NB Blog Feed

Morning Joe Furiously Attacks Wall St. Journal Article on Biden's 'Slipping' Mental Acuity

With Joe Scarborough leading the charge, today's Morning Joe mounted a furious attack against yesterday's Wall Street Journal article, "Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping." The article really was nothing much more than a recapitulation of what is obvious to anyone who has observed Biden in recent times. Although he has his relatively cogent moments—notably during this year's State of the Union—Biden suffers "senior moments" with such regularity that the Free Beacon has been cataloging them every week -- now at Week 96 and counting. Joe Scarborough, soccer fan that he is, committed an horrendous own goal in his attempt to defend Biden's mental powers. He began by boasting that he had met -- privately no less! -- with presidents, Speakers of the House going back 30 years, and foreign leaders. Impressive, Joe! Scarborough then said: "And Joe Biden, it's just not close! If you want to talk about international affairs, if you want to talk about how to get bipartisan legislation, Joe Biden is light years ahead of all of them." Well, in a sense, Scarborough was right. Biden is so far ahead of all those other dignitaries, that he literally defies the space-time continuum. As the Journal article noted [emphasis added]: "During a February fundraiser in New York, he recounted speaking to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl—who died in 2017—at the 2021 Group of Seven meeting. That same month, at a different fundraiser, he said that during the 2021 G-7 summit he had spoken to former French President François Mitterrand, who died in 1996." Fire up the DeLorean time machine, and go Back to the Future with Biden! Even so, it's a little less ridiculous than Joe's March tirade with "F--- you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever." Notes: Morning Joe sidekick Willie Geist traditionally provided some more temperate balance to Scarborough's ravings. But in recent months, Willie has become more partisan. Making his own defense of Biden, Geist, among other things, suggested that the Journal devote an article to examining Trump's mental acuity, claiming it's clear that Trump doesn't "have it all together." The only moment of levity in a decidedly angry segment came when Willie asked Mike Barnicle what the White House's reaction has been to the Journal article. Responded a chuckling Barnicle: "I can't say it on the air. You just can't say it on the air what the reaction is, actually." Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 6/5/24 6:04 am EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Let's go to our top story this morning. The Wall Street Journal is out with a new piece entitled "Behind closed doors, Biden shows signs of slipping." The Journal says it spoke with both Republicans and Democrats who either participated in meetings with Biden or were briefed on them contemporaneously, but essentially only on the record, Republican critics in the article. The one is former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.  The Journal writes, quote: "Last year, when Biden was negotiating with House Republicans to lift the debt ceiling, his demeanor and command of the details seemed to shift from one day to the next, according to then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and two others familiar with the talks. On some days, he had loose and spontaneous exchanges with Republicans, and on others he mumbled and appeared to rely on notes. “I used to meet with him when he was Vice President. I’d go to his house,” McCarthy said in an interview. “He’s not the same person.” JOE SCARBOROUGH: By the way, they also quoted Mike Johnson. People around Mike Johnson, and admit that this is basically House Republicans whacking -- MIKA: Why didn't they ask Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert? SCARBOROUGH: Exactly. It's, it's really shocking.   . . .  I could go on and on with things that Kevin McCarthy and others have said about negotiating with Joe Biden. I could also talk about what the French delegation said when they were negotiating with him, and what they told me. And friends that I have in that French delegation that were a part of those negotiations, who said that Macron came out like, wow! Okay. He's a lot tougher than what we expected. And actually, I think Macron sort of got his back up because Biden was pressing so hard.  I can tell you the same thing about Middle Eastern leaders that I talked to. Nobody is saying that he's not cogent. And some people are suggesting that he, you know, a bit too tough in negotiations, that the United States throws their weight around a little bit too much.  . . .  I've talked to you about my meetings with the President over the past year, Willie, and I talked to Mike [Barnicle] and Mika about it. And I said in real time, the guy, the guy -- you see both those guys right there [image of Biden and McCarthy is displayed]? I've spent time with both of those guys privately. I've spent time with Biden and Trump privately. I've spent time with every House Speaker over the past 30 years.  And Joe Biden -- I'm not just -- it's just not close! If you want to talk about international affairs, if you want to talk about how to get bipartisan legislation, Joe Biden is light years ahead of all of them.  . . .  WILLIE GEIST: Let's begin with the fact that Joe Biden is 81 years old, and Donald Trump, by the way, will be 78 next week. So he's not much younger. So, yes, does he move a little slower and speak a little softer than he did 15 years ago when he was Vice President? SCARBOROUGH: Yup. MIKA: Sure does. GEIST: As former Speaker McCarthy said in the piece, sure does. I think most 81-year-olds do or most people are different than they were 15 years ago. This does have the feeling of Trump laundering their attacks through a reputable, prestigious news organization, the Wall Street Journal. Also, the point about notes, as Richard Haass would tell you, presidents uses notes in meetings. That's not unusual. They might have a sheet, they might have a card in front of them with some points they want to make.  I would also point out, Donald Trump has a person who follows him with a printer to print things out for him so he can have hard copies so he can read his notes and facts, and lies often, that he rattles off.  And then the other point to make is, will the Wall Street Journal have a piece about Donald Trump and his mental acuity? All you have to do is watch the 90 minutes of that Fox News interview over the weekend -- MIKA: Wow. GEIST: -- and you could go through and do an entire series of articles on someone who doesn't seem to have it all together. Mike Barnicle, you're very plugged into the White House. What's the early reaction to this piece? MIKE BARNICLE: [Chuckles] I can't say it on the air. You just can't say it on the air what the reaction is, actually.

