FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2026
In search of a citizen's duty: We saw it this morning on Morning Joe, in the program's first half hour. We want to compliment David Gilmour of Mediaite for presenting tape and a transcript so quickly.
Joe Scarborough went right at it! He assailed the way the sitting president has now decided to play a role in "the killing of grandmothers"—but also in the killing of children and the killing of innocents in general.
He made reference to a Reuters report which appears beneath this headline:
Order to limit Starshield for Ukraine came from inside White House, sources say
Are the sources right this time? Scarborough assumes that they are. Meanwhile, back at Mediaite, Gilmour's summary of the Reuters report can be perused by clicking here.
In this follow-up report, Gilmour posts the videotape from today's Morning Joe. Headline included, Gilmour's report starts like this:
Scarborough Shreds Trump’s ‘Absolute Betrayal’ of Ukraine: ‘In Bed with Vladimir Putin’
Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough tore into President Donald Trump over what he called the “absolute betrayal” of Ukraine, accusing the president of siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin as Washington eases pressure on Moscow and restricts satellite capabilities used by Ukrainian forces.
The host launched into the blistering monologue on [Friday] amid rapidly deteriorating relations between Washington and Kyiv, declaring: “I just can’t get Ukraine off my mind and the absolute betrayal of Ukraine.”
Gilmour's report continues from there. On the accompanying videotape, Scarborough is shown saying this on this morning's program as he speaks with Ed Luce of the Financial Times:
SCARBOROUGH (10/16/26): I just can’t get Ukraine off my mind and the absolute betrayal of Ukraine.
The whole world is rising up against Donald Trump’s just outrageous embrace of Vladimir Putin’s killing machine. The fact that he’s doing diesel deals to pump billions of dollars into Vladimir Putin’s killing machine. The fact that we have reports from Reuters, last night, that it was the White House that ordered the Pentagon to slow down the Starlink satellites, to make sure that Russia’s fastest, deadliest missiles could get into Kyiv and kill grandmothers, kill children, kill grandfathers, kill innocents.
That’s all in Donald Trump’s hands. He’s the one in charge of this, and you see leaders from across the world speaking out against Donald Trump, I would say, getting in bed with Vladimir Putin, but he never really got out, did he?
[...]
These events are shocking even by Trumpian standards. He's doing everything he can to help Vladimir Putin win this war. Why?
On the videotape, Luce tries to answer Scarborough's question. As before, so too today—we compliment Scarborough for creating the most intelligent discussions in all of daily cable news, largely through the participation of an array of highly informed guests like Luce.
(Richard Haass was also involved in this morning's discussion.)
On this morning's program, Scarborough was discussing a hugely important, if puzzling, policy choice by the sitting president. Increasingly, there's also the endless array of gratuitous insults delivered by Trump, along with his weird (if inconsequential) public statements and Truth Social posts.
Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell was walking that second beat. As he frequently does, he derided the president for "the utterly insane, breathtakingly stupid things he says every day." He attributed this undeniable state of affairs to the sitting president's "declining cognitive ability," his "cognitive decline."
Is it true? Is the most powerful person in the world experiencing a cognitive decline—even a significant cognitive decline? As we've noted many times, here's what his niece, the doctorate-holding clinical therapist, said on CNN earlier this year.
For the record, the key words here is "untreated:"
ERIN BURNETT (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a decline?
MARY TRUMP: I do, but I think it's important to remember that Donald has never been fit in any capacity. Obviously, what we're dealing with now are age-related cognitive declines. We're dealing with physical issues that the White House tries to cover over.
But this is somebody who for decades now has had serious, undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric disorders, which are only going to worsen, especially given the pressure he's under and given the cognitive and physical declines.
The key word there is "untreated." Mary Trump was describing a serious set of medical conditions which have gone untreated.
As for O'Donnell, he now refuses (or isn't allowed) to bring medical specialists onto his show to offer an informed assessment. Instead, he is inclined to offer his own home brew of diagnosis, larded with personal insults.
That leaves us with Bill Maher's claim, which we've discussed in the past few days. "What, me honor my citizen's duty?" he almost seems to have said.
Fellow citizens, why does our sitting president behave so strangely, even reaching to the point described this morning by Scarborough? This is what Bill said:
"I don’t know and I can’t answer and it’s not my place to answer.”
