STRANGERS AND FRIENDS: This just in from the world's strangest man!

MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2025

"There needs to be scalps," he said: Unless you live in "a distant land from me" (Thoreau), the fellow's a tough act to swallow.

We've long advised against our own Blue America's impulse to drop our tribe's various bombs—racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe and the like.

In truth, our own tribe barely has a sexual politics at all. as we toss our bombs around, we show very few signs of knowing that about ourselves.)

We've long advised against the promiscuous use of those bombs. But the "cable news" star to whom we refer operates in a realm which—if words have any meaning at all—will inevitably seem to be baldly misogynistic. 

You can add his bizarre obsession with body waste and his love of sexual insult. Unless you live in "a distant land," these peculiar traits make him a difficult figure to love.

Throw in the D-list stooges who support him every night and the audiences who cheer and applaud his behavior! When you do, you've formed a picture of a former nation whose established culture, for better or worse, is rapidly coming apart.

We regard the fellow as "Unrecognizable"—as a type of person we've never encountered in real life. That said, millions of people enjoy the porridge he serves—and then, we come to the greatest offenders of all:

We come to the major stars of Blue America who refuse to even say his name, let alone report or discuss what he does on the air every day, first at 5 p.m. (The Five) and then on his own show at 10.

We regard the angry little man as a difficult fellow to like. That said, we've long advised you to "pity the child"—and our culture suggests that we should regard such strangers as friends. 

Lincoln put it like this:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

He said that in his first inaugural address. A war then took place among friends.

When we ended Saturday's report, the strange little guy had engaged in his typical ugly and stupid behavior at the start of his prime time "cable news" show on Thursday, July 24. 

His studio audience would cheer what he went on to say after that. In Blue America, our major tribunes would all agree that they must avert their gaze.

As we noted, the angry man would make his transition at 10:02 Eastern that night. Below, you see the last of the evening's "fun, smart" jokes—and you also the start of his nightly "issue monologue:"

GUTFELD (7/24/25): Finally, the man who wrote "YMCA" claims the songs is not a gay anthem, as so many people believe.

Right! And "Stairway to Heaven" isn't about anal!

AUDIENCE: [Unsettled murmurs]

GUTFELD (dismissively): Whatever.

[Jokes end / Monologue starts]

So once again, the media pretends that their corrupt, shameful behavior never happened. Which means it's time for:

ANNOUNCER: Yi-i-i-ikes! Well, nothing to see here!

GUTFELD: They did it with the Covid lab leak, the "fine people" hoax, the Haitian whipping hoax, and of course Joe Biden's brain, where they claimed it was fine when it was missing more screws than a Mexican roller coaster.

Now it's the Russian collusion hoax. 

You can watch the whole monologue simply by starting here.

As you can see, the angry fellow had ended his several minutes of "fun, smart" jokes with a wonderful quip about anal. With that, it was on to his monologue about what he called "the Russian collusion hoax." 

The monologue was built around the failure of "the media" to fall in line behind Tulsi Gabbard's ongoing claim that President Obama had engaged in treason near the end of his second term. Behind the furious, sex-obsessed man, his topic was announced on the screen:

RUSSIAN COLLUSION HOAX

In fact, the behavior by Obama which Gabbard was citing didn't involve any claim of collusion. This little man, though perpetually angry, isn't a stickler for detail.

In that passage, you've already seen the way this fellow started his "issue monologue." We'll now walk you through it step by step.

As we showed you on Saturday, the monologue continued in this pathetically childish way as his studio audience sheered:

GUTFELD: Now it's the Russian collusion hoax. 

So as we unravel the scheme to derail a Trump presidency, the media now wants all of us to move on, after gaslighting us like Jerry Nadler with a Bic lighter near his butt hole.

And so, like the dead bird on Maxine Waters' head, we're supposed to ignore it!

Even as he pretended to discuss an actual topic, his ad hominem insults continued. On this astonishing "cable news" show," Rep. Nadler is routinely assailed for how humongous and smelly his body waste is—and no, we aren't making that up—and Rep. Waters is often said to have a dead animal of some kind on her head.

His studio audiences cheer and applaud. "Man [sic] is the rational animal," Aristotle is widely said to have said.

Joe and Mika won't discuss this behavior. Neither will Rachel or Lawrence.

David Brooks won't discuss this behavior. That said, this behavior takes place, each weekday night, before a very large viewership all across our rapidly failing nation.

At this point, the furious fellow had made his transition from jokes about anal to what posed as a real discussion of a major news topic:

Director Gabbard was out there making her claims, and "the media" wasn't treating her claims as gospel. That had this strange person quite angry. Today, we'll show you the night assault he staged on the nation as his monologue continued.

(For the record, it's Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott who pries the lid off the can each night and lets this garbage slither out. We think it's important to say the names of the people who are most deeply at fault in this mess.)

The transition to the monologue had occurred. Where did this manifest nutcase go after that? 

Let's break his five-minute monologue up into its several parts. We'll leave mist of the personal insults in. Where would this friend be without them?

Part One: "They swallowed it like a dick"

The stranger and friend was angry now. Part One of his exposition went like this:

GUTFELD: Now it's the Russian collusion hoax. 

So as we unravel the scheme to derail a Trump presidency, the media now wants all of us to move on, after gaslighting us like Jerry Nadler with a Bic lighter near his butt hole.

And so, like the dead bird on Maxine Waters' head, we're supposed to ignore it!

[Videotape of CNN's Jeff Zeleny starting to challenge Gabbard]

GUTFELD: Oh, hmmmmppphh!

I get why they want everyone to forget the past ten years. I would want it as well if  I were them.

Their lies created more trauma than those leaked photos from Kathy Griffin's sex tape. 

[UNFLATTERING PHOTO OF KATHY GRIFFIN]

The Democrats, directed by Obama, concocted the claim that Trump conspired with Russia to win in 2016. Then they fed a made-to-order report of Russian meddling to the press, who swallowed it like a dick. 

No! Really, you have to be a dick to swallow stuff like that.

And it wasn't just some small story. It was a relentless narrative that actually ruined lives. What they did to all of us with this hoax is unforgivable and it demands justice.

The press corps "swallowed it like a dick," the articulate fellow now said. For the record:

If we're talking about the claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, everyone else has also "swallowed that claim," including the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in its voluminous five-volume report on the 2016 election.

Everyone agrees that the Russians did "meddle in that election!" Everyone understands that fact except this unrecognizable fellow.

On the other hand, if we're talking about the claim that Candidate Trump, or the Trump campaign, colluded with the Russians, no such claim was made in the treasonous report on which Gabbard has focused. 

The angry man probably didn't know that. He did know that, whatever the hell he was talking about, the press corps had swallowed it like a dick—and their conduct now demands justice!

