🤦‍♂️No bob, they are not. THE FACTS WERE NOT DISPUTED BY TRUMP OR THE TRUMP ORG AT ALL, not in court…he submitted most of them.
Trump disputes the facts on camera, but not in court under oath. He can’t. The documents are what they are. He was too cowardly and guilty to take the stand…his smartest move yet.
Trump valued Maralago at $18 million for taxes, not the DA. He also valued it at 100 times that value to get good loan terms that saved him hundreds of millions the banks and county were then deprived of because of his fraud. Understand? I’m sure not.
I did the math, if his stated bank values are truthful, he defrauded the government out of well over $700 million in decades of unpaid taxes for one property.

What was presented during the prosecution “side” of the “hearing” bob? Nothing…because there was no prosecution phase, it was summary judgement based on what was presented by both parties during DISCOVERY. There has only been a “damages” phase of trial since the prima facie case made at discovery necessitated a sumary judgement…not a “prosecution side”.

Bob. This is civil court, not a criminal trial. Please stop trying to explain things you are wholly ignorant about.

In your example, a criminal trial with different rules, the defense could be you didn’t see them, or they dove in front of your moving car, or you were having a medical issue….or one of a thousand mitigating factors. Trump presented no mitigating factors explaining the frauds, the differing values that changed 10000% in value on paper with his signature swearing to the truthfulness of the values he presented, values he knew were fantasy, so was found guilty.
(Side note- in your example the victim’s heirs would also get a civil trial where prima facie guilt would be established by the witnesses and your admission you hit them and you would need to have evidence supporting your affirmative defense that it was under duress to evade liability, just as they would need to prove malicious intent or recklessness to get punitive damages, IMO).

😂 “Property values can’t be fraud in any way”. 😂 hilarious since submitting fraudulent values is exactly what he was found guilty of! 😂

The banks indicated massive fraud, who told you they didn’t? Trump? The banks lost over $180 million in interest they should have received if the collateral values had been correct. Yes, they made some money, but lost out on $180 million plus.
When you get a loan based on fraud like this, even if you pay it back you still comitted a crime and any penny you made from that crime can be recovered from you, exactly what’s happening.
It’s as if Trump submitted documents “proving” his credit rating was 800 but in fact it was below 400, then saying it’s no crime because he paid his low interest credit card bills, pay no attention to the lower rates and perks he received because of his fraud, they’re nothingburgers…$180 million nothing burgers.

This is a BS showman disgraced ex president caught red handed. You know it, he knows it. No one is blinded, you are simply dishonest.

What of me statement are bullshit or not in this hearing/case?
The disclaimers don’t mean Trump can just make up the numbers, like he did. I know he claims that, he already lost that point in court. He gave fraudulent numbers, values, square footage, claimed unpermitted unbuilt rentals were filled and collecting rent, claims he didn’t add “brand value” but it’s there listed on the documents.

lol. You get your “information” from crack heads, failed comedians turned pundits, and con men like rapist Trump. I get mine directly from the courts, then verify, then look at what nonsense MAGA is saying about it, then debunk your nonsense. Stop projecting. I’m not stupid. I’m no dick. I have almost no ego. I simply hate stupid lies and the stupid lying liars who lie them stupidly and I have the testicular fortitude and perspicacity to factually contradict them with facts, figures, and references.

You don’t ever look for shit, you liar. You take what the MAGA machine hands you and you say what they said to say. You haven’t had an individual thought since you’ve been posting here, not one. Every word you post can be found in the MAGAsphere written by someone else who makes money by telling you lies to repeat.

Yes, Trump was found guilty during discovery before the courtroom trial began, which is perfectly normal and reasonable in cases where the evidence is incontrovertible like this one. That’s the United States legal system, no surprise you don’t understand it….you don’t understand thing about my country.

Now whine that he couldn’t have a jury trial just because he didn’t ask for one until after his trial had started. So unfair! 😂

Liar. Every word you write these days is a lie.
Jimmy Dore is not a Sanders supporter. He’s a failed comedian turned Trumpist pundit.

That’s not what the report said by any means. It said one FBI agent slightly misrepresented one email that was a tiny part of the reason for the warrant against Page that ended up finding so much Russian collusion and so many unregistered foreign agents working in the Trump administration, they were convicted.
It did not discount those serious crimes against the United States those officials committed and were convicted of (many them pardoned by Trump).

