SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 2026
...why they behaved as they did: No one will ever ask the children why they did what they did.
Also, no one will ever report or discuss the remarkable fact that these very bad boys and girls went on TV and did it!
We refer to the way the children behaved on Tuesday, March 3—first on The Five, then five hours later on Gutfeld! In fairness, they behave like clowns every day of the week, but their behavior this day was remarkable, even for them.
Even for pigeons like "Tyrus" and Timpf! They're two of the very naughty youngsters to whom we make reference this day. One last time, let's call the roll:
The Five panelists: Tuesday, 3/3/26
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered
Jessica Tarlov: twice-weekly punching bag
Jesse Watters: host, Jesse Watters Primetime
Dana Perino: co-anchor, America's Newsroom
Tyrus: former professional "wrestler"
Gutfeld! panelists: Tuesday, 3/3/26
Tyrus: former professional "wrestler"
Kat Timpf: comedian
Greg Gutfeld: host
Dave Landau: comedian
Mike Benz: Foundation For Freedom Online
Nine (9) naughty children in all! No one is ever going to ask them why they did what they did.
No one will ever ask Timpf why she said the things she said. No one will ever ask the blowhard Tyrus why he was on the nation's most-watched "cable news" program even though he didn't know the first f*cking thing about the events of four and five days before.
By now, it has been eleven days since Timpf said the things she said. She has never corrected, apologized or explained.
Along with all the rest of these mugs, she has never explained why she acted like something amazingly seamy had happened—when in fact, it just plain never did.
These mugs are never going to explain. Last night, the one guy even got permission to go ahead and say this:
GUTFELD (3/13/26): And finally, the new supreme leader of Iran said they will obtain compensation from America.
In a gesture of good faith, Trump offered his five biggest cows:
[PHOTO, the five co-hosts of The View]
AUDIENCE: [Laughter, hooting, applause]
There! After weeks of self-denial, saying that felt really good!
Back to Tuesday March 3! No one will ever report what those "Unrecognizables" did. You won't read about it at The Atlantic, or in the New York Times.
No columnist will note what they did. Everyone knows that it just isn't done—that the Fox News Channel's actual friends are the posers in Blue America who enable its grisly procedures.
Meanwhile, an interesting moment, or set of moments, occurred in Bill Clinton's deposition on Friday, February 27. Before we show you the relevant text, let the word go forth to the nations:
As every sane person must know by now, Attorney General Bondi has been refusing to obey federal law with respect to "the Epstein files."
The release of those files has been unlawful. Also, it has been targeted—and as every sane person must know by now, Bondi started out by releasing what she had about former president Clinton.
In all candor, she didn't have much! Excitingly, there was one photo of a fully dressed Clinton, sitting upright in a metal chair, receiving some sort of neck rub from a fully clothed, youngish woman.
That had been a moment from one of those flights—from one of the flights in which Bill Clinton was creating the global network which (insert yawn here) would eventually save as many as thirty million lives worldwide in the war against AIDS.
Clinton described that effort in his testimony. We'll wait while you finish your yawn.
Along the way in the deposition, Clinton was asked about the only thing that actually matters to people like us. He was asked about that troubling neck rub.
Whatever a person may think about any of this, we'll show you what Bill Clinton said. We'll identify the questioners to the extent that we're able.
As you can see in the Rev transcript, the first exchange about the rub proceeded as shown below. For full videotape of the deposition, you can just click this:
ATTORNEY (2/27/26): My next question for you is, have you ever had contact with an individual by the name of Chaunte Davies?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Chauntae was—that's a distinctive name. So I think that was the name of one of his flight attendants.
ATTORNEY: Okay. She's been described on being on a 2002 Africa trip and providing massages. Was she or any other young female on that trip underage at that time?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Not that I'm aware of.
ATTORNEY: Okay. Did you ever receive a massage or have physical contact from her or anyone else on that trip?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: You've seen the pictures. There was one time when I was sitting up, and I got a back rub—a neck rub. And I think Chauntae did it, but I'm not sure.
For the record:
According to a report by Snopes (link below), Davies was 22 at the time. Later in the deposition, a second exchange occurred:
QUESTIONER: I think it was discussed in the previous round, but that well-known photograph of yourself and Ms. Davies—
What is your recollection of the extent of your interactions with Ms. Davies on that trip?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Where were we?
QUESTIONER: In Africa. I think it was at the airport, on the way to—
PRESIDENT CLINTON: That's it. We had a good relationship, but it was entirely proper. I never had any personal contact with her, if that's what you imply.