Part Two: "The media" said that Russia hacked the election!

Where did the stranger go from there? Proceeding from above, he now played tape of seven journalists making a crazy claim in the months and years after the 2016 election:

GUTFELD: What they did to all of us with this hoax is unforgivable and it demands justice. And now, they want us to forget that they ever said this:

[Videotape of seven journalists saying that Russia "hacked the election."]

GUTFELD: Like Macauley Culkin, that hasn't aged well.

[UNFLATTERING PHOT0 OF CULKIN]

But every single legacy new outlet ran with bogus headlines

[These three headlines appeared on the screen}

CNN: Russian hacking and the 2016 election

MSNBC: Why experts believe Russia hacked the 2016 election

Mother Jones: Russian election hacking was very serious.

Incredible! At least seven journalists had said that Russia "hacked the election!" Also, the angry man showed us three headlines which made the same claim!

In truth, it's almost impossible to get any stupider than this angry fellow. In fact, everyone agrees that the Russians did "hack" the 2016 election. 

The claim refers to the way Russian entities like its Internet Research Agency stole material from Democratic Party entities, then used those stolen materials to make Candidate Clinton look bad.

Everyone agrees about this! Here's a passage from the Republican-led Senate committee where this obvious fact is being discussed:

RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATIONS 

At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations.

In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees, including campaign chairman John Podesta. In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government’s role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks. 

Every Republican senator, including acting chairman Rubio, agreed with that presentation. Everyone on the face of the earth understands these elementary facts—everyone except the Fox News Channel's resident nutcase, and the millions of people he propagandizes every night for $9 million per year.

Part Three: Konstatin Kilimnik

From there, the "cable news" star turned to an inane attack on Rachel Maddow. As he continued, Suzanne Scott's primal idiot told Fox viewers this:

GUTFELD: And who could forget our favorite Mark Cuban impersonator—

[PHOTOS OF RACHEL MADDOW AND MARK CUBAN]

who found a new crush in this guy, Konstantin Kilimnik.

[There followed ten brief video clips of Maddow saying "Konstantin Kilimnik." All ten carried a date of May 2018, imaginably having been drawn from one single show.]

GUTFELD: If I didn't know any better, I'd think she had the hots for that guy.

But it's hard to believe that this was taken seriously. No wonder they want everyone to forget it. They're like a drunk coworker who wakes up the next day hoping his pals forget that he went home with the office hunchback. 

But while Trump was framed, these hacks earned a living off it, wrote books, even won awards. It was the biggest scam since those pills I bought that promised to make me taller.

What a scam, this idiot said. Maddow almost seemed to have fallen in love with "this guy, Konstantin Kilimnik." 

It's hard to believe that this was taken seriously, he said.  So you'll know, here's a chunk from Volume 5 of that Senate committee report in which Paul Manafort, Candidate Trump's campaign chairman, is being discussed:

[Chairman] Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of Manafort's operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort's primary liaison to Deripaska and eventually managing Manafort's office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond. 

[...]

The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat. 

Every Republican senator agreed! Years later, there was Gutfeld, Suzanne's clown, disinforming millions of viewersand insulting Maddow, who is becoming one of his standard targetsas his studio audience sheered.

The Russians disinformed the public in various ways the public during the 2016 election; Gutfeld performs the same service today. That said, is it humanly possible to get any dumber than what this corporate idiot had now said? 

He had told millions of people who don't know better that it was crazy when journalists said that the Russia "hacked the election." He had told those same people that it was crazy when Maddow spoke about "this guy, Konstantin Kilimnik."

His ugly insults rolled down like mighty waters as he peddled this nonsensical tripe. Now, it was time for him to summarize.

Here's the way he did that:

Part Four: "There needs to be scalps"

GUTFELD:  The New York Times and Washington Post won Pulitzers for spreading the hoax. It's like Lia Thomas being named female athlete of the year just because she could fill her urine sample cup from four feet away.

So today the media is like a junkie that made your life hell for ten years, and now suddenly they claim it is all behind them...So, should you forget the hell that they put you through? No, we can't let this go. They need to make serious amends because we're still living with the aftermath...There needs to be consequences... 

There needs to be scalps.

"There needs to be scalps," the termagant said. There needs to be scalps because of the fact that many journalists were seen in public making blindingly obvious statements of fact about the 2016 election.

(With apologies, we've omitted parts of his closing declamation. You can watch by clicking here.)

Greg Gutfeld is your neighbor and friend. We advise you to pity the child.

On the other hand, Suzanne Scott turns him loose every afternoon and then again every night. This corporate action is a cancer on the possibility of maintaining an American nation, or are we unable to see that?

We've shown you what he said in his "monologue" that night. He was surrounded by four stooges as he did

Gutfeld!: Thursday, July 24, 2025
Joe Germanotta: restaurant owner
Kennedy: former VJ
Guy Benson: Fox News contributor
Michael Loftus: comedian

Tomorrow, we'll show you what those stooges then said. If possible, it may have gotten even dumber and even worse as they took their turns.

Over here in Blue America, this is all ignored. Our stars' pay levels are still quite good.

To appearances, no one wants to wrestle with Fox:

Please keep moving along!

Tomorrow: What they actually said...


170 comments:

  1. The Russia collusion HOAX is blowing up. Democrats Comey, Clinton, Clapper, Brennan, Smith among others will be frog marched to prison.

    The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't hold my breath. Except maybe for Brennan.

      Delete
    2. Holding one's breath has become routine, de rigueur, since Trump came to town with his Trump Stench wafting behind him everywhere he goes.

      Delete
    3. "The Russia collusion HOAX is blowing up. Democrats Comey, Clinton, Clapper, Brennan, Smith among others will be frog marched to prison."

      Brennan just said yesterday neither he nor his attorney has been contacted by DOJ. So I guess like all Trump's revenge prosecutions, this one's having a hard time getting going.

      But it takes time. Lots of time. Lots and lots of time.

      Delete
    4. "But it takes time"

      So, this is what you've been reduced to, Soros-bot, eh?

      Delete
    5. Repeat of Russian propaganda from years ago is tiresome. Could you at least be original?

      Delete
    6. Repeating "Russian propaganda" is tiresome.

      Delete


  2. All the mockery, all russiagate-related potential criminal prosecutions of your tribal asshole-bosses, it's all well-deserved, Bob. And you know it. You know it yourself. You know it better than most.

    As the first comment says, it's justice. Anything that may and will be done to any russiagate-monger is completely justified. God's mill grinds slowly, but exceedingly fine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. get back to us when Donald J Chickenshit answers questions under oath and faces a jury for the federal indictments he just fucking walked away from, fuckface.