We'd call that a very strange statement. We'd say it's his place to try. We'd say it's his duty as an American citizen, as a citizen of the world.
Bill interviews guests with a wide array of specialties. In our view, it's his duty as a citizen to interview medical specialists about the president's odd behaviors—odd behaviors which may spill over into the killing of children.
We vastly admire Bill's achievements, and Bill is hardly alone in the stance he's adopted here. There is no major Blue American journalist or media figure who hasn't run away from the question Bill seemed to regard as none of his freaking business.
The president's behavior has become stranger and stranger. Every journalist has taken a dive concerning what's right there before them.
What does this have to do with happiness. you might ask at this point. Also, how about the state of mind Thoreau described at the start of his chapter called Solitude?
With that, you're asking an excellent question. We'll address that question in the weeks ahead as we thrash about at this site, looking for amended ways which may let our nation survive.
"Are the sources right this time? Scarborough assumes that they are."
ReplyDeleteNo, Scarborough isn't just assuming they are right. Journalistic standards are to require two independent sources confirming each other before reporting info. Even on cable, no one is reporting rumors and hearsay and unsourced garbage that will later have to be retracted.
This language about Scarborough "assuming" is Somerby's snide and weaselly way of undermining what he said. And that is Somerby's job here, doing damage control for Trump and the right wing.
In this case, each act to undermine Ukraine on behalf of Putin and Russia is corroboration for the other acts, which taken collectively show that Trump is Putin's bitch and he is waging covert and undeclared war against Ukraine himself, by aiding Putin in his attack on Ukraine.
anon 11:57, I don't get it. You seem to be going off the rails - somehow TDH "assuming" Scarborough is right (in a post where he praises Scarborough) to you is using "weaselly" words to support Trump and the right wing. I hope you aren't an example of how the "blue" side reasons - if so, we are in big trouble. Your take is utterly ridiculous.
Delete
ReplyDelete"Scarborough Shreds Trump’s ‘Absolute Betrayal’ of Ukraine"
Silly retarded Dumbocrat (but I repeat myself). To "betray" something you have to first swear loyalty to it, or something. And what kind of moron would swear loyalty to the clown who does this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oua0Puihrkc
Well, a retarded Dumbocrat would, I suppose...
If Trump becomes an asset of Putin, would Trump act any differently?
DeleteYeah, trumptard, Zelensky sure looks silly in that clip you provided. Doesn't he know that a serious world leader should do a jerk-off dance to a gay anthem?
DeleteThat “clown” running a so called “failed state” has inflicted a hell of a lot of embarrassing damage on Putin. It leaves you wondering which of the two is the clown.
Delete
DeleteYeah, right: that clown is running it. Thanks for the laughs, retarded Dumbocrat.
Zelensky isn't running Ukraine? Good one, trumptard!
Deleteanon 1:25 - you are on Putin's side, right? But how can I argue with you with your shrewd and subtle argument, repeated over and over, based solely on the taunt that Democrats are "Dumbocrats" and also "retarded." It's so hard to match wits with you.
DeleteSomerby emphasizes that Mary Trump referred to Trump's issues as "untreated." If Somerby knew more about psychology, he would know that personality disorders like those of Trump are not treatable. They are not corrected with any known treatment. The best anyone can do with tretament is gain some awareness of their own personality defects so that they can correct their behavior day-to-day and perhaps get along better in the world. Trump has no reason to attempt that because his life is cushy, others clean up his messes, his money buys him out of any trouble, and he doesn't care about others' opinions of him. He is like Cartman in South Park -- he does what he wants. There is no motive for him to change, so therapy would be useless. Others like Trump go to jail.
ReplyDeleteSo why does Somerby emphasize the lack of treatment? I think it is partly to excuse Trump. It wasn't his fault his parents didn't send him to a shrink, Somerby implies (without saying). Trump is just another poor lost boy (Somerby has said before), to be pitied not punished.
Given the huge amount of harm Trump has done to others, recently not just in his past, it is time for Trump to be removed from office and prevented from doing more injuries to all of us. Now, not at the end of his term. Somerby won't say that. But Somerby has the nerve to criticize Bill Maher for being unwilling to stick up for the American people.