QUESTIONER: Am I right that while on that trip, whether the trip or the flights, did you ever witness or become aware of sexual abuse of any kind?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I did not.
QUESTIONER: Thank you.
Incredibly, we were now being asked to believe that the former president hadn't abused this young woman! Later, there was also this:
REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): The third person I want to talk about briefly is Chauntae Davies. I know we've already mentioned her here today. I know you've already mentioned that she was listed as a flight attendant on the trip to South Africa in 2002 that you took with Jeffrey Epstein.
Are you aware that Chauntae Davies is a survivor who claims she was abused for three years, including during that time period?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I am now.
REP. STANSBURY: Are you aware that Jeffrey Epstein recruited his victims through calling them masseuses?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No.
REP. STANSBURY: You're not aware that Jeffrey—
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No. But it doesn't surprise me. But I didn't know that, no.
REP. STANSBURY: Knowing that Jeffrey Epstein recruited hundreds of minors as masseuses to massage him. and knowing that this victim who was a survivor of three years of his sexual abuse as a masseuse was on the plane, does that make you think about the massage you received from her differently?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Have you seen the picture?
REP. STANSBURY: I have a copy of it right here. Yes.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I'm sitting up in the—
REP. STANSBURY: I'm just asking if now that you know that Jeffrey Epstein recruited girls as masseuses, does that reframe that photograph? And knowing that there were girls on the plane that were being abused?
Were there actually girls on the plane who were being abused? We aren't real sure about that. See below.
At any rate, Rep. Stansbury continued with a line of questioning which strikes us as slightly peculiar. Eventually, this exchange occurred:
REP. STANSBURY: Part of what I'm trying to do is to ask you—we know there was a survivor that was on the plane. You've stated that you didn't know she was a survivor. I understand that.
But I am asking, now that you are aware that Epstein was recruiting survivors as masseuses, does this make you rethink what you saw as you were traveling and interacting with him?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I wish Chauntae had told me. I liked her. But I didn't think it was anything unusual and I can't tell you how many airplanes I've been on where rich people ask me to go, and they had someone offering massages.
All these boats that you go on and all that, they all do that. Usually, I don't do that. I'm not into this.
REP. STANSBURY: Well, that certainly raises some other questions about people offering free massages and boats, et cetera.
So said the former president. As he did, Rep. Stansbury hurried off to investigate the entire rest of the world.
Back to President Clinton. He had received a neck rub from Chauntae Davies, age 22, while sitting upright, fully clothed, on a metal chair at an airport.
He said he liked Chauntae Davies. He said he had a good relationship with her on that flight. He said he wished that she had told him that she already was, at that point, a victim of sexual abuse.
He also said that he hadn't seen any evidence of such abuse. With that, we turn to several things Chauntae Davies, a good decent person, has said in recent years.
Her remarks are quoted in this fact check by Snopes. First, Snopes reprints this part of a 2020 news report by The Daily Mail:
Davies acted as an air stewardess on the flight and described being shocked when Clinton boarded the plane, saying he was "charming and sweet."
Davies, now in her early 40s, said of the massage pictures: "Although the image looks bizarre, President Clinton was a perfect gentleman during the trip and I saw absolutely no foul play involving him."
She explained the massage happened when "we had a stop-over for the jet to refuel and while we were in the terminal the ex-President was complaining of stiffness from falling asleep in his chair.
"Ghislaine chimed in to be funny and said that I could give him a massage.
"Everyone had a little chuckle but Ghislaine in her prim British accent insisted and said I was good. The President then asked me, 'Would you mind giving it a crack?' "
Davies was quoted saying that by The Daily Mail. Later, Scopes reports, she made the following poignant statement as part of the Netflix series, "Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich:"
I went from being just the masseuse to being asked to be a personal assistant on this trip. So I was blinded by the opportunity of it. I hadn't gone anywhere really, and to go to Africa was like a dream come true.
I flew from L.A. to New York, the plane was ready on the tarmac when I got there, and I took a seat. Then our guests arrived. It was Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker. I was blown away, like oh my God, it was surreal.
The trip was about the AIDS organization that Clinton had started. This trip to Africa is probably the single most amazing moment of my life, and I remember having this false belief that the abuse had stopped because nothing had happened in Africa. Thinking that maybe it just wasn't going to happen anymore.
But after the Africa trip, the abuse started all over again, and it never stopped after that.
According to Snopes, that's what this good person said. She seemed to be saying that Epstein turned off the abuse when Bill Clinton was around—but the abuse started up all over again after that.
