THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2025
Obvious fact disappears: As you may have heard, the Fox News Channel's Gutfeld! program is, according to Nielsen, the third most-watched TV show in all of "cable news."
Its host also tends to dominate proceedings as a co-host on The Five–and The Five has the highest viewership of any "cable news" program!
On this perfectly reasonable basis, the New York Times has published two profiles of Greg Gutfeld and his insult-driven Gutfeld! show within the past two months. Today, we'll focus on two remarkably bogus ideas those profiles have continued to promulgate.
The first such misconception was sitting in the dual headline above this profile of Kat Timpf, one of Greg Gutfeld's nightly sidekicks on his eponymous Gutfeld! show. The profile of Timpf appeared in late September. It sat beneath these headlines:
A Baby. A Double Mastectomy. Many Opinions From Fox News Viewers.
Kat Timpf got pregnant, got breast cancer, then got back to work on the political comedy show “Gutfeld!”—all as a culture war brews over ambition, motherhood and women’s health.
That was (and is) the dual headline. Our question would be this:
Is Gutfeld! a "political comedy show?" Is it a "comedy show" at all?
That's the way the Fox News Channel describes the insult-driven show, but is that characterization accurate? We would say that the answer is no.
We'd say that Gutfeld! is a corporate messaging show. We'd say its tribal messaging is smuggled in under cover of comedy stylings.
We're sorry, but Gutfeld! simply isn't a "comedy show" in the way that designation might suggest. Each night, the program opens with two or three minutes of jokes delivered by its highly transgressive host, but he then delivers a monologue on some issue or topic and the mayhem proceeds from there.
Over the course of four or five segments, the host states his view with respect to a series of such topics. After Gutfeld has stayed his view, a hand-picked panel of four stooges proceed to express their agreement with everything he has said.
On most evenings, two or three of these savants may be D-list comedians. But this is not your mother or father's "comedy show" in the way that term will imply.
That first misconception was sitting right there in that New York Times headline. The second misconception takes the form of a flat misstatement of fact.
That misstatement is advanced, right from the jump, in the newspaper's new interview / profile of Greg Gutfeld himself. The profile, written by David Marchese, appeared online last weekend. The coming Sunday, the profile is slated to appear in print editions as part of the New York Times Magazine.
The profile of Gutfeld is already available online. As he starts, Marchese advances a flat misstatement of fact–and it's clear that Marchese knows this.
As we noted yesterday, this is the way the new interview / profile starts, New York Times headline included:
The Interview
Fox News Wanted Greg Gutfeld to Do This Interview. He Wasn’t So Sure.
Why can’t conservatives break through on late-night TV? For years, that was an open cultural question. The left, of course, had “The Daily Show” and “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver,” among others. Once the Trump era began, progressives could also point to hosts like Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel and Seth Meyers as being politically simpatico. The right had, well, no one.
That is, until Greg Gutfeld. Formerly a health and men’s magazine editor, Gutfeld joined Fox News in 2007 to helm the later-than-late-night chat free-for-all “Red Eye.” He worked his way up the network’s schedule, and in 2021 his new show, “Gutfeld!” started airing on weekday nights at 11 p.m. on the East Coast. (It’s now on at 10 p.m.) Its format is different from traditional host-driven late-night shows: Rather than interview celebrity guests, Gutfeld presides over a round table of regular panelists, among them the former professional wrestler Tyrus and the commentator Kat Timpf, the designated (occasional) contrarian. The overall vibe is insult-heavy, aggressively anti-woke and relentlessly pro-conservative. It’s a successful formula. The show averages over three million viewers a night—numbers that dwarf its competitors’.
Sad.
Much of what Marchese writes in that opening passage is perfectly accurate. That said, some of what he writes plainly isn't–and it's already clear that Marchese understands that fact.
In our view, Marchese's portrait of the content of this show–or at least of the program's "vibe"–is perfectly accurate. The contents of this messaging vehicle are exactly as Marchese says:
The program's contents are indeed "insult-heavy, aggressively anti-woke and relentlessly pro-conservative." That "vibe" originates with its 61-year-old host and is then aped by an ever-changing nightly panel of four reliable stooges.
(On most nights, that congregation will include the aforementioned Timpf, the program's "designated (occasional) contrarian." For ourselves, we'd be inclined to add the word "very" before the word "occasional.")
To his credit, Marchese has apparently watched enough Gutfeld! broadcasts to offer a bit of skepticism about the program's casting. He's willing to say that Timpf has been placed within the cast to offer "occasional" contrarian views–but he also serves as Gutfeld's fifth stooge when he describes the Gutfeld! program as a "late-night show" whose viewership numbers "dwarf" the numbers of "its competitors."
Within the realm of "cable news," Gutfeld! actually is a heavily watched program. But based upon standard industry parlance, the program simply isn't a "late night show," and it's already clear that Marchese knows that.
Fellow Times subscribers, please! Is Gutfeld! really a late-night show? As Marchese plainly knows, these are some of this program's additional numbers:
When the Gutfeld! program airs:
Eastern time zone: 10 p.m.
Central time zone: 9 p.m.
Mountain time zone: 8 p.m.
Pacific time zone: 7 p.m.
Right there in Gotham itself, Gutfeld! airs at 10 p.m. Based on long-standing industry parlance, that fact would seem to mean that Gutfeld! is really a primetime program.
In Gotham, it doesn't air at 11:30 p.m., the traditional starting time for "late night" (comedy) shows. But the misstatement in question becomes more glaring as we venture across the fruited plain. discovering that Gutfeld! goes to air at these times in other well-known cities:
When the Gutfeld! program airs:
Chicago, Houston, Dallas: 9 p.m.