NB Blog Feed

Scarborough Declares Evangelical Leader Guilty of 'Blasphemy' For Support of Trump

On today's Morning Joe, Defender of the Faith Joe Scarborough ruled that an evangelical leader who expressed his support for Trump was guilty of "depravity," and "straight-out blasphemy."  What a display of religious illiteracy. Scarborough was outraged that the pastor had pointed out that, like Trump, Jesus had been convicted of crimes, and yet Christians worship Jesus. Blasphemy would be saying Trump is Christ, not that he's persecuted like Christ. Nodding along like Scarborough's own Ed McMahon-style sidekick, Willie Geist agreed: "There used to be a word for that: blasphemy." Scarborough didn't specify the punishment to be doled out to the pastor whom he condemned for blasphemy. Perhaps Joe will take inspiration from history: we're just a few days past the anniversary of Joan of Arc, condemned as a heretic, having been burned at the stake.  Eugene Robinson, who doubles as a Washington Post columnist and an MSNBC analyst, had kicked off the conversation, playing off his current WashPost column: "Here’s how Trump could make America great." You can guess Robinson's predictable answer: Trump should drop out of the race.  Careful what you wish for, Gene! Before Trump wrapped up the nomination, polls showed any of the other likely contenders would run stronger than he would against Biden! Back in January, for example, a CBS poll showed Nikki Haley trouncing Biden by nine points, whereas Trump only edged him by two. But back to Scarborough. Now that Joe has established himself as the arbiter of Christian morality and theology, beyond the unidentified pastor in question, how many more of the millions of evangelicals who support Trump will Defender of the Faith Joe banish for blasphemy?  Notes: Scarborough claimed that Trump was convicted of 34 "different" felonies. Wrong. As this CBS News article explains, Trump was convicted of 34 counts of one felony: "falsification of business records" in connection with the way that Michael Cohen was reimbursed for his payment to Stormy Daniels. But DA Bragg managed to manufacture 34 counts by charging every check, invoice, and voucher connected to the reimbursement as a separate crime.  Robinson claimed that in contrast with Trump, who has been convicted of 34 felonies, "the only thing [Biden] is guilty of is living to 81." Not so. Last year, we caught Robinson, in a bit of embarrassing sycophancy, claiming that Biden is "sharp as a tack." There are plenty of octogenarians with all their marbles. But as Robinson would surely admit in a candid, private moment, Biden ain't one of them.  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 6/4/24 6:07 am EDT EUGENE ROBINSON:  Any other moment in our history, a candidate for IIany office who was convicted mid-campaign of 34 felony charges, would have been out, out of the race before the jury foreman had finished the 34 guilty verdicts, right? It would have just been automatic, unthinkable that, that someone would stay in any race given the status as a 34-time felon . . . All these sort of, you know, hand-wringing Democrats and chin-stroking pundits, they've been calling for Joe Biden to step aside. And the only thing he is guilty of is living to 81, you know?  SCARBOROUGH: Gene brings up such a great point, Willie. In the good old days, back, back when I was in Washington, I mean, heck, if somebody got indicted of 34 counts, they immediately resigned from Congress and, you know, went to prepare their defense. Here, Donald Trump gets, gets convicted 34 times,  34 different felonies, and, of course, you have United States Senators who are trying to use it as a badge of honor that their guy is being persecuted by the state. WILLIE GEIST: Yeah, I mean, martyrdom, right? I mean, he's been compared to religious figures, without irony, by members of the United States Congress, by people on TV, as a rallying cry behind him. And that's the, that's the Trump way, though,isn't it? Never surrender. Never apologize for anything. Put your head down, and keep moving. And pretend, despite all the facts around you, that you are the victim. SCARBOROUGH: And always, always play the victim. I mean, that's -- GEIST: Yes. SCARBOROUGH: That's always it. Always play the victim. Always play the martyr. You know, he was asked in, in this weekend, Fox and Friends interview, about evangelicals supporting him.  We even saw people that used to be -- I just saw shocking things by evangelical so-called leaders. One of them having Trump next to Jesus on a cross, saying, why wouldn't you vote for somebody who's been convicted? You worship somebody who was convicted. And that shows you, just the depravity that, that, that many of these people are willing to sink to. It's just straight out blasphemy. GEIST: I was going to say, there used to be a word for that: blasphemy.