Clinton said he didn't see any abuse. Davies seemed to say that no abuse occurred on that flight.
She was 22 years old at the time. You can see the photo of the shoulder massage, with the fully clothed Clinton sitting upright on a metal chair during a stopover inside an airport terminal.
The exchanges about Davies struck us as the saddest and most interesting part of Bill Clinton's deposition. Those exchanges leave you, and all the rest of us, facing a set of question about ourselves:
Are you able to believe that Bill Clinton, age 56, actually "liked" this 22-year-old woman, but didn't sexually assault her?
Also, are you able to believe that he "acted like a perfect gentleman" during that trip? That he didn't engage in the kind of conduct the snarling mutts of the Fox News Channel like to go on TV and dream up stories about?
Are you able to believe that the trip in question was about AIDS prevention, not about the joys of sexual assault?
Admittedly, AIDS prevention is boring. But are you able to imagine that AIDS prevention is the actual reason why Bill Clinton was on that plane?
This is why we ask:
We live in a smarmy, unintelligent, failing culture which has only one thing on its mind.
Our culture doesn't much care about saving lives around the world. Instead, our culture enjoys the lurid dreams voiced by Gutfeld and Timpf and the rest of the mutts on Tuesday evening, March 3.
On that astonishing occasion, a passel of circus clowns spewed the bullsh*t inside their own empty heads about a lurid, tribally thrilling event—about a lurid, tribally thrilling event which simply never happened.
These sex tales have thrilled us for more than thirty years now—the fight against AIDS not so much. By now, it's all we secretly want to hear. By now, it may be the only we know how to believe.
This is the way a society ends—with a bizarre TV host who seems to loathe women, and with the array of undisguised nut-balls his gong-show program employs.
On March 3, they invented an utterly bogus claim about President Clinton's behavior during his deposition, and then they began to clown. Eleven days later, no one has asked them why they did that, and nobody ever will.
No one at the Times will ask, no one at The Atlantic. Timpf hasn't corrected what she said, and people like her never will.
Last night, they continued their gruesome behavior in too many ways to spend time on. That said, the women of The View are cows once again! The pay is good at the Fox News Channel, and the mutts have all clambered aboard.
The other day when I was lauding Quaker for his wordsmithing skills I forgot to include “Our Gracious Host.” That’s a good one, too.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting question whether Somerby provides any value to readers here, or whether we readers add value to his own days.
DeleteWhen Somerby went on and on today about something that happened on March 3, without telling his readers what it was, did you feel like you were learning anything, DG? He could have provided a brief phrase explaining what he was going on about. Why didn't he?
Stunts like that make me suspect that Somerby has ulterior motives. Today's was obviously to generate doubt about the truth of Clinton and Davies statements to the Epstein inquiry. Mission accomplished. His silly teasing about March 3 was gratuitous, coy, passive aggressive. Dishonest.
Today, once again, Somerby reduces all of us to the lowest common denominator and then blames the press for not doing the same.
ReplyDeleteHe claims that treating Clinton like a decent person defies imagination because Fox has been maligning him since its inception. In doing that, he does not challenge Fox's account but instead underlines it. Not only is that unfair to Clinton, but it tells a lie about Somerby himself. He is not here to support Clinton but to reinforce the Fox story about him, that he is a philanderer and abuser of women. Somerby's token protests against that view are present, but his phrasing suggests he doesn't believe Clinton's innocence. That may be partly because sarcasm doesn't come across in print, but also because Somerby's wink wink nod nod after his seemingly performative and weak-tea defenses of Clinton make it seem that his defense of our former Democratic president pro forma and not believable. In this way, Somerby not only muddies the water surrounding Clinton's connection with Epstein, but he implies that he himself doesn't believe the exonerations by the woman involved, much less Clinton's own testimony.
Somerby's own defenders here want us to believe that he is truly supporting Clinton's innocence, but that doesn't fit with Somerby's own statements, including these:
"Are you able to believe that Bill Clinton, age 56, actually "liked" this 22-year-old woman, but didn't sexually assault her?
Also, are you able to believe that he "acted like a perfect gentleman" during that trip? That he didn't engage in the kind of conduct the snarling mutts of the Fox News Channel like to go on TV and dream up stories about?
Are you able to believe that the trip in question was about AIDS prevention, not about the joys of sexual assault?
Admittedly, AIDS prevention is boring. But are you able to imagine that AIDS prevention is the actual reason why Bill Clinton was on that plane?
"Are you able to believe that Bill Clinton, age 56, actually "liked" this 22-year-old woman, but didn't sexually assault her?