Denver, sometimes Phoenix: 8 p.m.
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle: 7 p.m.
For the record, the Tonight show airs at 11:35 in New York–and at the same time out on the coast. By way of contrast, Gutfeld! airs at 10 p.m. in New York City, but at 7 p.m. in Hollywood and all the way up the west coast!
On what planet has any such program ever been described as a "late night" show? We'd say the question answers itself–and Marchese's insertion of the highlighted term seems to show us that he knows about this nationwide broadcast schedule:
In 2021 his new show, “Gutfeld!” started airing on weekday nights at 11 p.m. on the East Coast. (It’s now on at 10 p.m.)
The key phrase there is "on the East Coast." Marchese seems to understand the way this insult-driven program airs across the country.
(It's possible that other journalists haven't understood this matter in other Gutfeld-friendly reports about the Gutfeld! program.)
Why do we say that Marchese's opening passage is "Gutfeld-friendly?" To make the matter perfectly clear, here' the rest of Marchese's opening passage, continuing directly from above:
So Gutfeld, who is also a host of the daytime show “The Five” alongside Dana Perino and Jesse Watters, can now credibly lay claim to the title “king of late night.” (Also the name of his 2023 nonfiction book.) But it’s a kingdom in turmoil, with CBS announcing it is canceling “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” next year and ABC briefly suspending Jimmy Kimmel’s show after comments he made related to Charlie Kirk’s murder. Those decisions were viewed by many as politically motivated and also as a possible infringement on free speech. This at a time when questions about the long-term future of late night as a viable genre—as well as censorship in comedy—are thick in the air. About all that, and much more, Gutfeld had plenty to say about in his own pugnacious fashion.
Sad. Back in 2023, in his own pugnacious way, Gutfeld dubbed himself "the king of late night." He did so in the title of one of his flyweight books.
Two years later, Marchese is willing to advance this claim on Gutfeld's behalf, even though he seems to know that the claim is baldly inaccurate.
Is the Gutfeld! program a "comedy show?" We'd call that claim misleading. But is it a "late night" (comedy) show? We'd call that claim laughably false.
It airs at 7 p.m. in L.A.! According to traditional industry parlance, prime time hasn't even started when this show airs on the west coast!
Marchese is widely praised for his interview / profiles. For ourselves, we don't have the slightest idea why a competent, fully informed mainstream journalist would want to carry messaging water for a pugnacious, insult-driven fellow like Gutfeld or for the Fox News Channel.
As noted, Gutfeld's program does have a very large viewership within the "cable news" context. That said, it isn't a "late night" comedy show. Indeed, it doesn't occupy a traditional "late night" time slot anywhere in this nation!
We don't have the slightest idea why Marchese chose to be the latest journalist to push this bit of marketing bluster in service to Gutfeld and Fox. We're willing to float the possibility that his editor doctored his copy.
That said, that copy did advance a phony claim in service to Gutfeld and Fox–and it seems to us that Marchese performed an additional service to Gutfeld as his interview proceeded.
In our view, Marchese performs an additional service. Joining a journalistic cast of thousands, he makes the actual contents of this insult-driven "cable news" show fade and then disappear.
Tomorrow: Weird conduct disappeared
ReplyDelete"and his insult-driven Gutfeld! show"..."insult-driven"..."insult-driven"..."insult-driven"..."insult-driven"
Making fun of you BlueAnons is not "insulting", Bob; much less "insult-driven". It's more like "coup de grace", a mercy killing.
You should be grateful to Greg Gutfeld, Bob, that he is paying attention to you BlueAnons.
10:49 - I get it. You hate liberals. So what?
DeleteI find 10:49's comment to be insult-driven.
DeleteBoo-hoo, 11:15. No, I'm not promiscuous in my hatred; they would have to deserve it. To become something meaningful, something ...what's the word... authentic? ... real.
DeleteI don't expect it to happen. Liberalism has devolved into nonsense, often the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be. It's pathetic. To hate it? No way Jose.
So the constant, contentless insult-driven posts are unrelated to any hatred. Got it, Jose.
Delete11:37 you say you don't like "liberals", explain what you do like, because Trump and the Republicans are without a doubt King Neoliberals and Queen Neoconservatives.
DeleteOf all the Soros-monkey spam on these here comment pages, what you're most annoyed by is my occasional observation, 12:01?
DeleteClearly, something's wrong with you. But hey, if what I say makes you suffer, go to your safe space, and stay the fuck there.
Jesus is my gardener, yet he never speaks of the poor or downtrodden. Typically he talks about watering systems, and how he will be increasing his monthly charge.
DeleteI guess I could shop around, but I doubt Moses or Muhammad would be willing to tend to my yard. Maybe I should call Joe Smith?
Somerby used to object to comedians who worked "blue". That term refers not to Democrats but to sex as content in standup acts. Buddy Hackett was considered one of the most blue acts of his time. Somerby used to say that it was an easy way to get a laugh and considered that kind of material inappropriate. I used to think he was being a bit of a prig. Now he is similarly prudish about jokes aimed at women's appearances. Remember when he called out Rachel Maddow for poking fun at the tea-bags hanging from the right wingers straw hats at protests? Not only was it not OK for her to make dirty jokes, but now liberal women are not allowed to be the butt of Gutfeld's jokes either. We just can't win with these men who insist that women occupy trad-roles.
Delete'go to your safe space, and stay the fuck there."
DeleteTriggered, Hillary?
If you've got a triple digit IQ, it is easy to see that Somerby's *supposed* distaste (I mean, he excitedly repeats Gutfeld here daily like some kid in 2nd grade talking about the tv show he watched last night) is related to viewing this strain of ribald Republican as likely bad for Republican branding in the long run.
