DEAD SOULS: Gabbard dopped bombs all over Fox!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2025

CNN's viewers weren't told: For the record, the deadest souls to which we refer are those on the Fox News Channel. 

One of those souls takes the stage each night at 10 p.m. We'll offer one tiny sample, observed in passing last night, of his undisguised living death:

GUTFELD (7/22/25): [Wonderful quip about Hillary Clinton's unacceptably large hips. Rewarded with audience applause]

It was a bit of a callback to the Rush Limbaugh days! But so it goes, night after night, as this deadest of all the souls extends his attacks on the overweight, unattractive women who don't share his infallible views. 

(The gentleman hails from San Mateo. How could anyone from such a sunny land have ended up like this?)

At any rate, the deadest souls are the souls crawling all over Fox. As part of a deadly pas de deux, the comatose souls in the rest of realm refuse to report their conduct.

For one example of what we mean, we'll ask you to ponder this:

Starting on Friday night, on the Hannity show, a major federal official was all over the Fox News Channel, alleging that Barack Obama had engaged in "treasonous" conduct—had engaged in "a treasonous conspiracy"—back in 2016.

On Saturday morning, starting in the 7 o'clock hour, the dead souls of Fox & Friends Weekend thrilled to Director Gabbard's use of the T-bomb. You can observe their excitement by clicking here

"God bless Tulsi Gabbard," Rachel Campos-Duffy said, "for letting us see what actually happened." 

Gabbard appeared on the program that day during the 8 o'clock hour, littering T-bombs behind her. The next day, she completed the rule of three, speaking at length with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox Business show, Sunday Morning Futures.

Tulsi Gabbard is President Trump's Director of National Intelligence. Over the course of three days, she had made a series of astonishing claims about a former president.

She made these claims to the denizens of Red America—to the people who were watching Fox Business or the Fox News Channel. Over the weekend, on programs like The Big Weekend Show, employees of the Fox News Channel repeated her remarkable claims and praised her all up and down.

The Fox News Channel has the biggest viewership, by far, among our three major "cable news" channels. The DNI had made her claims about Obama's treason all weekend long, with the channel's endless array of Stepfords dim-wittedly cheering her on.

Now for the rest of the story:

Let's suppose that you're a dedicated viewer of CNN's primetime nightly news programs. More specially, we refer to these three weeknight CNN shows:

CNN weeknight shows
7 p.m.: Erin Burnett Outfront
8 p.m.: Andeson Cooper 360
9 p.m.: The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Suppose you watched all three programs, for the full three hours, on both Monday and Tuesday nights. We have an amazing fact to report:

If you watched all three program on each of those nights, you never heard that Gabbard made those remarkable claims on those Fox News Channel shows. In fact, you never saw any CNN host or reporter mention Gabbard at all.

We know! You think we must be mistaken. But Gabbard's name has never been mentioned by any of the journalists on any of those three shows. If that's where you as a citizen think you're getting your news, you haven't yet heard a single word about what Gabbard has said and has done.

(Monday night's transcripts are available here. For Tuesday night's transcripts, click this.)

We know—it seems a bit hard to believe! That said, how did last night's three-hour prime time news block begin? 

We're sorry to be the ones to say, but it began with Burnett saying this:

BURNETT (7/22/25): Outfront next! Breaking news, new images of Trump and Epstein together. 

You'll see them here first, outfront, along with brand new reporting from our KFILE team.

Plus, Jeffrey Epstein's brother Mark is outfront. What he says about Trump and his brother, and when Jeffrey Epstein first confessed his crimes to him.

And Obama tonight fighting back hard, not giving Trump an inch. Is Obama now the Democrat who knows to take on Trump?

Let's go outfront! And good evening, I'm Erin Burnett.

That's the way the excitement began. As always, Burnett repeated the name of her show again and again and again. 

That's a minor branding matter, but that's how the program began. In fairness, Obama was briefly mentioned, but the broadcast continued like this

BURNETT (continuing directly): Outfront tonight, the breaking news, a CNN exclusive! Tonight outfront:

KFILE has unearthed photos of Jeffrey Epstein that we've never seen. And they shed new light on his relationship with President Trump. 

The revelations come as Trump is under fire from his own base for his Justice Department's handling of the so-called Epstein files. Trump has tried, of course, to distance himself from Epstein every which way.

But one of the photos that KFILE found confirms that Epstein actually attended Donald Trump's wedding to Marla Maples. And this is the proof. 