Also, are you able to believe that he "acted like a perfect gentleman" during that trip? That he didn't engage in the kind of conduct the snarling mutts of the Fox News Channel like to go on TV and dream up stories about?
Are you able to believe that the trip in question was about AIDS prevention, not about the joys of sexual assault?
Admittedly, AIDS prevention is boring. But are you able to imagine that AIDS prevention is the actual reason why Bill Clinton was on that plane? "
Then Somerby claims that our culture is not able to care about AIDS, etc. Directing us to reject those beliefs as impossible to believe given the way we ALL are, according to Somerby. Somerby is dealing in double negatives and multiple constructions that deny the simply and straightforward content of Clinton's testimony. People get lost in such constructions. That is why Somerby uses them, because his intent is to damage Clinton, not to believe him.
Any sentient person can read today’s post and see that it is a call for Blue elites to stand up on their hind legs and combat the vicious slander that Fox spews at Clinton. I’m beginning to wonder why you don’t see that. Is someone paying you to pretend to be a liberal and to disrupt Somerby’s call for Blues to confront the Fox propaganda machine?
DeleteThat was me.
DeleteYou seem to be unable to read below the surface and are taking Somerby too literally. Assuming you are reading Somerby in good faith and not just some troll paid to defend him in comments.
DeleteHow do you imagine any "blues" can "confront" the Fox propaganda machine when it is fueled by Republican money that knows exactly why it is doing what it does? And if Somerby is confronting lies, why is he sowing doubt about Clinton's statements and what happened? Somerby says the left has already so tarnished Clinton that no one can believe what he says about his innocence, inviting his readers to mirror his own skepticism. That is an odd sort of defense (or confrontation if you prefer).
Nothing said by "blues" is going to peel off any Fox viewers, not even with a huge effort that would immediately be decried as "biased" should any press outlet attempt it. And there is that old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Even negative reviews of Gutfeld promote him and his show. So how exactly does Somerby think we blues are going to confront Fox?
DeleteOf course that was you, DG. We wouldn't want you to miss getting paid for meeting your troll quota. That's the main reason trolls have nyms -- to identify their efforts so they can get paid properly.
DeleteAnd from yesterday we know why Mice are too scared to use nyms; they want added protection against libel actions. As they said, they will imply Somerby is a pedophile but won’t say it directly for fear of suit.
DeleteHere we see Somerby bashing the lone Democrat on The View, by calling Tarlov a "punching bag." That is demeaning to Tarlov, who perhaps feels it is important to represent the left on an otherwise propaganda-filled network. Does Tarlov deserve such a title? Here is her background:
ReplyDelete"Education: Earned a B.A. in History from Bryn Mawr College, followed by a Master of Science in Public Policy and Administration, a Master of Research, and a Ph.D. in Political Science and Government from the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Career: Before her media career, she worked as a democratic strategist and pollster for Schoen Consulting. "
It doesn't seem to be in Somerby's nature to say anything nice about a female journalist or analyst. Tarlov is certainly outnumbered but she is also well-qualified to serve as she does on The View. Others consider that she is doing her job well as the Los Angeles Times describes her: "She is recognized for her ability to articulate progressive viewpoints in a collaborative, often spirited, setting on a conservative-leaning network."
So, why does Somerby dump on her this way? It echoes his ugly behavior toward female journalists, including his long campaign against Rachel Maddow (still one of the left's MVPs). She alone cannot fight the slop served by Fox, but if she were not there, we would have no voice on that network at all. And no one can say she has given up her role. Somerby thinks she is a kind of political straight man, teeing up negative crap from the other hosts. Crickets from Somerby about the liberals who do the same on Bill Maher's show, now that he has come out as a right-winger. Tarlov has a dirty job, but someone has to do it or there would be no counterpoint at all to Fox propaganda. At least she isn't as big a shill as Somerby himself, pretending to be liberal while advancing this crap against Bill Clinton, yet another day.
Somerby never really states what happened on March 3. If that is his sullen reaction to being accused of amplifying Gutfeld's voice, why does he do it again with this Chauntae Davies testimony and interview quotes? Yes, she supports Clinton, even in her prior statements, but why then does Somerby tell us that no one can believe her because we are all too preoccupied with sex to consider any innocent figures. That is ridiculous and negates what she said.