I have seen no evidence O'Donnell is refusing to interview more specialists. It may be that Trump's mental health is no longer news. Or it may be that Trump is damaging himself enough, without O'Donnell perhaps creating sympathy for him in the midst of a midterm election. Or perhaps he has too many other important things to present on his show. Somerby ignores a whole lot happening in the world to harp on his same old broken record about Mary Trump's non-diagnosis of Trump. No one Scarborough might bring on his show would have a better diagnosis of Trump than himself, given that no one has been given access to properly evaluate Trump beyond his own medical staff, which continues to lie about his condition.
So, this is a very stupid essay today by Somerby. He points the finger at everyone except Trump, refusing to accept Trump's treason as likely, while complaining that no one treated the baby narcissist in the crib, as if that happens with any billionaire. Where is Somerby's criticism of Elon Musk, clearly batshit crazy, funding the pro-Paxton campaign single-handedly and continuing to manipulate the government behind-the-scenes for his own enrichement. Elon is way more crazy than Trump, although they both like those girls on the young side, in Elon's case without having to have boring old sex with them, or pay child support.
There is so much wrong with Trump but Somerby apparently cannot see it, given that he never talks about any of it. But Mary Peltola had an emotional meltdown back in 2022-23, when her husband and mother were both killed within months of each other, but she went on and did her job anyway (no months-long disappearance for her, like the breaks Republicans take from their jobs, without notice). And this is revived by the Republicans running to keep her out of the Senate, so Somerby has to repeat their stale garbage without refuting a word of it. If anyone's priorities are odd, it is Somerby's, except if you consider he may be getting paid for his disinformation here. Why else would anyone be doing what he does each day?
Check the archives.
DeleteSomerby was saying the same thing about Osama bin Laden for the first half of the 2000s.
This comment is an example of political outrage organized around a psychological explanation, with a series of increasingly speculative accusations used to reinforce the writer's interpretation.
DeleteWhat makes it interesting is that the commenter accuses Bob Somerby of precisely the intellectual failures that appear repeatedly in the comment itself: selective attention, unsupported inference, amateur psychological assessment, and attributing hidden motives to other people.
There are several distinct problems worth examining.
### 1\. The central argument rests on a questionable psychological premise
The commenter begins:
> If Somerby knew more about psychology, he would know that personality disorders like those of Trump are not treatable.
This is a categorical claim presented as established medical knowledge.
It is not accurate. Personality disorders can be difficult to treat, and treatment does not necessarily eliminate longstanding personality traits. But psychotherapy can improve symptoms, behavior, relationships, and functioning. Some personality disorders have substantial evidence supporting particular treatments.
The commenter then contradicts the categorical claim by describing ways treatment might help someone recognize and modify their behavior.
More importantly, the writer treats Trump's supposed personality disorder as an established clinical diagnosis without demonstrating that an appropriate evaluation has occurred.
The irony: The commenter criticizes Somerby's understanding of psychology while displaying considerable overconfidence about both clinical diagnosis and treatment.
### 2\. The commenter repeatedly claims to know what other people think
Consider this passage:
> I think it is partly to excuse Trump. It wasn't his fault his parents didn't send him to a shrink, Somerby implies (without saying).
Notice the progression:
* Somerby emphasizes the word untreated.
* The commenter interprets this as an attempt to excuse Trump.
* The commenter invents an implied argument about Trump's parents.
* That invented argument becomes evidence that Somerby wants Trump pitied rather than held accountable.
The writer acknowledges that Somerby hasn't actually said the thing being attributed to him.
This is mind-reading combined with a straw-man argument.
There is an important distinction between explaining someone's behavior and excusing it. Somerby could conceivably believe that Trump's behavior has psychological origins while also believing that Trump should be held fully accountable for his actions.
The commenter never seriously considers that possibility.
### 3\. The comment contains an unfalsifiable theory of Somerby's motives
Near the end:
> If anyone's priorities are odd, it is Somerby's, except if you consider he may be getting paid for his disinformation here. Why else would anyone be doing what he does each day?
This is perhaps the most revealing passage.
The writer cannot understand why Somerby continues to write about subjects the commenter considers unimportant or objectionable.
Rather than entertain ordinary explanations—different editorial priorities, sincere disagreement, intellectual preoccupations—the writer introduces the possibility of secret financial compensation.