Again, this has never been published before. So, this is a new image. You haven't seen it out there on X or anything like that.

We won't say that nonsense like that is the work of dead souls. We will suggest that, as was the case at sacred Troy, a modern nation is destined to die in the hands of such studied inanity.

Fellow citizens, please! Everyone has always known that Trump and Epstein had a lengthy friendship. Plenty of photos already existed from their days as friends.

Had KFiles turned up some photos which no one seen before? In fact, the new photos shed exactly zero new light on Epstein's relationship with President Trump. But on CNN, in the hands of Burnett, they were treated as BREAKING NEWS. 

The photos were treated as BREAKING NEWS. But all through Burnett's hour-long programs on Monday and Tuesday nights, Tulsi Gabbard was never mentioned. Viewers were never told about the remarkable things she had said.

In this way, the comatose souls at CNN disappear the conduct of the dead souls over at Fox. And let us repeat what we've already said:

At no point on Monday or Tuesday night were viewer of these primetime cable news shows told about the remarkable claims the DNI had made on the Fox News Channel. Nor were they told about the way that channel's endless array of Stepfords had affirmed every word Gabbard said,

At no point on either night were viewers told about the dead souls of that other "news channel"—about the way they'd pimped the ludicrous, conflation-based claims of the cult-raised and perhaps dead soul.

Yesterday, President Obama pushed back against five days of attacks with a concise public statement from an Obama spokesperson. As best we can tell, this was its full text:

Statement by Patrick Rodenbush, Obama spokesperson: 
Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.  
These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. 
These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.

So said the Obama spokesperson. Here's "the document" to which he referred. It came from the office of Director Gabbard.

Last night, after 35 minutes of pointless blather, Burnett finally got around to reporting what Obama had said—and yes, the conflation at the heart of Gabbard's claim is there in Obama's statement.

(Simple story: When Obama called for a study of the ways "Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election," he wasn't refuting the pre-existing conclusion, stated by himself, that Russia hadn't manipulated any votes by hacks of our voting systems.) 

Full disclosure:

CNN is fully happy only in the aftermath of an earthquake, a fire or a flood. The remains of this original cable news channel are most fully expressed in the standard question its anchors will caringly ask when some such event has occurred:

How did you feel when you saw your grandmother swept away by the flood?

CNN lives for "human interest." Information about players like Gabbard may not always make the cut.

Last night, some photos were pimped as BREAKING NEWS. The photos had zero news value.

The same was true of the pointless interview with Jeffrey Epstein's brother. Thirty-five minutes into the program, President Obama's pushback finally appeared.

The dead souls are found all over Fox. The channel's viewership is substantially larger than that of MSNBC and CNN combined—and when those viewers are told remarkable things, friends and neighbors in Blue America never hear about it. 

What happens on Fox stays right there as a large nation falls apart.

Also this:

Might something be "wrong" with President Trump? Everyone knows that the answer is yes, but the slumbering souls of the upper-end press have all agreed to move on.

As we noted in Monday's report, Gogol apparently thought that he'd spotted "dead souls." Sometimes, such impressions may even perhaps have merit.

48 comments:

  1. Actions like this won a Presidential election less than a year ago.
    Somerby is concern-trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Re: CNN
    Karl Marx warned us about corporations over a century ago, but morons thought they knew better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dead Souls is a great work of Russian literature. I guess I never picked up on the second meaning, meaning that the landowning aristocracy were dead souls themselves.
    Should CNN be reporting on Gabbard's blather? Reasonable minds can disagree on that account. Gabbard's presentation is for entertainment purposes only; there won't be any charges against Obama or anyone. With that said, it is not inconceivable that in the coming months the authoritarian reach of this administration will expand and prominent Democrats will be dragged off to jail, whatever legal pretenses may be. I find it unlikely.
    So, is Gabbard's nonsense worthy of being treated as news? I am just going with a 'no' on that. Although, the NY Times is covering it today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously it’s news. She’s the Director of National Intelligence. And she’s inciting the Magats.

      Delete
    2. It's a bit self-referential though: that's what they do inside the Fox News echo chamber. That, in and of itself, is not news. I would also say that every new photo of Epstein and Trump together is not news either.

      Delete
    3. Ilya - you know about the Gabbard thing. Would you prefer to be ignorant about it, along with other "blue" tribe members? Ignorance is bliss - that's your take? More important to learn about the breaking news on the Trump/Epstein relationship?