ReplyDeleteIt is completely obvious that the Republicans are deposing the Clintons in order to distract from the guilt of Trump and other major Republicans and public figures, as revealed by the Epstein Files. Those files have still not been released as required by law, something Somerby mocks. Actual liberals are very serious about demands to see those files and prosecute the abusers of Epstein's victims. Somerby's tone and mockery grate on those of us who definitely care about those victims AND AIDS. Somerby's cynicism is ugly and not what the left is about. It undermines his assertion that he is one of us, when it is plainly obvious he is not. HE is the one who doesn't care about AIDS (or other liberal causes) and he generalizes this to all people, when that is plainly untrue. Who does Somerby think has funded the Global Initiative all these years? People like us, as they say on PBS.
Somerby concludes: "In our own Blue America, no one will ever report or discuss what those lowlifes did on March 3. They're very naughty boys and girls, and the giants we Blues are told to trust race to get out of their way."
First, we do not trust the mainstream media or legacy press, because of how they have treated our candidates over time. Second, they are no longer giants but now owned by right-wing oligarchs who are reshaping all of the media into Fox-like propaganda organs. Pete Hegseth said so yesterday, to the press. Third, it is a waste of time to follow and correct the lies told by the right, on media like Fox. Fourth, distracting ourselves from our own investigative journalism is exactly what the right wishes would happen, but there is too much corruption and wrongdoing to waste time chastising Gutfeld for doing exactly what the right pays him to do.
We on the left have our own fish to fry. Today we get another helping of Somerby's own propaganda on behalf of the right, kicking Clinton, kicking Tarlov, kicking a hapless wrestler, and repeating Gutfeld's lies verbatim, in case any of us might have missed them, deliberately in most cases. That is a service to the right, not the left.
Obviously, Somerby was describing her role in the Fox propaganda ecosystem. You use it as pretend evidence of his “sexism.” Again — Are you on the level or are you a saboteur?
ReplyDeleteHe calls a woman with a Ph.D. in politics a "punching bag." Aside from the historical habit of men calling women bags (short for baggage, a term going back in England), he might have commended her effort and noted the clarity or truth of her statements. If Somerby wants blues to confront Fox, why does he denigrate the "blue" already doing that, as Tarlov does? It makes no sense, except in the context of Somerby's ongoing attacks on female journalists.
DeleteCalling her a "punching bag" evokes violence against women, but it also seems to expect that she should be able to stand up against 4 conservatives arrayed against her, permitted to interrupt at will and talk over her. I don't know how she stands it, but those guys are displaying the kind of verbal discriminatory behavior that women in other situations experience. Women are interrupted more, talked over, not listened to, and so on. In that way, Fox displays sexism in action and viewers get a vicarious experience of bashing women themselves by watching what happens to Tarlov.
DeleteThen Somerby piles on, by calling her names instead of honoring her intention and her effort, successful or not. If Somerby had a clue about sexism, he might have noted that dynamic himself, but he is clueless and too often expresses his own sexism with his attacks on women here in his blog.
Yet another reason why Somerby is unlikely to be liberal, no matter what he calls himself.
If you read any of the blue substacks, such as Simon Rosenburg, Robert Reich, Heath Cox Richardson, Thom Hartmann, you can read to the end and not find a single right wing meme or talking point. With Somerby, it is easy to identify when he wrote each day's post -- the right wing talking points leap out and are obvious. That's why no one who is genuinely liberal believes that Somerby is one of us. His purpose is clear because his essays ALWAYS have something beneficial to the right being said each day, and these ideas and statements are so easy to identify.
ReplyDeleteHere is how people in blue media confront the Lowlife-in-Chief:
ReplyDelete"— Trump chuckles as he admits Putin is helping Iran kill American troops. It’s a grim reminder of when Putin was paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill our soldiers and, when Trump was confronted about it, he defended Putin and called it a “hoax.” Even though the source of the information was US intelligence agencies and the briefing had come from his own administration. Now Putin’s at it again, this time helping Iran kill at least a dozen US soldiers so far, and Trump actually laughed when asked about it, saying that Putin was just doing what we’re doing to him in Ukraine, so it’s all okay. Here’s how Raw Story reported Trump’s response to Brian Kilmead asking him to confirm that Putin is helping Iranians kill Americans: “Yeah, we’re helping them also,” Trump agreed, chuckling, “and he says that, and China would say the same thing, you know. It’s like, ‘Hey, they do it, and we do it, in all fairness.’ They do it, and we do it.” And then, as six more US airmen died in a plane crash over Iraq in support of our Iran mission, Trump started dancing. Can you imagine the GOP and media response if Obama had — twice — just shrugged his shoulders when he was told Russia was killing Americans and then went partying? This disgusting husk of a man must be impeached as quickly as possible." Thom Hartmann