The rhetorical question, Why else would anyone be doing what he does each day?, is especially significant.
It presents the commenter's inability to imagine an innocent explanation as evidence for a sinister one.
DeleteThat is an argument from incredulity, with an unsupported insinuation of corruption.
### 4\. The writer conflates political disagreement with psychological abnormality
The comment repeatedly uses psychological language as a form of political condemnation:
* Trump supposedly has an untreatable personality disorder.
* Elon Musk is described as "clearly batshit crazy."
* Musk is declared "way more crazy than Trump."
* Somerby is portrayed as psychologically or morally incapable of recognizing what the commenter regards as obvious.
These are not clinical assessments. They are political and moral judgments expressed in psychiatric language.
There is also an asymmetry: the commenter criticizes the lack of a proper professional evaluation of Trump while confidently assigning psychological characteristics to Trump and Musk.
The argument would be stronger if it distinguished observable conduct from speculation about underlying mental disorders.
### 5\. The comment uses a self-sealing interpretation
A particularly important sentence is:
> There is so much wrong with Trump but Somerby apparently cannot see it, given that he never talks about any of it.
The underlying logic is:
If Somerby doesn't discuss what the commenter considers important, that demonstrates Somerby's inability or unwillingness to recognize it.
But silence about a subject does not establish ignorance, approval, or complicity.
Somerby might be wrong about his chosen subjects. His editorial priorities might reasonably be criticized. But those conclusions require examining what he actually writes, not simply identifying what he fails to write.
This creates a self-reinforcing interpretation:
* If Somerby criticizes Trump's opponents, he is excusing Trump.
* If he discusses Trump's psychology, he is excusing Trump.
* If he doesn't discuss Trump's alleged wrongdoing, he is protecting Trump.
* If he continues doing these things, perhaps he is being paid.
Virtually any behavior can be assimilated into the same conclusion.
### 6\. The comment repeatedly changes subjects without establishing connections
The argument begins with Mary Trump's use of the word untreated.
It subsequently moves through Trump's childhood, criminal accountability, Bill Maher, Lawrence O'Donnell, Joe Scarborough, Elon Musk, Ken Paxton, sexual allegations, Mary Peltola, Republican congressional absences, and finally a suggestion of paid disinformation.
This is a form of argumentative sprawl.
Each new subject reinforces the emotional theme, but the writer rarely establishes its logical relationship to the original question.
The discussion of Elon Musk is especially illustrative. Even if every accusation about Musk were established, that would not tell us whether Somerby's interpretation of Mary Trump's remarks was correct.
The additional accusations increase the emotional intensity without resolving the original dispute.
### 7\. The writer's treatment of evidence is inconsistent
The commenter says:
>
I have seen no evidence O'Donnell is refusing to interview more specialists.
DeleteThat is a reasonable demand for evidence.
But the same commenter makes or entertains claims about Somerby's motives, Trump's psychological condition, Musk's mental state, and possible covert financial arrangements without providing comparable evidence.
There is also an interesting moment of genuine uncertainty. The commenter offers several possible explanations for O'Donnell's editorial decisions.
That demonstrates an ability to recognize multiple interpretations.
Yet that interpretive generosity largely disappears when discussing Somerby.
The evidentiary standard changes depending on who is being evaluated.
### 8\. The comment has a legitimate underlying argument
Beneath the speculation and insults is a coherent criticism worth separating from the rhetoric.
The writer appears to believe that Somerby devotes disproportionate attention to the psychological explanations offered for Trump's behavior while neglecting questions of political accountability and the consequences of Trump's actions.
That is a legitimate subject for media criticism.
A stronger argument would examine Somerby's actual writing, identify how often he discusses psychological explanations versus political conduct, and demonstrate specific instances where his framing minimizes accountability.
It would not require speculating about Somerby's secret motives or psychological deficiencies.
### 9\. What the comment reveals about the writer's reasoning
Without attempting to diagnose the commenter clinically, several tendencies are visible in the text.
Moral certainty: The writer appears sufficiently convinced of the correctness of their political interpretation that disagreement itself becomes suspicious.
DeleteHostile attribution: Ambiguous behavior by Somerby is consistently interpreted as evidence of bad intentions.