      Delete
    2. Everyone can breathe easier.
      Trump said the Republican voter who isn't a bigot, will be bringing the charges.
      There's absolutely nothing to worry about.

      Delete
    3. a few comments -
      1) to the MAGAs above - the point TDH is making is that the allegedly treasonous hoax perpetrated against the poor innocent lamb (trump) was substantiated by a five-volume bipartisan report from the GOP controlled committee chaired by Rubio. This undermines the whole manufactured schtick that is enrapturing the true blue MAGAs. You guys simply ignore this key point.
      2. That said, the dems (in my view) went off the rails over the Russia thing. I can see why Trump supporters would be pissed off. Someone hacked the DNC emails, and I see no reason not to accept that it was the Russians - but the dems flogged the unproven, bogus claim that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that Russia's collusion brought about Trump's electoral college victory. Trump and his posse are now going all out in wreaking revenge against the dems with this as the hook, in their typical dishonest distortion of reality, by claiming that treason based on claims that the Senate committee substantiated.

      Delete
    4. Most likely, no one hacked DNC emails. There's no evidence of any hack: there's no server. Where is the server?

      Delete
    5. The issue is the MAGAS may have is that the Senate intelligence report doesn't say what intelligence they relied on to make their conclusions. And if they relied on the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, it.has been shown, through the declassified documents Gabbard released, to be based on biased and faulty intelligence that intelligence analysts at the time did not agree with.

      Delete
    6. And it has been known for a long time that the FBI relied on a private firm that the Democrats hired to make their conclusion it was hacked by Russia. Or something like that. That may get some of the subhumans riled up.

      Delete
    7. Not that any of it matters.

      Delete
    8. ...but the dems flogged the unproven, bogus claim that Trump colluded with the Russians,

      Go fuck yourself, AC/MA. CNN and NBC and CBS and ABC and FOX NOOZ and MSNBC fucking flogged the drip drip drip Wikileaks of the DNC emails for months running right up to election day.
      The only fucking victim here was Hillary Clinton and the dems. No fucking shit they were pissed. You are such an asshole.

      I can see why Trump supporters would be pissed No fu cking shit, since you are one of them

      Delete

    9. "was substantiated by a five-volume bipartisan report from the GOP controlled committee chaired by Rubio"

      I don't think Gabbard or anyone else is going to investigate the dealing of any government committee. The Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commission, etc., all of them, including this one, will remain historic events that don't necessarily describe reality. They're not supposed to. What they do is creating an official government narrative.

      Delete
    10. "wreaking revenge"?

      Earth to moron at 1:23, no one is actually being prosecuted or even investigated, it is merely a weak effort to distract from Epstein/tax cuts for the rich/increasing inflation/decreasing employment/no real trade deals/no end to ongoing wars, etc.

      Get a life, you poser.

      Delete
    11. 1:48, why don't you fucking learn English, Boris, before trolling on progressive comment boards,

      Delete
    12. Triggered, Hillary? Cope.

      Delete
    13. The trolls are getting defensive, their efforts are failing and they are having emotional breakdowns.

      So sad.

      Delete
    14. "Or something like that."

      Great command of the facts.

      Delete
    15. "And if they relied on the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, it.has been shown, through the declassified documents Gabbard released, to be based on biased and faulty intelligence that intelligence analysts at the time did not agree with."

      Which intelligence analysts? How many intelligence analysts? Does an unspecified amount of disagreement invalidate the Assessment?

      Delete
    16. Hector, why are you asking?

      Delete
    17. If you disagree with something I wrote, feel free to disprove it.

      Delete
    18. anon 1:34 thanks for your thoughtful critique, put forth in such elegant prose.Contrary to your vituperative assertion, I'm not a trump supporter in the least, he's obnoxious. I share your revulsion toward Trump, but probably not as over the top as you. You don't seem to have read my post that closely. Did you see where I pointed out that the MAGAs' "typical distortion of reality?" Maybe not enough F words for you?

      Delete
    19. anon 1:50 - that this treason narrative is being put forth to distract from the Epstein "scandal" is a theory, an argument. It may be true, but nothing in my post warrants your characterization of me as a "moron." You seem to be too promiscuous in hurling that invective against someone with a view that varies from yours. It seems that this Gabbard thing was in the works for a while before it was sprung on the world. The MAGA's are going all out on this treason thing. In their world it's a huge issue. I don't know, and you don't know if there will be any "investigation" or "prosecution." I agree that I can't see even Bondi's DOJ seeking any "treason" indictment, too crazy, but time will tell what will happen.

      Delete
    20. You seem to take the fact that 'intelligence analysts' did not agree with the overall assessment as conclusive evidence for the inaccuracy of the assessment.

      But before we could accept that claim, we would need to know how many analysts disagreed. What percentage of analysts did that represent? What were their reasons for disagreeing? How were their disagreements dealt with?

      Especially since, as I demonstrated conclusively in one of our prior dialogues, the universal acceptance of the conclusion that Putin 'denigrated' Clinton leads inevitably to the conclusion that Putin 'favored' Trump, thus rendering all talk of 'faulty' intelligence and other niceties of tradecraft rather pointless.

      Delete
    21. Okay great. I still stand by my statement. Feel free to show me where it's wrong. The answers to most of your questions are now in the public record.

      Delete
    22. I don't understand why you even care.

      Delete
    23. anon 1:34 thanks for your thoughtful critique,

      Why don't you cut the shit, AC, I am sick of it. As I said before, the only victim here was Hillary Clinton. I was fucking conscious during that 2016 campaign, and I sure as fuck saw how the FBI undermined her campaign from the minute she announced. And I saw Donald J Chickenshit cowardly evade and obstruct the Mueller investigation. Who the fuck do you think you're impressing with your sympathy for that monster fascist lying sack of shit.

      What ever happened to the FBI investigation into the FBI field office in NYC with unknown persons leaking to Rudy Guiiliani, Joeseph diGenova and he witch wife Victoria Toensing? It was ignored to death by the Republican lead DOJ. Spare me your fucking tears for your maggot friends.

      Dems did not "flog" the Russia investigation, so fuck you for making that unfounded claim. We watched in horror as Trump was allowed to totally obstruct the investigation from day one, tamper with witnesses, dangle pardons, refuse to answer questions under oath, and then have his paid dog Barr lie about the report in the end.

      Dems are the only ones that have a right to be pissed. And fuck Obama too for not supporting Hillary more forthrightly, and fuck Merrick Garland for letting Donald J Chickenshit skate. Where is fucking mealy mouthed Garland now, to stand behind Jack Smith being smeared by that fucking felon in the WH?

      Delete
    24. In July 2016, Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s “plan” to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.", according to his own handwritten notes.

      Delete
    25. "dangle" pardons lol.