      Delete
    4. AC: Fair point. It should be mentioned in the news -- and I've seen more than one headline in my Google News Feed and the NY Times -- but does it warrant a lengthy discussion on the talk show circuit? As I have mentioned, the Epstein files are not that interesting or newsworthy either.

      Delete
    5. How do you know it's nonsense for entertainment purposes only? Have you really investigated it? If so, how?

      Delete

    6. They know it's "nonsense for entertainment purposes only" because that's their talking point.

      Delete
    7. Somerby's post today is a complaint that Trump's efforts to distract from Epstein are not working.

      womp womp

      Delete
    8. Anyone making a claim that it is all-nonsense has at least an obligation to read all the documents that she released.

      Delete
    9. Ilya, FWIW I agree with you. The news doesn’t cover other news sources unless they are being sold or going out of business. It is not news when Gabbard spews propaganda and CNN should not advance her lies.

      Delete
    10. Anyone making a claim that it is all-nonsense has at least an obligation to read all the documents that she released."

      No. Not when the first handful of summary bullet points display the flagrant conflation the report is built on.

      Delete
    11. 1:45 I guess that's true. I should have said anyone making a serious claim. They would at least have the obligation to research beyond the summary. But anyone can make any claim they want.

      And we all suffer from the urge to make stories, including this one, simple. It's human nature to make the complex manageable, find explanations, and interpret things in ways that conform to our conclusions. That would best explain Ilya's comment. And who has the goddamn time to go deep on it anyway?

      Delete
    12. But Ilya can respond himself and tell us what basis he used for the claim.

      Delete
    13. First of all, the claim that it's "treason" is not supported by any statute enumerating what "treason" entails.
      Trump was elected in 2016 and no one disputed his election. The story should just end then and there. Neither of his impeachments was connected to the Russian interference.

      The conflation that has been cited numerous times: there were Russian attempts to penetrate, or hack, voting machines and they failed. No one ever suggested that Trump was involved. Then there were claims that Russia, via FB and other social platforms, tried to sway the 2016 election. Those were trivially true and not particularly interesting.
      Lastly, there were questions as to the extent that Trump campaign reached out to the Kremlin-connected operatives to dig up dirt on Hillary. I think that's part of the Mueller report. Nothing was ever done about that. Well, there were money funneled by a Kremlin-connected operative to the NRA, which then were funneled into the Trump campaign. Nothing came out of that.
      Lastly, Obama was president and he could investigate whomever he wanted. And Trump suffered no damages.

      Delete
    14. I see. Thanks for explaining. She released new documents showing there was an intelligence assessment where both the NSA and the FBI expressed "low confidence" that Russia hacked the DNC (on Sept 12 2016 - long after they had received Crowdstrike's data)), This and other documents she released contradict what Brennan said publicly about an intelligence community consensus on the matter. So there's a little bit of smoke there for the subhumans. Probably nothing you need to worry about.

      You're so right that her rhetoric about treason is baseless and crazy and her outline makes an obvious conflation that doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    15. So there's a little bit of smoke there for the subhumans. Probably nothing you need to worry about.
      Exactly! This contradiction produced nothing of consequence as far as the 2016 election.

      Delete

  4. "For the record, the deadest souls to which we refer are those on the Fox News Channel. "

    Obviously. Because your own tribe's much, much greater assholes are all good, decent persons. Sure, I get it.

    But then, why would anyone want to read so obvious brain-dead partisan bullshit, like what you just typed in here? Do you have an answer to this, Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of obvious, brain-dead partisan bullshit....

      Delete
  5. Quibble: Bob misused "pas de deux.'" it means a dance for two people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob uses the phrase to denote a dance between two groups of people, rather than individuals. This usage falls within his blogospheric license.

      Delete
    2. No, it makes him sound ignorant.

      Delete
    3. Two groups interacting in dance can be “call and response” or a dance battle. Pas de deux is two people. Somerby is lazy about looking stuff up. Close enough is good enough for him. That’s why he didn’t read Dead Souls, just stole the title because it has “dead” in it.

      Delete
  6. Bob doesn't read or respond to comments, but I expect if he did he would tell you in no uncertain terms that your Daddy rapes children. Your cult is sad and deranged, built on endless fantastical yarns, edited daily to repair ever more holes in the bullshit framework. The end result is billionaires get everything, and the rest of us get kicked to the curb. Congratulations. We all lose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quibble, why does David proselytize for a child rapist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Republicans are not born, they emerge.