DeleteNot good in the short run too, see last Tuesday.
Deletewomp womp
Bob is not improving.
ReplyDeleteHe is stuck in a rut, his wheel is sinking low.
DeleteIn the light, you will find the road.
DeleteEverybody needs the light.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:17pm, how many years have you been saying that? Somerby is going to outlive you and be blogging here when you’re frying on a spit pole.
DeleteThe lunatic is on the grass.
DeleteSomerby is going to die soon. He is 79, which actuary David in Cal will tell you is well past the predicted age at death for people born in his year (72-73 years). He may be in better health than Trump, but it doesn't sound like it, with his weekly medical missions. Meanwhile, you don't know the ages of any of the commenters here, so predicting Somerby will outlive them seems pretty unlikely.
DeleteIf you are suggesting that Somerby's blog will continue via an AI or substitute conservative who will take over for him, that is possible but it isn't exactly what is meant by saying Somerby is going to outlive anyone else.
That lovely image of anyone here on a spit pole illustrates the cruelty of the right again, and it shows the underlying belief many on the right now hold about a coming civil war in which they get to kill their opponents in ugly ways. Are you guys really suggesting that you are cannibals? That didn't work out well for Alferd Packer, but maybe it is just a right wing fantasy. More creepy weirdness.
For native speakers of English, it is sufficient to say spit. Adding "pole" suggests Cecelia is a troll writing from somewhere else.
DeleteAI suggests that someone might say spit pole if talking about a spit rotisserie use on a barbecue. That again suggests Cecelia is male because it is guys who barbecue, not the wives. Or perhaps she works in one of those Brazilian barbecue restaurants where the servers carry the meat around on a pole.
Maybe she meant a strip pole. I’m twelve years old and I expect to outlive Mr Somerby.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:22pm, my guess is that AI didn’t steer you into the part as to what gender would most likely use a culinary technique as a picture of what awaits you in hell. However, keep it up. I think we have yet to see the full breath of your reasoning abilities.
DeleteWho says "roasting on a spit pole" instead of "roasting on a spit" which is the usual idiom? Foreigners trolling a website. I've never heard any American say spit pole in my life.
DeleteAffordability Update
ReplyDelete“You can send $500 million worth of bitcoin on a Sunday night at 11 PM while having a glass of wine with your wife for virtually zero fees.” - Eric Trump
Republicans: Let them eat cake.
DeleteA self-proclaimed comic named Greg
ReplyDeleteProclaims he is pulling our leg
Bob’s blog is obsessed
With Greg’s crude insult-fest
Bob won’t stop, no matter how much we beg.
I fully applaud Bob's Gutfeld grudge. Gutfeld cannot be hated too much.
DeleteIs Somerby's grudge against Gutfeld really any different than his previous grudge against Rachel Maddow. Somerby was scandalised because Maddow said she wanted to be a comedian and joked around too much on her show for his taste. Now he thinks Gutfeld's jokes aren't good enough. In both cases, the idea that these second-rate performers (in Somerby's opinion) are getting big salaries obviously sticks in Somerby's craw. He doesn't complain nearly as much about the political uses of the comedy, as he does the lameness of the jokes. One might call this professional jealousy, except that Somerby is too old to seriously consider performing any more.
DeleteGo fuck yourself fascist David.
DeleteReservations? They have quite a few But we won’t see them bidding adieu To their quasi-brother who just will not cover the issues they wish to construe.
DeleteNo, my girlfriend did.
DeleteYou need better girlfriends.
DeleteTell me about it….
DeleteSomerby: "Fox News Channel's Gutfeld! program is, according to Nielsen, the third most-watched TV show in all of "cable news.""
ReplyDeleteThat is like saying this horse buggy is the the third most popular among city commuters in 1920, when everyone else has moved on to cars.
Instead of showing any awareness of what is actually going on, Somerby picks non-pertinent, trivial matters that he then endlessly flogs, like beating a dead horse.
An aside: cars were originally battery-powered, going all the way back to the 1830s, with commercially available EVs starting in the 1890s; it wasn't until the 1920s that internal combustion cars took over, and then reigned for 100 hundred years. Now, worldwide and despite the rapid decline of Tesla, EVs are set to become the primary platform for vehicles once again.
One effect of the way Somerby keeps using the word "Disappeared" to refer to things the press doesn't cover is that it softens and weakens the impact of the term to describe people taken off the streets by ICE, without due process and without letting anyone know where they are being held. That is the more important use of the word, but conservatives do not want to acknowledge that this is happening, so Somerby shifts the focus to his repetitive claims that the so-called blue press should talk about whatever HE wants them to, and not what is of most importance to us actual blue voters.
ReplyDeleteKate Manne and Andy Borowitz discuss the way the press has "disappeared" the story of Katie Johnson, an Epstein victim who has been saying for a long time that she was raped at age 13 by Trump. Despite credible evidence, the press has ignored reporting her experiences with Epstein and Trump.
Deletehttps://www.borowitzreport.com/p/she-says-trump-raped-her-when-she
I think this disappearance is much more important than whatever Somerby is whining about today.
"One effect of the way Somerby keeps using the word "Disappeared" to refer to things the press doesn't cover is that it softens and weakens the impact of the term to describe people taken off the streets by ICE,"
DeleteYou're an idiot.
"Northern Ireland: "The Disappeared" is the term for 17 individuals believed to have been abducted and murdered by republican paramilitaries during the Troubles, whose bodies were never found. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains was established to try to locate their remains.