      Delete
    26. The Tradecraft Review neither names nor numbers the disagreeing analysts.

      At one point it quotes "one CIA manager" and on the next page cites a "CIA analytic manager involved in the process", leaving one to wonder whether these were one and the same person, and just how many 'disagreeing' analysts there were.

      The bulk of the Review's criticism stems from the compressed time frame in which it was produced.

      But raise your hand if you think the Trump CIA would have carried on with the review, wherever the evidence led, and then published the results.

      Ha.

      Delete
    27. Russia, if you're listening, have 5:24 give the names of the Republican voters who give a shit about the private uses of email servers.
      Ten bucks says it'll turn out to be the Republican voter who isn't a bigot.

      Delete
    28. Hector, the answers you were looking for are not in that document.

      Delete
    29. But it doesn't have the names or the numbers either.

      Delete
    30. "Hillary Clinton’s “plan” to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia"

      Da comrade. "Plan" found in Russian files but is very authentic and not at all made up. You are right on the inside track.

      Next year in Moscow!

      Delete
    31. It's from Brennan's handwritten notes. I know you're not serious about any of this, but Hillary did try to tie Trump to Russia. She was showing ads about it and speaking publicly about it during the campaign. I know you're not serious. But you haven't thought through your argument. She did tie Trump to Russia. That's beyond dispute. But you're so used to automatically pushing back, I guess you forgot. To tie him to Russia, there's no debate about it. We all know it because we saw it. You're stuck on autopilot. And but I know you're not serious and just lonely. That's cool. But in this case, you're making a completely stupid point that you didn't even think about before you made it.

      Delete
    32. Go ahead and make the argument that she didn't have a plan to tie Trump to Russia. And then explain why she publicly tried to Trump to Russia. Do you see that it doesn't make any sense? You're stupid.

      Delete
    33. So funny you robots can't even think for yourself. Blind partisanship makes people really stupid. But please tell us all about how Hillary Clinton didn't have a plan to tie Trump to Russia. Please deny it!

      Delete
    34. This is from 2023, shit for brains maggot breath.

      Former President Donald Trump and one of his attorneys were ordered Thursday to pay nearly $1 million for a "completely frivolous" lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others.

      U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks concluded that Trump undermined "the rule of law" with a string of lawsuits filed to air political grievances.

      Middlebrooks wrote that the suit against Clinton, former FBI officials and the Democratic Party "should never have been brought." Middlebrooks ordered Trump and attorney Alina Habba to pay $937,989.39 to Clinton and the other defendants.

      A spokesperson for Habba and Trump declined to comment.


      Also, I guess John Durham in his 4fucking year investigation as a Special Counsel - which apparently is not constitutional except when investigating democrats - was too fucking dumb to find that smoking gun evidence, right maggot?

      Delete
    35. You're so dumb. It's crazy. Nobody is claiming it was illegal. Hillary Clinton had a plan to tie Trump to Russia. That is beyond dispute. Why are you afraid of that? It's indisputable. Why are you so dumb? Why did you think that meant it was illegal? Why are you so dumb?

      Delete
    36. You're an idiot. What happened to you along the way to make you so so dumb? Partisanship is really detrimental to intelligence and rationality.

      Delete
    37. You made politics your religion. That's how weak you are. You're a religious zealot.

      Delete
    38. John Durham showed beyond any type of dispute that the Hillary Clinton campaign manufactured false allegations against Trump and leaked them to the FBI and to the press. There's no disputing it at all. They show all the emails between the parties. You wouldn't know because you're too stupid to read them . And petrified that it go against your religious beliefs, as a weak religious zealot. No one is saying it was illegal though. In your ignorance and religious zealotry, you automatically think because someone wasn't march to jail that these things didn't happen. You're stupid. Partisanship ruined your brain.

      Delete
    39. It must be exhausting to be a religious extremist. It certainly makes you act like a fool.

      Delete
    40. 8:32, Donald J Chickenshit and his parking garage legal beagle Alina Habba were claiming it was illegal either, shit for brains maggot dumb fuck. That was a purely civil suit you asshole.

      Former President Donald Trump and one of his attorneys were ordered Thursday to pay nearly $1 million for a "completely frivolous" lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others.

      U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks concluded that Trump undermined "the rule of law" with a string of lawsuits filed to air political grievances.

      Middlebrooks wrote that the suit against Clinton, former FBI officials and the Democratic Party "should never have been brought." Middlebrooks ordered Trump and attorney Alina Habba to pay $937,989.39 to Clinton and the other defendants.

      A spokesperson for Habba and Trump declined to comment.

      Delete
    41. These weird DNC religious cultist extremists insist that their gods that they worship and put their faith in completely are presented always as whole and clean and perfect. They are not humans. They are gods. They are perfect in every way. and always do everything perfectly.


      To hese demented religious freaks, any thing said negative about their gods is blasphemy that must be punished and erased from the record with any kind of fantasy logic! Blasphemers must be shamed and imprisoned.

      You are dumb as shit.

      Delete
    42. It's interesting. That's where you ended up. A religious zealot and a religious cult. I'll tell you from experience, it's better on the outside.

      Delete
    43. I know Trump thought it was illegal. Who cares? That's not the point. The point is Hillary Clinton had a plan to tie Trump to Russia starting from July of 2016. It's in the public record and beyond dispute. Why does that bother you?

      Delete
    44. "You're so dumb. It's crazy. Nobody is claiming it was illegal."

      Trump claimed they were a violation of civil law. And his suit, as 8:24 points out, was laughed out of court.

      And the "Clinton plan" you keep referencing comes from a couple of emails forged by Russian intelligence (or do I even have to tell you that?).

      Delete
    45. Are you really this dumb, trump lickspittle 8:56?
      Trump sued in a civil court. Try again, shit-for-brains maggot breath.

      Delete
    46. Trump tied himself to Russia. The evidence is that Hillary is no longer active in politics but Trump is still tied to Russia.

      Delete
    47. John Durham and a thousand Russian spies with a thousand planted stories couldn't land a punch. What a useless pussy.

      Delete

    48. Here's a very good (if a bit long) Consortium News article on this subject:
      PATRICK LAWRENCE: How to Read the Durham Appendix

      Sample:
      "Many prominent Democrats had by then professed in front of microphones and cameras to have or have seen evidence of Russia’s malevolent deeds. But in May of that year they all admitted in congressional testimonies they had none and had seen none.

      CrowdStrike, so key to the whole story, acknowledged on Page 32 of the closed-door House Intelligence Committee testimony that it had no forensic data or metadata establishing a Russian hack of the DNC’s mail servers.