None of those convictions for administration officials being unregistered foreign agents was a hoax.
That meeting in Trump tower with Russians to trade favors for dirt on Clinton wasn’t a hoax.
That recording of Flynn illegally colluding with Russia on Trumps behalf before Obama was out of office wasn’t a hoax, neither was his conviction for outright lying about all of it under oath because he KNEW it was illegal collusion with a hostile foreign power and knew it was a serious crime he’d been caught committing for Trump….those weren’t hoaxes.
Those dozens of cases of administration officials laundering cash donated by Russians to Trump weren’t hoaxes.

Only the claim that “Russia/Trump is a hoax” is a hoax. 🤦‍♂️

All the Durham report really showed is the Trump DOJ acted wholly inappropriately by acting as Trump’s personal lawyer and PR machine, spreading lies and hiding evidence for him, not acting the nations top cop but actively working against national interests and justice to protect one criminal.

No convictions from Durham, not one. No recommendations, no crimes. More millions wasted on fake culture war nonsense rehashing 5 year old crimes for the sole benefit of criminal himself. Another failed MAGA propaganda attempt they’ve been too stupid and too incompetent to put together, but continue to lie about. A big 5 year old undercooked nothing burger served cold and plain. You enjoy that.

Keep trying bob. All this whining and crying brings me so much joy.
Every time another MAGA “investigation” falls apart, another Victoria’s Secret transexual model gets their wings, unintentionally making MAGA more trans positive that Ru Paul.! 😂

Take your idiotic lies elsewhere, dumbshit. You belong on Toth Senchal where readers anre delusional enough to accept your claims…and daddy Trump needs you there, his numbers are shit.
Or is this a masochism thing…you post this stupidity here because you honestly love being told how idiotic and delusional you are constantly, then having it proven with verifiable facts? Yep, that’s the only rational explanation.

Uh oh….Trump says DeSantis is a groomer, posted with pictures of him drinking with his high school students when he was a teacher. Every accusation is an admission, and DeSantis accused teachers of being groomers…and Trump accused DeSantis.
Since it’s WELL documented how many “drink parties” Trump and Epstein held with only underage girls, WELL documented how many times Trump partied at Epstein’s and Epstein partied at Maralago AFTER he was convicted of multiple child rapes…so WELL documented that Trump is a consummate groomer, you are left with a choice of which child molesting groomer is you guy…which is you pick?
🤦‍♂️

Side note- Republicans are so dumb now, 5 have reported having their campaign accounts hacked and stolen last month, one lost over $150000. Maybe they should stop emailing with Russians.

OMG! Conservatives are outraged because ChatGPT won’t use racial slurs. Telling. (Morons).
Progressives don’t care that in the exact same scenario it also refuses to make fun of conservative pundits and billionaires.

So says the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, whining little bitches that they all are. What a sad little joke, @bobknight33

Bob, you do get that this is supposed to be a comedy show, not news, right?
Bob, you do get that Gutfeld is another, so over the top and fact free pundit that no one could reasonably believe anything he says, just like Carlson, and OAN, and Newsmax….none of it is fact, bob. It’s 100% hyperbolic partisan fantasy. They say so every time they go to court….why are you intentionally this gullible? They’ve admitted they lie to you constantly and are not news sources….but you keep listening to them and claiming they’re “news” offering “fact”. Duh.

Aaaaahahaha.

So that's a great big "no, I still can't name a single one, but I'll keep claiming they were there and in charge". Typical, can't back up your lie (I was going to call it a specious claim, but that implies it's plausible but wrong....your claim isn't even plausible) but won't ever admit you're wrong, no matter how stupid and baseless the lie.

Yeah, no evidence must mean it's been magically erased from the entire internet, not that it never existed anywhere but extreme right wing propaganda sites that put forth liar's opinions as facts. Of course, I'm not going to bother with your propaganda site, it's probably hosting viruses like most far right propaganda sites, and it clearly isn't worth reading based on the title and source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit
The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[8] news and opinion website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.

Let me ask, what was that former fbi agent doing there. Answer, infiltrating the capitol and trying to overthrow the government for Trump. You really think anyone is going to buy his baseless excuse that all those hundreds of unmasked and identified Trumpists smashing into the capitol, and the thousands outside murdering police on camera were really busloads of masked antifa, I guess in mission impossible masks that facial ID software identifies as Trumpist individuals.

Or is your claim that the thousands of Trumpists were led by a small group of black masked anarchists they want to kill who told them the same thing Trump told them, fight hard, get rid of those representatives and Pence, and while they didn't listen to Trump when he said it an hour earlier, they did listen to their political enemies and committed treason on Antifa's direction?