DeleteArgentina: During Argentina's "Dirty War," thousands of people were forcibly disappeared by the military junta. This includes "the disappeared children" who were taken from their mothers after birth and raised by military families.
France: The term is also used for the "Disparus de l'Isère," a series of child disappearances in the French department of Isère between 1983 and 1996.
Ireland: A book titled The Disappeared by Pádraig Óg Ó Ruairc examines how secret burial of victims was a tactic in political conflicts across Ireland from 1798 to 1998, according to the Irish Independent. "
The Disappeared also refers to people who are victims of human trafficking, who disappear into a life of exploitation, like Epstein's victims and the many other who are exploited for sex or slavery.
Somerby's ongoing use of this term in trivial ways is offensive given the current situation with ICE in our nation. Citizens are being taken off the street by thugs, held without communication or due process, then deported or released. Some citizens are being arrested multiple times despite having documentation.
This is wrong and should not be happening. Crickets from Somerby, who only cares about Gutfeld.
12:46 - You realize, right, that there is no Trump accuser named “Katie Johnson.” Just another Anon who hides.
Delete12:42 spot on.
DeleteDG, are you saying that if a victim did not use her real name (to avoid MAGA retribution and destruction of her personal life as an adult) that what she said never happened? What kind of asshole are you? Even Trump is given a fake name in the depositions, as is common in legal proceedings.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:13pm, that’s nonsense. Unlike "disappear," the term "disappeared" carries the connotation of intentionally removing something or someone from sight or operation, whether it concerns an object or an idea. However, describing people as being disappeared (deliberately being negated or eliminated in some way) automatically takes the word into a context of suppression that can’t be trivialized. The anonymouse’s complaint is contrived and silly as usual.
DeleteDefending sexual predators is en vogue with Republicans these days.
DeleteIt is a bit ironic, since so many Republicans obviously suffer from having been abused, it is why they are so fascinated by "groomers" and mistake their internal homosexual and bisexual urges as the result of trauma instead of merely their natural (and healthy) inclinations.
And yet Somerby tries to trivialize it here, day after day. The way he uses the term makes it sound out-of-place in the context of his essay, which is a clue that he is doing something weird with his language. But he does that a lot. He is not a straightforward writer.
DeleteBut, Cecelia, is a guy who raped a thirteen year old girl worthy to be President?
DeleteAgree, Somerby thinks he is being sly, clever, and slick with the way he uses language; later Wittgenstein would be horrified.
Delete12:42/1:13 does a good job exposing this.
Anonymouse 1:39pm, no, the word is not out of place as used by Bob, simply because you want to reserve it as an ominous slogan for deporting migrants who are here illegally OR as means to scold Bob. The latter being your true motivation.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:41pm, no, and it wasn’t as regards an Arkansas nurse and other women whose claims were derided by Democrats in ‘90s.
DeleteSo goes the opinion of the resident man pretending to be a woman; someone who's word holds no value.
DeleteCecliac is right, nobody is "disappeared" just because they are abducted, sent to fucking Africa, and then a month later their whereabouts are released. That's just how fascists roll man.
DeleteI'm listening....
DeleteAnonymouse 2:04pm, that I’m lying about my gender is merely an accusation by an anonymouse who disagrees with me and dislikes me. That doesn’t go a long ways… However, feel free to nightly dream about my brawny good looks… or whatever else floats your boat.
DeleteAnonymouse2:10pm, that’s how the deportations roll, people get lost. Happened under Pres, Obama too, but nobody cared.
DeleteTwo wrongs make a right then. A fucktards excuse.
DeleteSomerby's ongoing use of this term in trivial ways is offensive given the current situation with ICE in our nation.
DeleteIt's not. I am sorry it confuses you.
Democrats didn’t believe Clinton was a rapist. Therefore Trump is not a rapist.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:19pm, “two wrongs don’t make a right”? Here’s one for you- Physician, heal thyself.
DeleteCecelia, ICE is physically attacking citizens, shoving them into vehicles while leaving their dogs, kids, groceries, crashed cars, and other possessions on the street behind them. They are refusing to look at passports, Real IDs or court documentation in the process. They are manhandling and handcuffing people, regardless of age or gender or disability. They are then detaining them incommunicado, refusing to tell attorneys or family or employers where they are being held. Most (but not all) of the citizens are being released after several days to weeks, in a different locale than where they were picked up, without means to return home. The citizen children are being deported along with non-citizen but legal resident parents. This has happened multiple times to some previously detained and released citizens. That means that they live in fear of being attacked and detained again and again.
DeleteBut you choose to believe that the deportation process is working smoothly when there are so many atrocities.
Anonymouse 2:28pm, no, get it into the real context- you mean you didn’t believe the women who claimed that Clinton was a rapist.
DeleteReminds me of arguing with another dumb ass Magat when they said Obummer was the one that started separating children at the border from their parents. Confused I Googled. Turns out that when the press first questioned the Orange fart cloud about his (Miller's) disgusting policy, Trump said Obama did it. His typical flex. Of course the whole story (conservaturds don't do nuance) was Obama's policy applied to criminals trafficking kids over the border, not their relatives. But the stupid lives on. President Dumb Fuck is collapsing in the polls BTW. Jokes on you turd polishers.
DeleteIs there anything worse than a MAGA Granny Tranny Cecelia?
DeleteTriggered, Hillary/
DeleteCecelia, you are so out if touch.
DeleteAmong contemporary Dems, no one cares about Clinton, with his stupid neoliberalism and capitulating to Republicans, governing as Republican-lite, relegating him to irrelevancy.
Having said that, many of his accusers were investigated and their stories were found to not be credible (Jones, Wiley, Broaddick); however, he did get bjs from Lewinsky and he associated with Epstein.