      What a difference a legally binding oath makes, I recall chortling at the time.
      "

      Delete
    49. LOL, 2:04 AM: Is that why Donald J Chickenshit obstructed the Mueller investigation and had his balls shrink when he was asked to testify under oath?

      What a difference a legally binding oath makes,

      Delete
    50. "CrowdStrike, so key to the whole story, acknowledged on Page 32 of the closed-door House Intelligence Committee testimony that it had no forensic data or metadata establishing a Russian hack of the DNC’s mail servers."

      Not true. Sean Henry of Crowdstrike says at that point in the testimony he doesn't have concrete evidence that Russian hackers exfiltrated data during the attack. He doesn't say he lacks evidence that they hacked in.

      What a difference following a link makes.

      Delete
    51. "John Durham and a thousand Russian spies with a thousand planted stories couldn't land a punch. What a useless pussy."

      Ah, the manly man theory of criminal investigation, under which, if you don't get enough convictions, it's because you're a pussy.

      Duh.

      Delete
    52. Sure, 8:49, the difference between no hack and a hack with nothing taken is UGE. Sure thing. What a difference.

      Delete
    53. Yes, especially considering that "key to the whole story", the basis of the Russia Hoax narrative was Russian government stealing DNC emails and giving them to WikiLeaks. No evidence of that.

      Delete
    54. a) you're the one who provided the article with the false information. All I did was show it was false.

      b) Shawn Henry testified that the data was "staged for exfiltration", but that Crowdstrike didn't see the actual exfiltration occurring.

      Days later, George Papadopolous was told Russians were in possession of stolen DNC emails.

      Wikipedia says:

      "CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, stated the leak was part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian intelligence groups."

      So how have they all concluded this if there's "no evidence that Russians stole the emails and gave them to Wikileaks?

      Delete
    55. I hope Hector is joking.

      Delete
    56. Hector, you need to ask them that. That's why it's controversial and suspect. They concluded Russia did it but they don't have any evidence that they did.

      Delete
    57. George Papadopolous was NOT told Russians were in possession of stolen DNC emails. That particular hoax had died years ago.

      Delete
    58. Hector, maybe we can pull you out of the congregation of the disinformed Trump is right. This was a hoax. It doesn't mean Trump is good! It's just the truth.

      Delete
    59. Keep in mind Crowdstrike was paid for completely by the DNC.

      Delete
    60. Hector, in reference to your Wikipedia reference, crowdstrike said that when they were not under oath. Under oath they said they didn't have evidence.

      Delete
    61. Here, this was published today:

      https://www.racket.news/p/open-letter-to-the-columbia-journalism

      it addresses the Papadopolous story, among other things.

      Delete
    62. Hector is furiously googling trying to defend the hoax. Let me guess, his campaign manager gave swing state polling data to a Russian spy!

      Delete
    63. It will be so much better for the Democratic party when they can admit this was a hoax. Having to lie about it and pretend that it was is a drag on the party. It's debilitating.

      Delete
    64. Yes, the super-secret polling data. Once Russians get their paws on it, it's the end of America as we knew it.

      Delete
    65. Julian Assange grilled about his associations with Roger Stone and Russia: Does he seem guilty of working with them?

      https://youtu.be/lNdG6iE4a84?feature=shared

      Delete
    66. "They concluded Russia did it but they don't have any evidence that they did."

      Then why did they conclude that, with no evidence? All of them.

      Delete
    67. You have to ask them that. Maybe it's because they were getting paid to make people think that was the case. The DNC was their client and that's what the DNC wanted people to think. The DNC had been caught. kneecapping, Sanders, etc. With those emails so it was helpful that to them to be able to spin questions about that and spend the whole story into Russian plot. Crowdstrike was there their client and getting paid millions so you figure it out.

      Delete
    68. Ha-ha, what a question. Why do they follow the official narrative and blame officially appointed boogieman. Why indeed.

      Delete
    69. All of them said that. But not under oath. When one of them that said that was under oath, they said the opposite. So you figure it out. Hector.

      Delete
    70. "it was helpful that to them to be able to spin questions about that and spend the whole story into Russian plot."

      This is completely untrue. The content of the emails had nothing to do with how they were exposed.

      So the DNC had no motive to pay Crowdstrike to falsely state there was a Russian hack.

      And you haven't addressed why the other firms listed who weren't on the DNC payroll would make false statements about it.

      I really blew up your whole theory, didn't I?

      Delete
    71. It helped the DNC a lot, methinks.

      If it's leaked by Seth Rich, Clinton's employee, it's a fair game. But if it's stolen by the official enemy, those who publish it work for the enemy.

      I seem to remember there was a leak of some Macron's shit before his re-election a few years ago. It was declared, naturally, a "Russian hack", and no one was allowed to publish it, as I remember.

      Delete
    72. Here's how the article put it, it contradicts the claim that the content was irrelevant to how they were portrayed.

      "So began the sometimes grotesque, sometimes silly, always destructive chicanery of the Russiagate years. I date its first appearance to Friday, July 22, 2016, when WikiLeaks released roughly 20,000 emails pilfered from the Democratic National Committee’s servers.

      Among much else, these showed that the DNC had systematically subverted the campaign, for a time a threat to the party’s neoliberal elites, of Bernie Sanders.

      So did the fictions, coverups and deflections begin.

      On the Sunday talk shows but two days later, Robby Mook, manager of Clinton’s campaign, went back-to-back on ABC’s This Week and CNN’s State of the Union to explain that what concerned the Clinton people and the DNC was not what was in the mail but — you can finish the sentence — the Russians’ intrusion into the party’s computer servers."

      Delete
    73. Hector, it doesn't matter to me if you stay in the congregation of the disinformed.

      Delete
    74. The DNC had a strong motive to have Crowdstrike falsely state there was a Russian hack. They had initiated a hoax to play on the public, ordinary voters, of which a Russian hack played a big part.

      Delete
    75. Recognizing and admitting you are wrong about this not being a hoax does not equal death. Only to your ego does it equal death.

      Delete
    76. There were 4 posts seemingly in response to mine at 11 AM, none of which addressed my arguments, save possibly 11:14.

      Except that this idea of a 'Clinton Plan' to smear Trump with Russia collusion comes from a couple of Russian emails that are most likely Russian forgeries.

      And still glaringly unaddressed are the motives of the other firms I listed, which I will repeat here: Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica.

      Were they ALL on the DNC payroll? Any evidence for this?

      Delete
    77. Crowdstrike was the only firm that had direct access to the DNC servers. The other firms are making independent analysis based on the Crowdstrike data and don't offer any independent confirmation. (This is true of the FBI as well) They're just endorsing what Crowdstrike said.

      Delete
    78. "Except that this idea of a 'Clinton Plan' to smear Trump with Russia collusion comes from a couple of Russian emails that are most likely Russian forgeries."