NB Blog Feed

To Keep Hope Alive for Biden, Joe Scarborough Clings to New York Times Article

On Thursday's Morning Joe, to keep hope alive for President Biden's chances in the 2024 election, co-host Joe Scarborough clung to an article by Nate Cohn of the New York Times like a drowning man to a life vest. Here's the gist of Cohn's theory: "The polls are not perfect. They've been off before, and they'll be off again. They wouldn't really need to be off-target by much at all for Mr. Biden to squeak out a victory. But even if the polls were exactly right, in the sense that Mr. Trump would win if the election were held tomorrow by the precise margins implied by the recent polls, Mr. Biden would still have a very real chance to win in November." Note that, per Cohn, even if things fell into place Biden's way, he would likely win with the bare minimum of 270 Electoral College votes. Scarborough also boasted about having predicted in 2016 that Trump could win, omitting the fact that just a few days before the 2016 election, he told worried Democrats to "Just relax. Don't go under your bed and get in the fetal position and get your Cheetos out. It's going to be OK. I think Hillary is still going to win." And speaking of Joe's paltry powers of prognostication, in 2018 Scarborough predicted that Trump wouldn't run in 2020!     Inevitably, Scarborough also worked in the fact that he had been a congressman. He boasted that in his first run, while his opponents were wasting their time waving to crowds at fairs, he was going door to door, putting up yard signs, etc. In early May, we noted a furious Scarborough accusing the New York Times [!] of rigging its polls against Biden, in order to drum up the basis for multiple follow-up articles. When, on that show, panelist John Heilemann cautiously expressed doubts about Scarborough's conspiracy theory, Joe angrily rebuked him. Today, perhaps in an effort to butter up the guy who controls his appearances on Morning Joe, Heilemann suggested that The Times had listened to Scarborough's tirade, and that it had published Cohn's article as "a useful corrective." That was some serious sycophancy, Heilemann! Instead of subscribing to Cohn's theory, Scarborough could just as easily have discussed this recent column by respected, non-partisan election analyst Sean Trende: "Are We Too Bearish on Trump?" in which he makes the case that the race is not the toss-up most analysts claim and that Trump was actually leading. Trende ascribes analysts' unjustifiably bearish view of Trump's chances in part to "deeply internalized biases [emphasis added]: "Most of us very much do not want it to be the case that Trump is the favorite. Our degrees of revulsion at the idea of Trump again occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. vary widely, but it’s definitely the predominant view." But of course, Scarborough would never mention Trende's analysis. Joe wants to buck up the Biden base, and cheer up his phone buddy, The Big Guy in the Oval Office. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC's Morning Joe 5/30/24 6:04 am EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Amid reports of hand-wringing from Democrats about President Joe Biden's re-election chances, the New York Times is out with a new piece this morning entitled, "Perhaps lost in the polling: The race for president is still close." In it, chief political analyst Nate Cohn writes that November's election will likely come down to just three states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Where have we heard that before, Joe? As Cohn points out, Biden could lose every other swing state, but if he wins those three, he will most likely win a second term.   . . .  As Cohn puts it, quote, Biden has already done what would ordinarily be considered the hard part. The polls are not perfect. They've been off before, and they'll be off again. They wouldn't really need to be off-target by much at all for Mr. Biden to squeak out a victory. But even if the polls were exactly right, in the sense that Mr. Trump would win if the election were held tomorrow by the precise margins implied by the recent polls, Mr. Biden would still have a very real chance to win in November.  . . . JOE SCARBOROUGH: I'll just say, in 2016, people freaked out when we said that Donald Trump could win. In 2020, I've even dared to say how likely I think it is that Joe --or in 2024, how likely I think it is that Joe Biden will win. Cause I know everybody will freak out and say that I've got my head in the sand. You look at the numbers. You look what Biden's sitting at right now. You look at the fact he's had a low-water mark. You look at the fact that the two areas that he should be having the most problem with, white voters and men, older men, he's actually -- older Americans, he's actually doing very well. . . .  What I always talk about is blocking and tackling. They are lights ahead right now, light years ahead, the Biden team is, of organizing on the ground. Is this, is this a pep rally for Joe Biden? No, it's not. I'm just -- I'm just, just like it wasn't a pep rally for Trump in '16 when everybody said, no, he can't win. Yeah, he can. He can get 270. We were mocked and ridiculed and abused because we predicted the hurricane was coming in September and October. . . .  The stupidity I've been listening to over the past several months, about how this race is over and, you know, Democrats are freaking out and Trumpers are so overconfident. John Heilemann, it's just absolutely insane.  It reminds me when I ran the first time. I would drive past state fairs, and I would see all of my opponents. And they wouldd be waving to people at state fairs. And I would drive by laughing. And then I would go to a neighborhood where I knew there were -- what I called supervoters, who voted every two years. And while they were waving at tens of thousands of people, I was knocking on doors, shaking hands, planting yard signs. It's how I won! I didn't have money. Nobody knew who I was. But it was targeted. This political race this year is targeted. It's basically about 7, 8, 9 congressional campaigns. In Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania. And I thought the Nate Cohn article yesterday explained this better than any I've seen. ANd explained why Biden, man, Biden's as good a chance as he had in 2020. Right now. JOHN HEILEMANN:  Well, good morning, Joe. And I will say, the last time we were talking about The New York Times on the air, you and I were having a healthy, spirited exchange. And, you know, you were pretty angry, annoyed, irritated at the -- at that last wave of Siena battleground state polling. And I guess, you know, someone over at the New York Times may have been listening. This seemed like a useful corrective on that front.