This is vastly different than Trump's circumstance, there are many more accusers with details that make their accusations credible, including successfully "prosecuting" Trump in court for rape.
Furthermore, Clinton did offer some progress through some of his policies and even balanced the budget, and he certainly did not engage in the kind of corruption and criminality that is routine and chronic with Trump.
There may be a kernel of value that you have to offer, but who can say, I agree with 2:04, your comments are so insipid even despite how garbled your English is, that you have no credibility here.
When Clinton was accused, Democrats defended him. Therefore Trump is innocent.
Delete"DG, are you saying that if a victim did not use her real name (to avoid MAGA retribution and destruction of her personal life as an adult) that what she said never happened?"
DeleteNo, that's not what I'm saying. Duh. I'm saying I don't know her name and I don't know whether her acusation is true, and neither do you. But I don't pretend to know, like you do.
How would knowing her name make her accusation true or false? I believe her accusation and I will continue to do so until there is some evidence that I shouldn't. In the meantime, Trump is a known liar and a convicted sex abuser. That weighs against him.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:36pm, now you know the answer to that— YES. An Anonymouse.
Delete"How would knowing her name make her accusation true or false?"
DeleteIf she were willing to stand behind her accusation, rather than hiding in anonymity, I would give it more credence. Wouldn't you?
And then we could begin to evaluate her credibility. Suppose, for example, she had a rap sheet with multiple fraud and perjury convictions. Would that influence your confidence that she was a truth-teller?
DeleteShe stood behind her accusation to the point of filing lawsuits against Trump and Epstein. She came forward to warn the public in 2016, at personal expense. She withdrew them after being threatened.
DeleteAre you aware that Epstein victim Virginia Guiffre had a lot of psychological problems after she was no longer being trafficked, while she trying to expose Epstein's crimes? She was depressed, engaged in self-destructive behavior (substance abuse, self harm), had difficulty in relationships, and ultimately killed herself at a very young age (41). Should the behaviors arising from her abuse as a child be held as an indicator that she was never abused? These things make it more likely she experienced mistreatment, not less, but I am a psychologist. You are a troll and I have little confidence that you would understand which events of her life undermine her credibility and which do not. Especially since you seem to equate a desire for privacy with use of a fake name to defraud others.
Your suggestions amount to "Oh year, come out in the street and say that to my face, unless you're chicken." That's bar fight talk. Women don't engage in that kind of fighting. If some guy says
sorry, sentence cut off
DeleteMen believe that saying something loud and proud makes it truer but women do not engage in puffery and bravado. Those who have been hurt are motivated to avoid further harm. These are VICTIMS who want to avoid more trauma. You keep saying they need to step up and expose themselves to more threats, verbal abuse by the media, abandonment by friends or family over loyalty to Trump, accusations of lying or being unable to know what is real (a kind of gaslighting), political motives or financial motives, attention-seeking, being psychologically disturbed, and so on, just because you need to know her name (even though you won't know who she is) to determine if she is lying or not. That makes no sense at all and is an unreasonable demand when it comes to victims of crimes over an extended period of time when at a vulnerable age. That you cannot see this makes you the creep of the evening. Congrats on your 100% gold-plated trophy.
We, the American people (red and blue voters and independents) cannot tolerate a child rapist as president. Trump must be removed, ASAP (by legal means such as Article 25 or impeachment or by convincing him to resign).
ReplyDeleteKatie Johnson attempted to tell her story about how Trump raped her when she was 13 back in 2016. She believed that a man like Trump should never become president, not only because he raped her but because of his fantasies about dominance and his racism. He engaged in sex fantasies involving deportation threats and supreme dominance. This was described back in 2016, and her deposition was made before his attitudes towards immigrants became well known to the public. In her deposition, Johnson described other less known things about Trump, such as his germophobia. She said that when he raped her, he insisted that she wear a blonde wig in order to look more like Ivanka. These details, including his desire to "date" his daughter, described before Trump's first term, are recognizable now but were convincing to those interviewing her back in 2016. And yet her accusations gained no traction with the press. We all should be asking why not.
ReplyDeleteWhy should some Anon’s accusation “gain traction” with the press?
DeleteBecause it is true and contains details that the accuser could not have known in other ways. Because Epstein was convicted and so was Maxwell. Because this is about real crimes that a 13 year old could not have cooked up on her own. Also because the job of President is too important to entrust to any man who would even a fraction of the things she reported were done to her by Trump. Because a child rapist or even an adult rapist should not be president and the public deserves all of the facts about Trump before voting, not just the ones that wouldn't hurt his campaign chances.
DeleteNow we see what kind of troll you really are, DG.
DeleteNo, the troll message now is - don't you know there is a big difference between raping, er being very close friends with a fifteen year old, versus raping, I mean being very close friends with a five year old? Basically, sick fucks, the whole lot of you.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:37pm, you’re correct that the charges are something that a kid wouldn’t have concocted on her own.
Delete@2:05 A 13 year old girl is a child. I could rephrase your objection as "can being friends with a baby be considered the same as raping a 5 year old?" What business would any grown man have being "very good friends" with a 13 year old? Moving that goalpost doesn't help you any. First, she was not "very close friends" with Trump or Epstein. She was trafficked and raped, in every sense of the sexual connotation. You are trying to deny that, but we're the "sick fucks"? Katie Johnson says Trump used a condom but also gloves (nitrile ones like doctors use) while raping her, due to his germ phobia. Does one use a condom while being "very good friends" with a 5 year old? You tell me, since you know all the right terminology for such acts.