      Embarrassing.

      Delete
    79. Clinton did smear Trump with accusations of Russian collusion. You're so desperate to prove there wasn't a hoax you're forgetting what actually happened in the real world.

      Delete
    80. It's just pathetic at this point. At some point you'll see or be able to admit it. It will be healthy for Democrats when they are able to do that.

      Delete
    81. Are you saying the Republican Party became an international pedophile ring to spite Hillary Clinton?
      I wouldn't put it past them, but I'm going to need to see proof of that.

      Delete
    82. Hector, don't run to Wikipedia trying to make an argument that there was not a hoax. We get it that there's plenty of arguments you may have. They've all been very well conceived and orchestrated from the highest levels. The highest levels of power will support you. There's no need to try to convince me or anyone else that there isn't a hoax. The reasons to believe that there is not our all around us and have been this whole time. You really blew up the whole theory already, remember? So please spare us further humiliation. ;)

      Delete
    83. Russiagate was cooked-up by the corporate-owned Right-wing media (AKA the mainstream media), because they didn't want to report the obvious---that Trump won the Presidency due to Republican voters love for his bigotry.
      Remember, the same media trial ballooned "economic anxiousness" first, which failed because no one is stupid enough to think there is a Republican voter who understands economics.

      Delete
    84. The whole Russia angle is stupid, because you don't need a foreign power amping-up Republicans to vote for a bigot and rapist to be President of the United States.

      Delete
    85. This time there were 8 replies, again only one responsive to my post. 11:30 claimed the other cyber security firms had looked at the same 'data' that Crowdstrike did, and had simply aped Crowdstrike's conclusions.

      Yet both FireEye and Fidelis, at a minimum, claim to have independently examined the 'malware' (not data) that was used and came to their own independent conclusions about its source.

      “FireEye analyzed the malware found on DNC networks and determined that it was consistent with our previous observations of APT28 tools.”

      https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/apt28-at-the-center-of-the-storm.pdf (p.7 of 15)

      “Fidelis said the company was brought onboard to analyze the malware used in the DNC breach. It performed its own independent review and found that the malware was similar to those Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are known to use in the past.”

      https://www.computerworld.com/article/1681857/russian-hackers-were-behind-dnc-breach-says-fidelis-cybersecurity.html

      See? Running to Google can get pretty good results.

      Delete
    86. Assuming it's true (in whatever sense of "true"), how is this at all noteworthy, that "malware was similar to those Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are known to use in the past"? It's a completely vacuous pronouncement. Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear and no one else? Or Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear and everyone else? Anyhow, anyone can use any set of hacking tools. And if it was those bears, who hired them? GRU? MI6? Mossad?

      Idiotic bullshit, all this.

      Delete
    87. And yet all those cyber security firms, having reviewed the malware, apparently concluded it was Russia.

      But perhaps you know more about cyber security than they do.

      Delete
    88. Yeah, right, firms "concluded". What they were told to "conclude" and paid to "conclude", they "concluded". Same as the CIA "concluded" that Vladimir Putin "aspired" something or rather, only it's probably easier to do with firms.

      Delete
    89. Examining the malware cannot determine if the data was exfiltrated. Hector, you're embarrassing. You're like a little boy running to Google to get proof of something you want to be true. That shit is all your ego man. You don't know what you're talking about and you haven't made any valid points.

      Delete
    90. " similar to" and "consistent with previous observations" of the malware used? We're talking about proof data was exfiltrated. Those are hedging statements. They don't have anything to do with the core issue. You're stupid.

      Delete
    91. Running to Google each time just makes you look stupid. Which you are.

      Delete
    92. The whole Russia angle is stupid, because you don't need a foreign power amping-up Republicans to vote for a bigot and rapist to be President of the United States.

      Delete
    93. Three 'stupids' and one 'little boy.'

      I win.

      Delete
  3. "We've long advised against our own Blue America's impulse to drop our tribe's various bombs—racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe and the like."

    And, for the most part, it's always been bad advice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's just Bob's way of saying there are no economically anxious people on the Right.

      Delete
    2. 12:30, agree.

      TDH's advice always seems to favor right wingers, at the expense of Dems.

      Funny, that.

      Delete
    3. Somerby has been calling out Gutfeld for his misogyny. And Gutfeld represents the norm of today’s Republican Party. If the bomb fits, maybe it should be dropped. The truth hurts, but Somerby wants it hushed up.

      Delete
    4. "'We've long advised against our own Blue America's impulse to drop our tribe's various bombs—racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe and the like.'

      "And, for the most part, it's always been bad advice."

      Any evidence to support your assertion that this is bad advice, or shall we just take your word for it? (The contrary evidence, of course, is that the Repubs now own the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court.)

      Delete
    5. "TDH's advice always seems to favor right wingers, at the expense of Dems."

      Actually that's the opposite of the truth. TDH seeks to sharpen Dem thinking so that it will become more effective (we won't lose any more elections to nutbag blowhards).

      Delete
    6. Republicans voting for a rapist to be President, because their feelings got hurt by people calling them names is Bob's theory, not mine.

      Delete
    7. The backlash against woke seems to be a major motivator on the right, if you haven't yet noticed. The more we call people racists, the more people seem to vote for Trump.

      Delete
    8. Dogface George,
      What would you rather us call the racists who vote Republican, and why do you think that will sway them to not elect a child rapist to run the country?

      Delete
    9. I have yet to see a maggot define "woke", which apparently can be anything they say it is. No, I haven't notice, Dog.

      Delete
    10. 5:33 - We have an Anon here who is constantly telling us that all Republican voters are racists. Besides being an obviously false statement, this is the kind of behaviour which inexorably leads to Republican victories--even when their candidate is a convicted felon who incited a riot in the Capitol itself.

      Delete
    11. What Somerby refers to as bombs is the traditional left wing support for human rights and civil rights. That applies to women, indigenous people, transgender people, minorities and now immigrants, and all who are being persecuted under our laws (which do not permit it).

      When has the modern-day left not supported civil rights? To urge Democrats to stop that important plank in our party is ridiculous of Somerby. The term "woke" is a right wing invention. It is not used by those of us on the left to complain about drag shows or PC language. Someone who dislikes woke is just not a Democrat.

      It is true to that some people left the party to join Trump. They used "too much woke" to justify their switch. That doesn't mean Democrats did anything wrong by supporting feminism, decrying patriarchy, encouraging affirmative action, taking measures toward inclusion, and the other actions Trump and right have been dismantling. We get it that the right is against what we believe in. But claiming that Democrats shouldn't try to advance the issues, policies, progress and causes that WE believe in because it annoys the Republicans, is just plain nuts.