NB Blog Feed

'Murder! Arson! Dictatorship! Anarchy!'—NBC's Beschloss Paints Trump Apocalypse

Was this a Sunday morning political talk show—or the trailer for Mad Max: America? Appearing on MSNBC's The Weekend, leftist NBC historian Michael Beschloss painted a picture of what America would be if Trump won the presidency that was so apocalyptic, Mel Gibson might reject the script as too over the top. Co-host Symone Sanders Townsend kicked off the scare-a-thon, claiming that if Trump wins the election, there will be no "guardrails" preventing him from doing whatever he wants. Odd assertion, given that the system just managed to convict Trump of 34 felonies, and the judge, who was also a Biden donor, has the power to order Trump to prison. After Sanders Townsend's dire prediction, Beschloss took over, and promptly turned the panic meter up to 11. He described a desolate American landscape in which Trump would be a dictator not just for a day, but perhaps for "the rest of our lifetimes." A wrecking of the rule of law designed to protect us from "murder, and arson." A collapse of foreign investment.  Reaching new heights of hyperbole, Beschloss concluded his jeremiad by gravely warning that a Trump presidency would be:  "Something we have never seen in American history, the promise of dictatorship and anarchy at the same time." Yikes! All that was missing was the Stones's "Gimme Shelter" thundering in the background: Ooh, see the fire is sweepin' Our streets today Burns like a red coal carpet Mad bull who lost its way Rape! Murder! It's just a shot away It's just a shot away Note: Whereas NBC bills Beschloss as a "historian," our Jorge Bonilla has coined a more apt moniker for him: "histerian." The screencap says it all! Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 6/2/24 8:16 am EDT SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: I think thata lot of Americans out here really believe that Donald Trump won't be able to go as rogue as he's saying. He wants to -- he won't be able to be a dictator on day one, right, or throughout his presidency because there are guardrails to stop him. And I am most concerned about the fact that there are no guardrails. MICHAEL STEELE: There are no guardrails. SANDERS TOWNSEND: There are no guardrails for Donald Trump! . . .  MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Take everything Donald Trump says extremely seriously. You're absolutely right. Justices on the Supreme Court, we've seen it in the last month, are complicit. They are, right now, dragging their feet on presidential immunity on this case, so this January 6 case cannot go forward before the election. That's not the only motive, but everything we know suggests that a majority of the Justices are perfectly fine with that. That is a big flashing red light.  If Donald Trump comes into the presidency and controls Congress, you've seen the way leading Republicans have reacted to this verdict. They're basically mimicking what he says. The verdict is part of a legal system and rule of law that's rotten and should be thrown out.  You have a presidency, presidents have too much power! They run the Department of Justice. They run the Defense Department, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons. If you've got a president who wants to becomd a dictator, unfortunately, the Founders and the Constitution did not protect us. What's gonna stop it? Impeachment? How has that worked out. He was impeached twice. It was like a snowflake falling on the Potomac. So all I'm saying is, if Donald Trump is elected, you have to assume that he is going to go right through with his promise to be a dictator, not for a day, but perhaps for the rest of our lifetimes. And at the same time, wreck our rule of law that expands our rights and ensures that people do not commit murder, and arson. And ensures that investors want to invest in the United States economy, because it's stable. So you've got, essentially, a dictator who is promising to wreck our system of laws with the complicity of certain people on the Supreme Court, certain people in Congress. And so, essentially, you have something we have never seen in American history, the promise of dictatorship and anarchy at the same time.  Is that what Americans want in November? I don't think.

NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Host Tees Up Michael Cohen To Say He'll Never Get Peace So Long As Trump Is Alive!