DeleteHere are the charges against Trump as of 2019 (from PBS):
Deletehttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped
She was 13 in 1994 when the rape occurred.
DeleteIn 2016, she was motivated to speak out and seek justice, when Trump decided to run for president in such a reprehensible manner.
She wasn't alone, she had a material witness, also about 30 other women have accused Trump of sexual assault, and Trump has been found liable in court for sexual abuse - a form of rape.
She was motivated to then disappear when she was threatened with harm.
Many of the men in Trump's admin also have credible accusations of committing sexual assault.
This is bringing back bad memories of the 2016 election. On several occasions I asked Chris Cuomo why he was not reporting the rape charge of 13-year-old girl against Trump. This was while the case was still in the court system. He mumbled something about not wanting to prejudice the public against trump while the charges were still unproven in court. Cuomo was well aware of the charge.
DeleteLater on when Wikileaks started dumping unvetted DNC emails in his lap, it was Katy bar the door baby, he couldn't wait to enchant his audience with the latest smear from the Russians every fucking morning for a month.
"Why should some Anon’s accusation 'gain traction' with the press?"
Delete1:37 - "Because it is true"
Actually, by pretending to know that the accusation is true, you are telling an untruth.
In truth, you do not know the name of the accuser and you do not know whether her accusation is true.
DeleteYou can believe anything you want, but you should distinguish between what you believe and what you know.
DeleteI believe what Katie Johnson said about her experiences with Trump are true. Unlike Somerby (and you perhaps), I do not have to wait for complete certainty before asserting a belief. It needs to pass a truth test but absolute and complete certainty is never possible (due to the distance between perception and reality). Somerby chooses to use that as a reason to believe nothing. I choose a more reasonable standard of consistency with other knowledge about reality, facts (as closely as they can be established) and my own prior experience.
DeleteIn the case of Katie Johnson, her name is irrelevant. Her description of Trump's treatment of her is highly consistent with assertions by other women who claim to have been abused by Trump, including both Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll, whose cases went to court and were decided against Trump by a jury that included a few Trump supporters. Her description is also consistent with my own observations of Trump, his own statements, the other info about Epstein, the other victims, and the stories of Trump's former wives and Melania. All of that is corroboration of Johnson's accusations. There is a phrase about "preponderance of the evidence" used in court. In my personal evaluation, I find her statement to be way beyond that criterion.
You can defend Trump, but it makes you sound like a cretin. If you want to take Somerby's nihilism as your standard, you are not going to be able to explain why you believe Trump (or his trolls and cronies) and not Johnson. Trump has a history as a liar, cheat and fraud.
There are men who have a knee-jerk objection to any accusation brought by a woman against a man. Somerby is one such person. Guys like that lost out during #Metoo trials and they are in disfavor among women and many men in our society. That is one accomplishment of the women's movement -- we can testify in court now. If you want to hang your hat with the bozos whose only test of "truth" is power, you can suppress the Epstein files and Katie Johnson's story for a while, but the people are showing that they want to know and they will find out. Trump is now on the receiving end of that movement, which I sincerely hope will destroy him politically.
"You can defend Trump, but it makes you sound like a cretin."
DeleteNothing I have said is a defense of Trump. The original question was why doesn't the press publish the accusations of an Anon accuser? And the answer, then and now, is because they are the unverifiable accusations of some Anon accuser.
"In the case of Katie Johnson, her name is irrelevant."
DeleteHow you possibly say that the name of a child accusing a man of pedophilic rape is "irrelevant"? It's only "irrelevant" if you believe that an "accusation" is equivalent to "guilt."
Attacking a woman who has made an accusation against a specific man is a defense of that man.
DeleteWho says her accusations are anonymous to her attorneys or to prosecutors of Epstein? Who says her accusations are unverified? Not me and not the press and not Johnson herself or her interviewers.
When people really really want to know who an anonymous person is, it is so that they can target them and attack them personally instead of their info. Is that what you did as an attorney? There are laws against tampering with juries and witnesses in a court. Why do you think you should get to threaten someone like Katie Johnson?
You don't sound like someone with a sincere interest in whether her accusations are true or not. You sound like someone who wants to attack the accuser and who is frustrated because her anonymity puts her out of reach.
If you read anything about feminism and women's rights, you would understand how frequently men use bullying and intimidation to control and manipulate women. This seems like more of the same. It may be a technique that is so familiar to you that you don't realize when you are doing it. This complaint about anonymity (from you, not from legal authorities) suggests you have some tactic you wish to apply that you cannot without knowing her "real" name. How about if she stands for everywoman who was one of Epstein/Trump's victims? There were 1000+ victims who gave evidence. Are they all lying because they are anonymous?
"Why do you think you should get to threaten someone like Katie Johnson?
DeleteNow you're just blathering nonsense.
I do believe that the evidence given by a child can be used to convict an adult. There are specific techniques used with children's testimony to ensure fairness to the man accused, due to the increased suggestibility of children, but children can give testimony. Katie Johnson was not a child when she came forward in 2016 to tell the public what Trump did to her at age 13. She was not 13 in 2016, but an adult. She gave evidence when Epstein was finally being prosecuted, which was not when she was abused at age 13. Virginia Guiffre describes being recruited at Mar a Lago at age 13 but dumped at age 18, as were other pool girls similarly recruited.
DeleteThese are not girls who had repressed memories and didn't recall what happened a few years later. They knew what happened and they described it in individual testimony that corroborated each others' statements.
One aspect of dealing with pedophiles is that they have a preferred age for their victims. Someone who likes girls at 13 will consider them too old to be sexually arousing at age 17. The experience of being special when young but abruptly abandoned upon coming of age (18), dumped by Maxwell and Epstein because clients prefer younger girls, is another of the damaging aspects of the victim experience. Child TV describe having the same experience and finding it traumatic.