      Dogface complains about someone calling Republicans racists. I tend to agree with whoever that is. How can any self-respecting person who believes in civil rights follow a party that is putting White Supremacists and their ideology in the forefront of their destruction of our government and our democracy?

      This is serious and I care about what happens to ALL people in our nation. I cannot stand what is happening to immigrants. I mourn the lives that were sacrificed to enact civil rights policies and procedures, undone by DOGE and Trump. It shouldn't be possible for Trump do dismantle what voters enacted like this, but Republicans are the main ones letting him do it, so I hold them responsible. And yes, that makes them bigots. And no, acknowledging that is not a "bomb" carelessly hurled at someone I disagree with, it is a label applied to someone who holds certain views that are inimical to what defines a good decent person, in my opinion, and contrary to what our country is about. I want Trump and his co-conspirators gone. I want a return to sanity. And Somerby is absolutely not sane in the way he chides the left. He is allying himself with the wrong side, and he is not being good or decent in doing so. Neither is DG.

      Delete
    12. DG is outnumbered by anon commenters here who disagree with his Somerby-supporting jive. There isn't just one.

      Delete
    13. "Someone who dislikes woke is just not a Democrat."

      There's an election-losing proposition if I ever heard one.

      Delete
    14. Go ahead, if you like, with your promiscuous calling of names. And get used to perpetual Republican rule.

      Delete
    15. 8:41 - You said it better than I could. Kicking people out of the tent may give us a nice rush of moral superiority, but unfortunately that is a poor substitute for electoral victory.

      Delete
    16. It isn't promiscuous to call a specific person a racist if you have evidence of racist behavior and attitudes. It is called being accurate.

      Of course racists don't like being called racist, but they won't feel comfortable in a party dedicated to civil rights to all, in any case. They choose to be Republicans because their values align with that party. There is no advantage to Democrats in abandoning our principles and the historic platform of our party just to get racists to join us. We would become them, if we did that. They are not "kicked out" of the tent but voluntarily choose to support assholes like Trump, who appeal to their racist beliefs.

      Don't kid yourself that right wingers don't consider themselves to be morally superior to Democrats. They think we are degenerate demons ruled by Satan, who want to destroy the country and can't make money and so have to live on handouts. Is that any better than us calling them racists (a word that exists, as opposed to demons which are fictional).

      I think the first step to winning is for Democrats to stop attacking each other, unit around some shared values and programs, and stop this public back-biting which hurts our prospects and candidates. Look what a faction of Democrats (aided by Republicans and billionaire media) did to Biden when he tried to get reelected. Look what Carville does every time he opens his gaping mouth. Look at the team at Pod Save America, who thought Biden was feeble and used their show to knock him down, then didn't support Harris either. That's why we lost to Trump. The right enforces party discipline using power (some say abusing power). The left shoots at each other for months until someone wins the nomination and then they go off and sulk instead of campaigning (as Bernie did repeatedly).

      If you truly believe Somerby is a liberal and AC/MA is a Democrat, why are they both busily attacking the left (esp progressive voices) on this blog, instead of coalescing around a consensus platform that can be used to first resist and then take down Trump and MAGA in the midterms?

      Delete
    17. Because Somerby is a blogger who writes about the media, not a political activist. That's why.

      Delete
    18. He writes about the media. Ok. I guess that’s why he criticizes liberals for throwing “bombs.”

      Delete
    19. I don't know if Cecelia is a man, if Somerby secretly hates Dems, or Pinker is innocent; but I sure as fuck know every Republican voter votes to hurt lower castes then theirs; making them all asshole bigots, racial or otherwise.

      Delete
    20. Don't be coy. Tell us exactly which group of people shouldn't have their rights protected, without using the word "woke".

      Delete
    21. "Besides being an obviously false statement..."

      There it is, again. DG thinks if he uses the word "obviously", it's some kind of proof.

      Delete
  4. The quote about Russian hacking operations is from the Mueller report, not the Senate intelligence report.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The “scalps” are for the CRIMES

    “69% Agree: ‘RussiaGate’ Requires Accountability

    In the wake of revelations about the so-called “RussiaGate” scandal, more than two-thirds of voters agree with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that there must be “accountability” FOR ANY CRIMES COMMITTED.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mainstream media disappearing the blatant bigotry of Republican voters as the reason Trump was elected President, led to all kinds of stories, like Russiagate or economic anxiousness.
      Speaking of, is Tulsi investigating who was behind the economic anxiousness lie the MSM was pushing?

      Delete
    2. get back to us when Donald J Chickenshit answers questions under oath and faces a jury for the federal indictments he just fucking walked away from, you fucking fascist freak

      Delete
    3. Where are the photos of Obama and Russiagate partying together for decades on end?

      Delete
    4. Liberals correctly realize that crime enforcement people, including ICE, should be punished for committing illegal or immoral acts. That standard should apply to all government employees.

      Delete
    5. Dickhead, [You] swallowed it like a dick" LOL

      Delete
    6. Trump ran for president in order to avoid facing responsibility for his crimes.

      Anyone that voted for Trump is complicit in covering up his heinous crimes.

      Delete
    7. Dickhead in Cal: get back to us when Donald J Chickenshit answers questions under oath and faces a jury for the federal indictments he just fucking walked away from, you fucking fascist freak

      Delete
    8. And if no crimes were committed?

      No "scalps"?

      Delete
    9. We already know no crimes were committed.

      Special Counsel John Durham was appointed in 2019 by Bill Barr to investigate the origin of the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election (aka the 'Russia hoax').

      He came up with 2 acquittals, and one conviction resulting in probation/community service. Not a single day in jail.

      That's the only scalp there'll ever be.

      Delete
    10. Presumably, more than 69% would agree that no accountability is required for no crimes. That's how the question should've been posed. The pollster needs to be fired for rigging a poll.

      Delete
    11. “Several sources confirm that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judge approved a wiretap against Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
      However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) later admitted to the FISA court that the evidence used to justify the continued wiretapping of Page in the latter half of 2017 was legally insufficient. A report by the Department's Inspector General found inaccuracies, omissions, and false statements made by the FBI when applying for warrants to surveil Page. The report highlighted a pattern of misstatements and a failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to the FISA court.
      Following the release of the Inspector General's report, a FISA court judge issued a rare public rebuke of the FBI's handling of the wiretap applications and ordered the bureau to implement changes to its FISA application process. A former FBI lawyer involved in preparing one of the Page FISA applications later pleaded guilty to altering an email related to the application.
      While the wiretap on Page was approved by a FISA court judge, the subsequent revelations about the flaws and inaccuracies in the application process cast a shadow on the legitimacy of some of those approvals.”