The liberal media often accuses former President Trump of endangering the lives of his various antagonists with his criticisms of them. The notion was that a deranged supporter might act out violently. So, it was shocking to hear Alicia Menendez, on Saturday's edition of MSNBC's The Weekend, tee up Michael Cohen to say something that could endanger the life of a former president. At the end of multiple segments in which he appeared, Menendez put it to Cohen:v"When you say you want peace, you say you'll never get peace so long as Donald Trump is here?" Cohen agreed: "Yeah. I don't believe I ever will." Menendez was paraphrasing what Cohen said to Nicolle Wallace on Friday: I want peace. You can’t have peace when Donald Trump is around, because one of the things he talks about in many of his books, it’s a common theme, if you hit him, and that’s in his mind that he’s being hit, he needs to strike back at you 10 times harder. And, so long as the two of us exist on this planet at the same time, he will constantly seek to hurt me. So, Cohen can't have peace so long as Trump was "around" and "exist[s] on this planet?" That can only be understood as Cohen saying that he won't have peace so long as Trump is alive. Hey Alicia, in inviting Cohen to repeat his ominous belief, did the danger occur to you of some left-wing wacko taking it upon himself to do what it takes to give Cohen "peace?" Here's the transcript. MSNBC's The Weekend 6/1/24 8:31 am EDT ALICIA MENENDEZ: I want to end now by talking about Donald Trump by talking about Michael Cohen. I want to take you back to 2019, and something that the late Representative Elijah Cummings said to you in a House Oversight Committee hearing. Take a listen. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: I know that this has been hard. I know that you face a lot. I know that are worried about your family. But this is a part of your destiny. And hopefully, this portion of your destiny will lead to a better, a better, a better Michael Cohen, a better Donald Trump, a better United States of America, and a better world. MENENDEZ: Oh, dear. Do you feel you are better Michael Cohen? MICHAEL COHEN: [Sighs] I'm a different Michael Cohen then I was. Today -- those words hit me the same way now as it did back then. He's a special man.  I'll tell you, a lot of people don't know this, but that night, he called me after, not to talk about the hearing, just to ask me if I was okay. And I said to him, one day I will be. I don't know how long it's going to take, but one day I will be. I'm not there yet. I'm far from okay. But hopefully his words come to fruition one day. MENENDEZ: When you say you want peace, you say you will never get peace as long as Donald Trump is here? COHEN: Yeah. I don't believe I ever will.

NB Blog Feed

Morning Joe: Bragg Team Didn't 'Relish' Victory, Normal Sentence Is Probation, But . . .