If you think you can rehabilitate Trump by casting a shadow on one victim's testimony, you are mistaken. There were a lot of Epstein clients, there is evidence he was blackmailing them (which wouldn't be possible if he didn't have evidence against them), and there are a lot of victims who were interviewed for Epstein's case and Maxwell's conviction. That is why these files need to be released. To convince assholes like you that Epstein and Trump actually did something not just wrong but horrible.
DG thinks he can make Trump's problems disappear by calling them "nonsense". That is delusional.
Delete"If you think you can rehabilitate Trump by casting a shadow on one victim's testimony"
DeleteTry to internalize this: I am not defending or rehabilitating Trump. The truth: Some unknown person made an accusation which has not been verified or tested in court. If you wish to believe the accusation is true, be my guest.
All I said is this indisputable truth: Some anon made an unverified accusation.
DeleteFor my trouble, I get called:
Troll; sick fuck; Trump defender; cretin; nihilist; bozo; bully; intimidator; manipulator of women; asshole; and delusional.
Is this what they mean by "cancel culture"?
DeleteAnd is this one of the ways we Blues "earn our way out"?
DeleteI've often thought that a lot of the Somerby-hatred we find in these comments comes from Blues who cannot fathom that a fellow Blue could believe that their conduct might be counter-productive, politically.
DeleteTalk about triggered! Poor doggy.
DeleteDogface, you could not convince anyone that you are a blue voter even if you were wearing a Grateful Dead concert shirt and drinking Kambucha.
DeleteTrump is guilty as sin. Don't waste your social capital by trying to defend him. Attacking victims of sexual abuse is not the way to gain "likes" among other blue voters.
You complain that people come here and say outrageous things while remaining anonymous. You are just as anonymous as Kate Johnson (using her fake name) because we do not believe anyone christened you "Dogface George" in honor of your grandpa. Then you complain because no one considers you one of us. You say you vote Democrat but I have never seen you express a single Democratic sentiment (something approximate to what the Democratic Party Platform says, or what a blue candidate like Kamala or Biden has said) in the time you've been here. You spend all of your time attacking other commenters, much as I think you would like to attack Katie Johnson. That isn't the blue way, because it shows the kind of lack of empathy and hostility typical of right wing trolls. If you want people to think you are blue, try acting blue. Right now, you are like Trump calling himself a Christian.
Katie Johnson is not an unknown person. She is addressing the public via a fake name but she is well known to her attorneys and the Epstein prosecutors, to other victims, and to her family and friends. She does not have to expose herself to public retribution by MAGAs in order to tell people what happened to her.
DeleteShe filed actual lawsuits against Epstein and Trump in 2016. She withdrew them because her life was threatened. People have resigned from Congress for the same reason. People have been physically attacked by right wing extremists, so her fears are legitimate. Trump himself has threatened the lives of people. This is why your single-minded focus on her anonymity is bogus. She is in a kind of witness protection. If you can't understand that, you are immensely stupid. If you are wilfully persisting in this objection, you are still immensely stupid because it implies you either don't like women/children or you think men should be entitled to intimidate whoever accuses them of wrongdoing.
You have to be aware of Trump's mob ties when he was in the construction/development business. Michael Cohen was his fixer and goon (as he himself has both confessed and described in detail). You have no basis for believing that Katie Johnson's fears are not grounded in reality.
You may be right that I'm a terrible, horrible person. But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know who Katie Johnson is and we don't know whether her accusation is true.
DeleteAnd by the way, I do have Grateful Dead t-shirts, but I don't drink Kambucha (whatever that is).
DeleteAnd if you want to know my name, here's my calbar number: 99194. I've spent 44 years fighting for those who work for a living.
DeleteI've even organized a union. What have you done, if you think you're so qualified to speak on behalf of all Blues?
DeleteWhen you say "we" don't know who she is, that is inaccurate. As I have now pointed out three times, the people who need to know who she is, do know who she is. YOU do not get to know because it is dangerous for her to be identified in public. You have still not dealt with that.
DeleteI would say that the extreme measures taken by Trump and others to suppress the Epstein files is very strong evidence that the testimony in them is true. You have no reason to disbelieve the 1000+ victims of Epstein over a known liar such as Trump. That you persist in avoiding the obvious suggests some motive you might be wise to think about. Are you identifying with these creeps?
These victims want their day in court. They deserve it. That is the way we decide what is true and what is not true, not by knowing people's names so they can be threatened by MAGA faithful. That you absolutely refuse to consider whether their accusations are true shows a bias in favor of Trump and the other accused men. That is unsurprising if you are male, but it doesn't mean YOU have any access to truth by defending the scum who were Epstein's customers and accomplices.
Take a look at your resistance to accepting the possibility of truth of these victim statements and you will perhaps understand why it has historically been so difficult to obtain rape trials, much less convictions. That doesn't seem to matter to you but it should. It shows an imbalance in the power inherent in the justice system, in favor of men and against women (who are assumed to be lying unless proven truthful, unlike men who get the benefit of the doubt unless proven to be lying).
This is wrong, Dogface, and I must consider you a sleaze like Trump and Epstein because I don't know your real name but your statements put you in the same category as them -- willing to allow the exploitation of underage girls unless caught and proven guilty, and even then you get to go to a country club instead of jail.