Motivated reasoning: Claims favorable to the writer's position receive less scrutiny than claims that might challenge it.
Psychologizing disagreement: Instead of treating opposing interpretations as potentially sincere, the writer often explains them through pathology, ignorance, or corruption.
Emotional escalation: The argument becomes progressively more accusatory, moving from disagreement about terminology to suggestions of treason, mental instability, and paid disinformation.
These are characteristics of the argument, not evidence of a psychiatric condition.
### 10\. The deeper irony
The commenter is ostensibly criticizing Somerby for failing to maintain appropriate intellectual standards when discussing Donald Trump's psychology.
Yet the commenter:
* Treats disputed psychological conclusions as settled facts.
* Assigns motives to Somerby without adequate evidence.
* Uses absence of commentary as evidence of complicity.
* Speculates about secret payments.
* Treats disagreement as evidence of defective judgment.
The result is an argument that demands skepticism from Somerby while exercising remarkably little skepticism toward its own assumptions.
There is also a distinction between two different questions that the comment repeatedly collapses:
Why does Trump behave as he does?
What should the political and legal consequences of Trump's behavior be?
A person can investigate the first without dismissing the second. Whether Somerby actually does dismiss the second would require examining his essay.
### Bottom line
The most striking feature of this comment is not its anger at Trump or its disagreement with Somerby. Political anger and sharp media criticism can be entirely compatible with sound reasoning.
It is the writer's tendency to convert interpretations into facts, omissions into evidence, and disagreements into indications of hidden motives.
The commenter begins with a potentially defensible criticism of Somerby's editorial priorities but repeatedly substitutes psychological certainty and speculative accusations for the evidence needed to substantiate that criticism.
In that sense, the comment is less an examination of Somerby's argument than an illustration of how a firmly held political narrative can become resistant to competing explanations.
12:17, on the other hand, was spot on.
Delete"This is a form of argumentative sprawl.
Delete"Each new subject reinforces the emotional theme, but the writer rarely establishes its logical relationship to the original question."
"Argumentative sprawl" seems like another name for the Gish Gallop.
It is the policy of the US Senate by legislative action to support Ukraine. Trump doesn't get to go his own way with this. The people want Ukraine to survive and the president reflects the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteMore reminders are needed the bloated piece of turd works for us.
DeleteI do not understand Trump's favoritism toward Putin. Maybe Putin knows something terrible about Trump and is blackmailing him. Maybe Putin really is ready to make peace and Zelensky is not. In that case, pressuring Zelensky might be the best way to end this war. Maybe Trump just likes bullying people. Zelensky is easier to bully than Putin.
ReplyDeletefuck you, david
Delete
DeletePutin-schmutin.
Don't be an idiot, David. The Russian federation is the largest country on Earth, with a huge reserve of natural resources, and thousands of nuclear warheads mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles. And Ukraine, it's not even a country. It always was part of Russia, and it's a failed state now.
You don't need to be a genius to choose who you want to be friends with.
And you certainly are no fucking genius, maggot breath.
Delete"You don't need to be a genius to choose who you want to be friends with."
DeleteSame reason businesses hire illegal immigrants, instead of white people.
Russia, quite impressive. 4 years on and can’t defeat a little pissant “failed state”. A failed that has destroyed Russian Warplanes and Helicopters, 30% of the Black Sea Fleet, Ground Equipment, thousands of tanks, Reconnaissance & Drones, Oil Refineries & Production, Commercial and Logistics Warehouses, Data Centers.
DeleteYes, quite impressive -- considering that the RF has been fighting all of NATO. Yes, quite successfully.
DeleteIran helps Russia.
DeleteDavid, the important thing is results. Is Trump getting good results from his support for Putin?
DeletePutin has always been ready to make peace.
DeleteReminder that David in Cal believes all politicians lie, which is why he votes for the most racist.
DeleteQ: If it wasn't you, then who gave the order for Starlink to go down in Ukraine?
DeleteTRUMP: I don't know
Vladimir Putin:
Delete"Trump? Never heard of him. Is he the guy who fetches my coffee?'
Trump has fired another woman. This time it’s Katie Zachariah.
ReplyDeleteWell, he has to keep cleaning up for the mistakes those around him make. Who's the moron who hired her in the first place?
DeleteMusta bet some Democrat.
Delete