On Friday's Morning Joe, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, the show's go-to person on the Trump trial, commenting on the reaction to the guilty verdicts by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and his prosecutorial team, made a flabbergasting claim: "This is not a group of people, despite what Donald Trump and his Republican allies are saying, that relished this victory, that are rejoicing in it." The prosecutors, knowing that the cameras of the world were upon them, might have been able to restrain their enthusiasm. But does Rubin really expect us to believe that—their outward demeanor notwithstanding—on the inside it wasn't unrestrained revelry? After all, as even the New York Times has reported, Bragg ran for DA on the platform of being the best person to prosecute Trump. So now that his big day has arrived, Bragg & Co. weren't "relishing and rejoicing?" Riight. Analysts Danny Cevallos and Chuck Rosenberg agreed that for someone like Trump, convicted of a first-time, non-violent felony, the normal sentence in New York would be probation, not prison time: CEVALLOS: There are plenty of arguments to be made for a probation-only sentence. Number one, this is a 71-plus-year-old offender. You have a non-violent offense, a first-time offender. No guns. No drugs. No violence involved.  (...) ROSENBERG: Nevertheless, as Danny articulated earlier, this is a first-time, non-violent offender, and, typically, in New York state courts, a first-time, non-violent offender does not get a jail sentence. However, Rosenberg said that Trump's repeated criticisms of Judge Merchan, and what Rosenberg expects to be Trump's lack of remorse when given the chance to speak before sentencing, might sway the judge away from the normal guidelines. Rosenberg analogized Trump's criticisms of Judge Merchan to a baseball player telling the umpire he "sucks." A "bad strategy," opined Rosenberg. Cevallos made one additional argument in support of his belief that probation rather than prison would be the appropriate sentence. He said that in determining a sentence, the judge will normally take into account the monetary loss that the defendant caused to others. Here, he said, the loss was "zero."  Further, Cevallos offered a very curious example of the kind of monetary loss that could justify a prison sentence: "I'm just thinking of an example. Let's say I made up a fake university and charged people fake tuition for my fake university and kept all that money -- I'm just giving a hypothetical example -- that might be a case where you could measure loss in terms of the number of victims multiplied by how much they paid." Although Cevallos stressed that he was "just giving a hypothetical example," surely he was aware that Trump paid $25 million in settlement of a lawsuit brought by students at Trump University who claimed they had been duped out of thousands of dollars by misleading marketing practices and aggressive sales tactics. Heck of a hypothetical, Danny! The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC's Morning Joe 5/31/24 6:05 am EDT LISA RUBIN: The reactions of the parties was also so telling. Former President Trump tried to put a good face on the verdict. When he walked out, you could see he set his jaw in that Trump-like way, he pursed his lips in the way we're all used to. He set his face to look ahead. And yet, he looked like a man defeated and resigned. He walked slowly and lumberingly.  And then once they were out of the courtroom, we, the press corps, about 100 of us, were left in there with the DA's office. I don't know if I've shared this before, but when Trump moves out into the hallway, for security purposes, everyone is frozen. And that includes the staff of the Manhattan district attorney's office.  If you were counting on them to look as if they just scored the biggest score in that office's history, you wouldn't have seen it on their faces or on Alvin Bragg's face. He looked straight ahead, and the prosecutors on his team didn't crack a single smile among them. Maybe there was a little twinge of relief in their shoulders and body language, but this was a group of people that knew that all eyes of the world would be on them in this moment if they were lucky enough to get a conviction, let alone 34 of them, and they met the moment with their seriousness of purpose. This is not a group of people, despite what Donald Trump and his Republican allies are saying, that relished this victory, that are rejoicing in it. . . .  DANNY CEVALLOS: There are plenty of arguments to be made for a probation-only sentence. Number one, this is a 71-plus-year-old offender. You have a non-violent offense, a first-time offender. No guns. No drugs. No violence involved.  And I would make an additional argument, and I think reasonable minds could disagree here. That I would say that loss, and the great Chuck Rosenberg will tell you, that in fraud cases, especially in the federal system, the single biggest driver of a sentence is the dollar amount of loss.  And loss is measured in many different ways. But as a defense attorney, I'd argue that the loss in this case is 0.0. It's not a traditional fraud case where you have traditional victims who handed over their money, let's say, and I'm just thinking of an example. Let's say I made up a fake university and charged people fake tuition for my fake university and kept all that money -- I'm just giving a hypothetical example -- that might be a case where you could measure loss in terms of the number of victims multiplied by how much they paid. You don't really have that here. You could make the argument that the loss and the victims are the people of the State of New York. I get that. And I think reasonable minds could disagree. But as a defense attorney, I would be arguing that loss in this case is zero.  CHUCK ROSENBERG: With regard to sentencing, look, it's always a bad idea, before the first pitch, to tell the umpire that he sucks. It's just not the way you want to, sort of, go into the first inning of a baseball game. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Nevertheless, as Danny articulated earlier, this is a first-time, non-violent offender, and, typically, in New York state courts, a first-time, non-violent offender does not get a jail sentence. That said, continuing to yell at the umpire, to denigrate the ump, the courts, the jurors, the system, the prosecutors, is just a bad strategy.  And one thing that judges look for at sentencing is what the defendant has to say. Because al defendants have a chance to speak at sentencing. We call it allocution. And, you know, I sit there and listen as a prosecutor to whether or not the defendant is remorseful, whether he or she apologizes, whether he or she takes responsibility, and I think Mr. Trump is constitutionally incapable of doing that.  And so, you know, might that be determinative here? Perhaps. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Wow! ROSENBERG: The typical defendant in a case like this would get a sentence of probation. Danny is exactly right. But Mr. Trump has been and always will be a wild card, and his fate now resides in the hands of one person. And he's been spending a lot of time denigrating that one person. So we'll see.

NB Blog Feed

CNN's Kasie Hunt: Politico's Right — Dems Really ARE Freaking Out Over Biden!

Imagine you're a Biden campaign staffer. You figure left-leaning Politico is surely in your corner. And then on Monday, you fire up the interwebs and find this headline: "Dems in full-blown ‘freakout’ over Biden." Yikes! And then on Wednesday, CNN This Morning host Kasie Hunt — whom no one would accuse of being a Republican shill — pileed on: "I have to say, I feel that from sources, that they are freaking out about the state of the campaign." In another blow to Biden, CNN reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere and New York Times reporter Zolan Kanno-Youngs mad very similar points: that the Biden campaign has repeatedly claimed that a certain event would be the "turning point" in which the contrast between Biden and Trump becomes clear in Biden's favor -- but that turning point never comes.  Dovere ended on a final, ominous, note for Team Biden: perhaps the contrast with Trump has become clear -- "and voters don't care."     Hide-the-sharp-objects time at Biden HQ? Here's the relevant transcript. CNN This Morning 05/29/24 6:38 a.m. EDT EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE: What matters in the trial right now is what the jury is about to do. And we'll see what that is, what that verdict is, and then how it's received by the American public. But -- KASIE HUNT: [Skeptical tone of voice]: Yeah, but do you think the verdict is gonna change anything? DOVERE: Well, we'll see. Look, I think that one of the problems that you hear from a lot of concerned Democrats right now is that there have been many moments so far where we have been told, either the reporters told privately by campaign officials or they've sort of said it publicly, that this is the turning point for the campaign. This is when the dynamics are about to shift. This is when people are going to focus in and plug in. And that's going to benefit Joe Biden. And so far, every time has come and gone. HUNT: Right. DOVERE: And this may be a different moment, but if so, it will be the change from all these other moments that we've had so far that were supposed to be. HUNT: Well, and Politico put out, let's put the Politico headline up on the screen. This from from yesterday about Democrats freaking out, basically. There it is: "Dems in full-blown 'freakout' over Biden." Now this is, in some ways, a perennial situation with Democrats. Elliot, you used to work for them. You understand the -- [LAUGHTER] -- as well as -- Isaac, I mean, this is, we joke about it here. But this is how they put it. They say quote, "You don't want to be that guy who's on the record saying we're doomed or the campaign's bad, or Biden's making mistakes. Nobody wants to be that guy, said a Democratic operative in close touch with the White House and granted anonymity to speak freely. But Biden's stubbornly poor polling and the stakes of the election are creating the freakout, he said. This isn't oh my God, Mitt Romney might become president. It's oh my God, the democracy might end." And I mean, I have to say that, I feel that from sources, that they are freaking out about the state of the campaign. Is this just another cycle of that, or -- DOVERE: I mean, Democrats in full-blown freakout over -- fill in the blank every day of the week, every week of the year, always. But, yes, the stakes of this election are high and we have this weird confluence of people feeling like they don't want to talk about the eleciton, are tuned out from, and that we will be living in a different country if Joe Biden is president or if Donald Trump is president. (....) 6:40 a.m. Eastern ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS: You were saying that this might be a moment that the Biden campaign sees sort of a shift. I feel like we've been hearing over the past year, time and time again. This is gonna be the moment -- DOVERE: Totally. KANNO-YOUNGS: -- when the contrast is clear. This is going to be the moment when the contrast as clear. That's kind of part of the big concern among Democrats here. HUNT: Yeah. KANNO-YOUNGS: You have one candidate in a trial, another candidate focused on governing, and so far that contrast still hasn't become clear, at least when it comes to polling for voters. DOVERE: Or it's become clear, and voters don't care. HUNT: Right, yes. Also possible.

NB Blog Feed

CNN's Bash Covers For Biden On Kamala's Cracks Against Him On Race

Dana Bash did double duty on Sunday. Not just hosting CNN's State of the Union—but serving as a Biden campaign surrogate, too! Bash began by confronting her guest, South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott, with a Biden campaign ad attacking former President Trump on race. [When's the last time Bash used a Republican attack ad to put a Democrat on the spot?] When in response, Scott alluded to accusations Kamala Harris had made against Biden on issues of race during the 2020 presidential election cycle. "[H]is own Vice President, Kamala Harris, said he supported segregation," he recalled.  Bash rose to Biden's defense: "Senator, just one thing, on the Kamala Harris: you were talking about when they were running against each other for the nomination. I'm just giving context to our viewers of when it happened." Translation: What Kamala said then doesn't count now. Just forget it!  But as Scott pointed out, "She made the statement, literally on TV. It's not something that cannot be confirmed." And what did Kamala Harris say on TV? In the presidential debate of June 2019, Harris told Biden: "It was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. It was not only that but you also worked with them to oppose busing. " Scott was correct in saying that Kamala's accusations were something that could be confirmed. As for Kamala's comment about Biden talking about segregationist senators, here's what Bash's own CNN has reported at the time: "[Biden] does have a history of praising several senators who supported segregation and opposed the Civil Rights Act . . . Biden praised then-Mississippi Sen. John Stennis, a staunch segregationist as a 'hero' and 'a hell of a guy.' "Biden also has praised South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, who ran for president as a segregationist in 1948 as a Dixiecrat." Biden also described segregationist senators Stennis, Thurmond and Eastland as "my friends." And Harris was also correct in saying that Biden worked with segregationists to oppose busing. As per this NBC News article, "Joe Biden didn't just compromise with segregationists. He fought for their cause in schools, experts say." But none of that stopped Bash from defending her boy Biden, brushing off Kamala's comments with the equivalent of a, "nothing to see here, move along!" Beyond Kamala's slaps at Biden on race, Scott was also correct in mentioning that Biden had in the past complained that desegregation would force his children to grow up in a "racial jungle." The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN State of the Union 5/26/24 9:10 am EDT DANA BASH: I want to turn to something you mentioned at the beginning of the interview, which is a rally that the former president held in the Bronx on Thursday to try to win over black and Latino voters. I want you to watch a new ad from the Biden campaign this week. BIDEN CAMPAIGN AD: Donald Trump disrespecting black folk is nothing new. It's why Trump stood with, violent, white supremacists, warned of a bloodbath if he loses the next election, and if he's president again, vowed to be a dictator who wants revenge on his enemies. BASH: So senator, what do you say to black Americans, black voters, who watch that ad and share those concerns about Donald Trump? TIM SCOTT: Well, here's what I can tell you, is that under Donald Trump, we were better off. The two things that are driving black votes back to Donald Trump: jobs and justice . Number one, under Donald Trump, our wages were going up, right now, fairness is going down. But if you're really concerned about racial justice in America, let's not forget, Joe Biden is the guy that talked about racial jungles as a result of desegregation. Let's not forget the fact that Joe Biden is a president who said if you don't vote for me, you can't be black. An old white dude telling me I can't be black if I don't vote for him.  This is a president who said that the Republican party wants to put you back in chains. The only person I've seen restraining black folks economically is a Joe Biden economy. So I find it quite insulting to suggest that Joe Biden does not have serious concerns when his own Vice President, Kamala Harris, said he supported segregation.  And if you look in cities like Chicago today, the elimination of charter schools under Joe Biden resegregates schools in America. We need four more years of common sense under Donald Trump, and not four more years of segregation under Joe Biden, and his approach to allow poor black kids to go to any school in their own cities. BASH: Senator, I think we're, just one thing on the Kamala Harris. You were talking about when they were running against each other for the nomination -- SCOTT: I think she, I think she made the statement literally on TV. BASH: You don't think calling Joe Biden somebody -- SCOTT:  It's not something that cannot be confirmed. BASH: Yeah. No, no. I'm not, I'm just giving context to our viewers of when it happened.      