What have I done? I was a community organizer (sort of like Obama) in Chicago, working with job-training programs to help them get grant money, writing a newsletter for the Illinois Migrant Council, working with the Urban League to get women admitted to union apprentice programs. Then I organized the Women's Employment Agenda for the UN International Women's Day in Illinois. I worked for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was active in Women's Rights. I was a named party as part of an EEOC class-action lawsuit asserting unequal hiring. I have been a precinct worker and circulated abortion-rights petitions and registered voters. I worked on a political campaign while in college, I then got advanced degrees and became a college professor, where I was my Department's union rep, wrote letters in support of Dreamers (immigrants brought to the US as young children, unaware they were not citizens), nurtured a lab full of minority students. I got tenure and ultimately retired. I have voted in every election, once for Hillary for Senate. And I donated money, wrote letters to the editor, held coffees for local candidates, blogged and helped organizations apply for grants. Now I am retired but I still follow politics closely.
DeleteMy father was a union organizer. He would be placed in a shop, organize it and get fired, then we would move to a different place where the union would give him a job and he would do it all again. I went to a lot of schools growing up. He was a member of the CDC and a delegate to the state conventions. He was not a jerk like you but a mensch with charisma and persuasive ability. I think you are more likely a union accountant because I cannot imagine anyone being persuaded by the way you behave here.
Other blues do other things. But we do all share a set of core values, are working toward a better, more equitable future for all of us. We tolerate diversity, appreciate differences and aren't afraid of those who are poor or young or disabled. I just don't see that in you, Dogface. You are hostile and mean-spirited and never express support for anything constructive. That is antithetical to creating a better society.
8:46 - Good for you. I mean it, that sounds impressive.
Delete8:24 - Yes, you nailed it. I’m a sleaze just like Trump and Epstein. How did you guess?
Delete(I wish you had a nym so I could avoid you forever.)
Just go somewhere else.
Delete8:46 - So why don’t you use a nym, so I don’t confuse you with 8:24?
DeleteAnd, really, how can anyone have respect for someone who is too scared to use a nym?
DeleteI mean, why go through your life here as a Rando Anon?
Delete8:24 - when a man is accused of rape, he becomes a defendant, and he is presumed innocent. The state must prove that the accuser is telling the truth.
DeleteWhy insist that women all lie until a jury proves otherwise? That’s a rigged system in which women cannot look to the justice system for protection.
DeleteHow does a 13 year old with no means of support or family protect herself from Maxwell, Epstein, Trump? Does she have the ability to say no?
DeleteThe proof is that she was there with them. Why else would she be? There are photos and no innocent explanations. When you deny the obvious you ally yourself with abusers.
DG,
DeleteAre you not convinced Trump was sexually attracted to his daughter when she was a minor?
@10:00 The state must prove the accuser is telling the truth in a trial, but the accuser and witnesses don't have to. The victim tells her story and provides the evidence to support it and is not obligated to assume the person she is accusing is innocent. Nor is the court permitted to ignore the prosecution's evidence and witness statements, but must account for all of the facts in drawing a conclusion, not selectively consider only the ones supporting an accused person's innocence.
DeleteWhat do any of the 1000+ victims of Epstein have to gain by lying about what happened to them? How does someone like DG rationalize away the existence of so many sex-trafficked girls and so many men who participated in Epstein's parties? What evidence was Ghislaine Maxwell convicted on and how could Epstein and Trump be innocent if she was tried and found guilty?
Delete“How does DG rationalize away the existence of so many sex-trafficked girls”
DeleteWhy do you make up shit like this? Again, all I said was : 1. We don’t know who Katie Johnson is, and 2. We don’t know whether her accusation is true.
It would take a wise psychologist to explain the bizarre reactions to these banal, indisputable truths.
Katie Johnson disappeared after threats of bodily harm.
ReplyDeleteStormy also got similar threats.
These threats held weight, because look at what happened to Epstein, among others that met a similar fate after raising the ire of Trump.
Epstein was either killed or is still alive thanks to the efforts of the DoJ.
DeleteI voted for Trump because he was bold enough, even in front of children, to talk about how he admired other guys' cocks and then demonstrated how to give a blowjob.
ReplyDeleteI was cocksure of my vote too.
DeleteIndeed, the Republican Party is little more than one giant circle jerk.
DeleteWord is, what Trump is covering up on his hand is the herpes he caught from jerking off Musk.
Language may be necessary, but it is often insufficient.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just Gufeld that spouts nonsense. A bigger problem is that FOX "News" does as well. Here's an article in ProPublica that describes how FOX worked to mislead and prop up Trump's deceitful and spurious claims.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.propublica.org/article/portland-protests-national-guard-fox-news-coverage?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=toc
Beware of adverbs. Pro publica says Fox’s portrayal of “Portland rioters” routinely instigating violence was misleading. But, how often is "routinely"? If ANTIFA instigates one violent per month, is that "routine"? How about one per year for several years?
Delete..how often...
DeleteAs often as is needed to rid the country of fucking fascist freaks like yourself, Dickhead.
They showed old pictures of Portland protests and said they were currently happening when they are not. The meaning of the word "routinely" is irrelevant.
DeleteIf ANTIFA instigates one violent per month, is that "routine"?
DeleteYes.
How about one per year for several years?
No.
Funny how when caught antifa always turns out to be a proud boy trying to make the left look bad.
DeleteGo fuck yourself fascist David. Pointing at insignificant nearly invisible Antifa while your jagoff President releases the January 6 insurrectionists and pardons any horrible criminal who can stuff millions up his fat ass. You really have your priorities straight you shitbag fascist freak.
DeleteThis is a very long essay to make one point, that Marchese was helping along Gutfeld's claim to be King of Late Night. This has to be one of the most empty and repetitive blog posts, among many similarly useless posts. Why does Somerby bother doing this?
ReplyDeleteHe’s demented.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete