitude toward sex strikes me as a bit intolerant, not to mention sexist.
Porn is not about sex, if one defines sex as a mutual act between two partners, but about masturbation, a solitary auto-arousal devoid of intimacy and love.
DeletePlenty of couples use porn as part of their intimacy.
DeleteCan I call Stormy a sleaze ball for having sex with a married man? How about for trying to humiliate that man and his wife by telling everybody in the world? How about for taking money to keep quiet and then breaking her word?
DeleteOr should I hold Stormy up as a role model for my daughters?