Just don't look at the thousands of posts made by the Trumptards from inside the building during their hunt for elected officials to assassinate, because you might notice a distinct lack of Antifa and a thousand or more stating that they're there because Trump said to go fight, and they want to murder officials and install Trump as dictator for life, not because this black masked hippy said to.

Jesus, you're so fucking stupid and infantile, trying that insanely ridiculous excuse to try to deflect from the FACT that Donny riled them up into a murderous armed mob and sent them to the capitol to "get rid" of the representatives that wouldn't join their insurrection, and the FACT that they went directly there and followed his instructions, telling anyone within shouting distance they were there at Trump's direction because they are listening to the president and are stopping the steal. It makes you look like a spoiled baby who, after telling everyone she is going to have cookies no matter what anyone says and was caught red handed stealing and eating cookies, tries to blame their imaginary friend for shoving those cookies into their mouth.
Just
So
Fucking
Infantile
And
Stupid.

No one is buying it, even if it were true, and it's absolutely not, it's not an excuse, and it only makes you a brain dead liar willing to say any lie to escape responsibility for your parties actions once again.

Liar.

🤦‍♂️

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

OK, the actual statement made by Melania's camp (as seen on screen at 1:10):
"I don't believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani."

That's a pretty significant nudge. To me, pretty clearly says "don't put words in my mouth". You can infer it as "don't put words in my mouth, you weaselly little prick", but the statement itself is pretty carefully reserved in the exact wording.

Newsworthy? Sure. But to me, I think a good journalist (and I'd usually include Anderson Cooper in that camp) should show the statement itself, without any opinion or commentary first, and then make a distinct segue showing that we're now moving into pundit's reactions and opinions.

The lead here was "First Lady Melania Trump's Office Fires Back at Rudy Giuliani Over His Remarks About Stormy Daniels". That just seems a bit clickbait-y to me. "Fires Back" requires reading between the lines of the statement itself. Accurate? Probably. But I think they should have honored the carefully worded nature of the actual statement and gone with something like ..."Responds to" instead of "Fires Back".

Furthermore, they should have kept the full text of the statement itself up on the screen during the whole reaction/opinion portion segment where Cooper and the other talking heads discuss things. By all means, discuss. I even mostly agree with their interpretations and take on the situation. But keep the text of the actual statement up so that viewers can decide for themselves.


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was actually fantastic for hoisting people on their own petard by fairly and accurately showing their actual statements and reacting to them -- no bait and switch / obfuscation necessary. Stewart's kind of subtlety in pointing out contradictions and bullshit was awesome.

I guess I feel like the best response to Trump's "Fake News" shtick is to be doubly rigorous when it comes to journalistic integrity. Trump's gonna give you plenty of ammo to use against him. Use it, but do it in such a way that any allegations of bias or unfairness are clearly wrong.

In a way Scahill is like a less educated\refined version of Noam Chomsky. He does good investigative work, and dedicates enormous energy into exposing and spotlighting the bad things that America does. That has a place, but without a similarly harsh and critical light being cast on America's targets/enemies it becomes propaganda.

Jeremy says he wouldn't work with Charles Manson to oppose trump, fair enough. What about kind of working with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Say, at least agreeing not to attack Stalin while you both deal with Hitler?

The world is incredibly complicated and the singular and lone focus on American mistakes paints a deceptive picture. Pointing out the problems with America's war in Iraq, like torture and Quantanamo and declaring these as so immoral we needn't even look at Saddam's past is propaganda. Saddam waged two campaigns of genocide against his own people. When America saw the abuses at Abu Ghraib, they shut it down and attempted to punish those responsible. When Saddam's brother used chemical weapons to exterminate Kurdish civilians Saddam commended him for it. Guantanamo is bad, but it doesn't mean we should fail to acknowledge the concentration camps that Saddam operated during his genocide of the Kurds. It doesn't mean it's unfair to observe that conditions in Saddam's prisons across the country were far more cruel during his entire reign.

There's a nuanced place here that Scahill and Chomsky and pundits like them just fail to acknowledge and encourages inaction at times were the lesser evil may well be for America to do something, even if aborting Gadafi's genocide doesn't make Libya a paradise after.

My hat is well and truly off to Shannon Sharpe.

Never heard of the guy before watching this, but who knew sports pundits could be so eloquent and thoughtful?

OTOH, I find America's hyper-patriotism deeply weird.

Don't get me wrong, I love both my country of birth and my adopted home, but that's because of the people that live there and the places I've been to. The idea that someone who has a problem with some serious issues in a country is not a patriot is just alien to me.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."
- James A. Baldwin

Not all pundits and polls. I saw many that echoed my theories (but it's true, many/most didn't).

Not sure what you mean with Sanders. He never had a chance at all, or was screwed out of his chance? I agree with the latter.

The DNC felt that Hillary was a land slide victory against Trump.
Heck all media pundits and polls echoed this bias.

The DNC just had to railroad Bernie out of the race.
Sanders truly did not have a chance to win the primary.

It's going to take media pundits a while to adjust to this new style. They'd not used to the playground style stuff, because they only ever interviewed slippery spinny politicians in the last 30 years of news. Now they need to get to grips once more with ridiculing what is an obviously childish point of view.

@iaui
i do not understand you defense of corporate media pundits,who most certainly failed to recognize the actual political climate of this country.

i am not saying EVERY pundit got it wrong.there were internet political shows that did address the rise of populism,and the reasons behind it,and that trump was a valid threat and not to be dismissed.

but for the most part,corporate media pundits all echoed each others sentiments in regards to this last election cycle.

there is a REASON why bernie sanders populist language resonated with the public,and many of those people were republicans.

there is a REASON why trumps populist language,which was vastly different than sanders,resonated with another sector of the population,and not all of those people were racist,sexist,misogynist homophobes.

and none of those REASONS were addressed by corporate media pundits.they preferred to talk about trumps bombastic speeches,his racism and sexism...total cult of celebrity,because it SOLD,it made them MONEY.

it is those very same corporate media pundits that actually facilitated the rise of donald trump,and his actual presidency,because they simply did not get the current political climate here in america.which is exactly what this video is addressing,that these highly paid,and richly rewarded,pundit class reside in their own tiny,little echo chambers,that happens to reside in close proximity to the very people they have been assigned to watch,criticize and report on.

they failed on an epic scale,and it is no surprise that the majority of americans have abandoned corporate media as if it had herpes,covered in aids.

and to make the argument that this video is suspect SIMPLY because bob posted it,is intellectually dishonest,because it does NOT address the video.i disagree with bob on pretty much everything,but to ignore or disregard this video based solely on the fact that you,or i,disagree with bob politically is just incredibly weak.

now if you wish to defend corporate media political pundits,and opinion makers,and have strong case where this video is wrong in regards to how the pundit class have failed,live in a bubble,and did not understand the underlying frustration and anger boiling underneath americas working class.i am all ears,because in my opinion they have utterly failed the american people.

and i am not dismissing your polling numbers,i am just saying they are not as relevant as you are making them out to be.polls can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to mean,and in my opinion are not a strong basis to formulate an argument to defend corporate media.

but i suspect your argument is more against bob than the video,and your skepticism is based solely on your disagreement with bob politically.not un-warranted i admit,bob has posted some extremely slanted videos,but so haven't we all in our own way.

but in this case?
this video is spot on,even though bob is the one who posted.

do not let your bob bias and prejudice cloud your judgment.

Never forget. Trump won by 70,000 votes. And lost the popular vote by over 3,000,000 votes. To say that these pundits' "entire analytical framework was drastically and catastrophically faulty" is totally wrong. They were wrong by whatever percentage of the total votes 70,000 votes is. Or maybe double that, to cement a Clinton lead. So they were wrong by 140,000 / 138,884,643 = 0.00100803081 so

They were wrong by 0.10%.

And based on the population who voted they were right by (Clinton's votes: 65,844,610) - (Trump votes: 62,979,636) = 2,864,974 votes / 138,884,643 = 0.02062844341.

They were right by 2.06%. They were over 20 times more right than they were wrong.

Also, regarding Economic and Racial anxiety, BOTH were correlated as predictors of support for Trump. That does not mean that every person who was Economically anxious was also Racially anxious but I would bet those populations do overlap somewhat, partly because the question isn't just 'Are you economically anxious?' but 'Are you economically anxious while Barack Obama is in the White House?'

I don't necessarily feel dumber having watched this video, but it's clearly very biased, and I do feel like it was a waste of my time to see it. The video's writer is obviously just looking to name a few Liberal up and comers and attempt to cut them down.

Also, consider the post source. @bobknight33 is as Russian-trolly as Russian trolls get. This is exactly the kind of right-wing propaganda they love to use to bash Liberals in America and push them further towards their wing.

correct, but isn't this more of a trait of humans in general? And all throughout history? Not just pundits in the year 2016/17. We are all biased, we base belief on our shared experiences, we believe concepts in groups, then we fight about it. Rinse and repeat. The soap box is just a lot further-reaching now.