      Delete
    12. Let’s see: comey didn’t run to the press with the FBI investigation of Trump. He did however rush to disclose Hillary … something something .. emails. The Russia investigation was started by Jeff sessions, Republican, run by Robert Mueller, a Republican, under President Donald Trump, a Republican. Sessions was replaced by Barr, a Republican. Where is Obama in all of this?

      Delete
    13. Hector — At least one crime was committed. Kevin Kleinsmith was convicted of a crime for falsifying evidence that allowed Carter Page to be wiretapped.

      Delete
    14. "Where is Obama in all of this?"

      Obama ordered a fake Russia Hoax investigation, to be trumpeted and endlessly parroted, for years, by the Democrat media as if it was a real one. In fact, they still do it.

      It's not too complicated.

      Delete
    15. DiC,

      Right. I referenced the Clinesmith conviction in my post.

      Delete
    16. The Democrat media is run by the Republican voter who isn't a bigot.
      It's all the same imaginary person.

      Delete
    17. "Obama ordered a fake Russia Hoax investigation"

      But Mueller was in on it too, right? All the detail of Russian interference that formed the basis for the indictments of 12 Russian officials that Mueller brought, that was all made up, per Obama's plan, right?

      Because Mueller, a Republican, would naturally bow to the will of a Democratic president who wasn't even in office during Mueller's investigation, and Mueller, along with his large staff, would completely falsify pages of pages of alleged activities to comply with the directive of an ex-President from the opposite party.

      And none of his staff has ever breathed a word of this. Until now it's just coming out.

      Got any more scoops for us, Boris?

      Delete
    18. There are quite a few photos of Trump dining with and appearing in public with Russian gangsters and oligarchs who he colluded with in money laundering prior to entering politics (at their suggestion), aside from his cordial interactions with Putin. Also photos and news reports about Trump and the NYC mob during his construction days.

      Delete
    19. I think Mueller was threatened and took the death threats seriously. Same with Merrick Garland.

      Delete
    20. Okay, so you've got a baseless opinion about Mueller.

      How about John Durham? He looked at this exact question, you breathtaking nimrod. Durham was appointed to look at the exact question of the origin of the FBI investigation into Russian interference in 2016. He's a Republican appointed by a Republican who worked for Trump. And he came up with squat doodly.

      Now why don't you type, "I think Durham was threatened" and then go turn on Fox News because I'm sure this factual information is very unsettling for you.

      Delete
    21. Yes, my opinion is speculation. But it at least explains the observed behavior of these two men who both let down the country with their failure to show more integrity in their work.

      Durham was investigating Democratic targets, not the relationship between Trump and Russia during his campaign. Democrats did not threaten Durham because there was nothing for him to find, which is why he came up with nothing. If Durham had investigated Trump and his collusion with Russia, he might have come up with something (as others did) and needed to be threatened, which would have been easy to accomplish given that his career depends on Trump's favor.

      Ask me whether I think Ghislaine Maxwell has been threatened.

      Delete
    22. If anything, Mueller had too much integrity in his work.



      Delete

    23. "But Mueller was in on it too, right?" "Because Mueller, a Republican"

      Mueller is a demented figurehead ala Dementia Joe. Half of the time he doesn't know his own name. The main henchman in that project was a character named "Andrew Weissmann".

      Also whether someone is a registered Democrat or Republican, it means nothing in this affair. TDS-sicko or not TDS-sicko, yes, that means something. But mostly on that level people do what's good for them, for their careers.

      Delete
    24. Wow. You must work at the highest levels of government to have such inside knowledge of how such people behave. Very impressive.

      Delete
    25. I assume Mueller must have criticized child rape, to get 1:31 this worked up.

      Delete
  6. If Kilimnik was a source for the US State Department for years and had met with the State Department in June of 2016, how great of a threat could he really be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was a conduit between Trump and Russian operatives who helped Trump get elected.

      Delete
  7. Lots of words from Somerby, his sad attempt to deflect and distract, but to no avail; Epstein is here to stay, along with Trump's plummeting popularity.

    womp womp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Play with yourself.

      Delete
    2. 1:58 got triggered by 1:05.

      Sure it is funny 1:05, but people like 1:58 aren't born that way, these lost souls, they are suffering, let's at least show them some pity.

      Delete
    3. Awww. Did I trigger you?

      Delete
    4. People who deliberately hurt other people do not deserve pity. Save the pity for the victims, not the perpetrators.

      Delete
  8. Former President Donald Trump and one of his attorneys were ordered Thursday to pay nearly $1 million for a "completely frivolous" lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others.

    U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks concluded that Trump undermined "the rule of law" with a string of lawsuits filed to air political grievances.

    Middlebrooks wrote that the suit against Clinton, former FBI officials and the Democratic Party "should never have been brought." Middlebrooks ordered Trump and attorney Alina Habba to pay $937,989.39 to Clinton and the other defendants.

    A spokesperson for Habba and Trump declined to comment.

    On Friday morning, Trump voluntarily dropped a lawsuit against New York State Attorney General Letitia James that had sought to stall her office's $250 million civil case brought in September against Trump and his company. James' office has accused Trump and his company of widespread fraud.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-frivolous-lawsuit-ordered-to-pay-drops-suit-new-york-letitia-james/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump's suit against Clinton was dismissed by Middlebrooks in September. The suit had claimed Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey and other officials had conspired to hurt Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign through allegations of collusion with Russia.

      Delete
    2. "A spokesperson for Habba and Trump declined to comment. "


      bwahahahahahahahaha!

      Supposedly talk is cheap, Trump and his cronies run their mouth until the rubber hits the road, and suddenly they clam up.

      "Epstein who?", they ask, trying to cover up their crimes, but no one is buying it anymore.

      Delete
    3. What crimes exactly?

      Delete
    4. Raping children used to be a crime, until it became a way to let other Right-wingers know you are one of them.
      It's the new being anti-vaccine or pro-Russia.

      Delete
    5. Habba must lick the old man's ass well 'cause all she do in court is cost him money.

      Delete
  9. Trump is a criminal, and he has filled his admin with similar criminals.

    Cope.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trump is America's Tiny Dick Tater.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...and insulting Maddow, who is becoming one of his standard targets..."

    Ahem.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Many of us here do not watch Gutfeld or Schultz. Some of us are women who are not part of the manosphere (and don't want to be). Some of us see Gutfeld as a propagandist and have never heard Somerby explain why we, as liberals, should expose ourselves to Gutfeld's tasteless propaganda and misinformation. There is an endless supply of that stuff on the right. We didn't like Limbaugh either, but we won't interfere with the right of conservatives to listen to whatever garbage they choose. It is in the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shut the fuck up and put my dinner on the table.

      Delete
    2. An asshole like you can only boss around a pretend spouse online as no real woman would have anything to do with you.

      Delete