      Typically they emerge from unresolved childhood trauma, which takes various forms from religious indoctrination to abuse.

      David's worldview is undoubtedly the result of childhood abuse, such people are drawn towards abusers, part of the cyclical nature of abuse.

      Delete
    2. I disagree. I think political party choice is art of personality not trauma.

      Delete
  8. (Simple story: When Obama called for a study of the ways "Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election," he wasn't refuting the pre-existing conclusion, stated by himself, that Russia hadn't manipulated any votes by hacks of our voting systems.)

    So just how stupid will you look for believing Obama's "simple story" when the documents are released showing that he ordered the intelligence community to manufacture "intelligence" about Trump colluding with Russia. i.e., the Steele dossier that was, in turn, "leaked" to their media lapdogs to fuel the launching of the Mueller investigation to cripple Trump's first term?

    Pretty frigging stupid, I would imagine. lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boris here would like you all to go chasing his bullshit down the rabbit hole and forget about orange chickenshit raping grade school age girls. Tell Boris to go fuck himself.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Bob, when Obama called for the "study", he did it purely out of curiosity. Because Obama is a good, decent person who couldn't, by definition, do anything unseemly.

      Delete
    3. "when the documents are released showing that he (Obama) ordered the intelligence community to manufacture "intelligence" about Trump colluding with Russia. i.e., the Steele dossier"

      I find this a curious sentence. To wit: if the documents showing Obama ordered the intelligence community to "manufacture intelligence about Trump" have not yet been released, how do you know what they contain?

      Delete
    4. Hillary urged Obama to investigate Trump’s connection to Russia, along with the hacking.

      Delete
    5. It was well within Obama's purview to investigate such things. Trump's campaign did reach out to known Kremlin-connected apparatchiks. As well as a Kremlin-connected operative funneled money tot he Trump campaign through the NRA. She was convicted. Trump, however, suffered no damages and was elected and Hillary conceded. As opposed to, say, staging a riot.

      Delete
    6. Once again, a friendly reminder: the only fucking victim here was Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Get the fuck away from us, maggots.

      Delete
    7. The provenance of the Steele dossier is well-known. And it's not Obama. It is further well-known that Steele at some point thought that it would be appropriate to share some of the materials with the FBI. It is further well-known that nothing came of that. The end.

      Delete
  9. Illustrates why conservatives are better informed than liberals. Conservatives can't help but know about the Epstein story. It's everywhere. But. liberals can be uninformed about the accusations against Obama and others for allegedly abusing their powers against Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dickhead in Cal is opposed to the Executive abusing their powers against political opponents. Bwahahaha!!!! Now pull the other one. LOL!

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. liberals can be uninformed about the accusations against Obama and others for allegedly abusing their powers against Trump.
      I am pretty sure that you are uninformed about this, David.
      Again, the predicate is wrong: there was no abuse of power in regard to Trump.

      Delete
    5. David finally admits it, he knows Daddy rapes children and he is proud of it. Disgusting unhuman being.

      Delete
  10. Somerby mask off again, plainly demonstrating his disdain for anything that does not hurt Dems and does not help Repubs.

    Epstein is dead, but he is here to stay.

    So sorry y'all Repubs have to cope with Epstein, couldn't happen to worse people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. Erin Burnett pimping a new photo of Epstein and Trump did nothing. And Somerby pointed that out, giving you a chance to say something stupid.

      Delete
    2. Somerby is complaining because CNN is not covering Gabbard. Somerby has benn ignoring Epstein, just as Trump demanded.

      Democrats should be relentlessly targeting Trump and other Republicans over Epstein because that issue is about rich elites abusing young girls for sex then lying to MAGA about it.

      Delete
    3. "Somerby is complaining because CNN is not covering Gabbard."

      No. That is not what Somerby is complaining about.

      He writes, "as part of a deadly pas de deux, the comatose souls in the rest of the realm refuse to report their conduct". The ' realm' is the media in general, the 'their' refers to Fox News hosts and their unquestioning praise for Gabbard.

      That's what Somerby wants CNN to cover, not the Gabbard story per se.

      Delete
    4. That's interesting 2:10. Indeed, CNN (is it still alive?) could raise a stink about Fox News praising Gabbard without saying anything at all about recent Gabbard's discoveries.

      I guess CNN's functionaries aren't as cunning as Bob Somerby.

      Delete