NB Blog Feed

MSNBC's Primal Scream: Those Darn Voters Don't Understand How Dangerous Trump Is!

Saturday's edition of MSNBC's The Weekend was one, long primal scream of frustration over the failure of voters to understand - and be duly stampeded into supporting Biden - by how dangerous Donald Trump supposedly was. Much attention was paid to a video that was briefly reposted to Trump's social media feed that included, in blurry letters, a mention of a "united Reich," which was taken by the panel to reflect Trump's plan to replicate in America something akin to Nazi Germany. As you'll see in the video, the panel agonized over how much of a problem the voting public was to them. Former Republican National Committee Chair Micahel Steele suggested that "there's fascism every day" and huffed that the public was "numbing to it." There was also the usual disdain for voters who didn't live their obsessive fantasy that was always on the brink of destruction by Republicans: MINI TIMMARAJU: It is by design, this shock and awe. We're going to do so much crazy stuff that people will not be able to parse it out: that's just Donald Trump being crazy. (...) STEELE: The former president is giving us the framing for the America he wants to create: an American Reich. What was stunning to me about that was how it landed.  ALICIA MENENDEZ: With a thud? STEELE: Yeah! So it wasn't just me.      Host Alicia Menendez and Steele fantasized about putting hands on people and sharing them until their brains worked to their liking: MENENDEZ: The recognition of a necessity to take people by the shoulders [mimics shaking someone] and say, this is not normal. STEELE: [Also mimics shaking someone] Snap out of it! "We have to keep spelling out for voters," added Timmaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All. "It's that they're not paying close attention to every little gotcha moment..." The panel's dire warning of a supposed impending American Reich and frustration with voters' insouciance brings to mind Salena Zito's brilliant observation about Trump from the 2016 campaign: “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” So, while the liberal media warns of an American Reich just around the corner, Trump supporters get his underlying message: things were headed in a very bad direction, and core American values need to be restored.  As for Biden's message, it's both literally and figuratively hard for voters to understand it, given his muddled speech and his attempt to play both sides of several issues.  Instead of listening to Biden, Americans get his message at the pump and the supermarket checkout, and by viewing the alarming images from the border and in the streets of American cities.  Here's the transcript: MSNBC The Weekend 5/25/24 8:00 am EDT ALICIA MENENDEZ: Trump's outrageous campaign rhetoric: in another example, a video posted on his social media feed echoed the language of Nazi Germany. The post was later deleted. The campaign blamed it, as they so often do, on an unnamed staffer.   . . .  SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: [Somber voice] It's really concerning. Very, very, very, very concerning. Was anybody else concerned this week? MICHAEL STEELE: I'll just say, there's fascism every day. And the thing is, it is getting to the point where it just feels, oh, well, okay: no big deal. And I think that's for me, a very concerning thing. When you take that attitude and you layer it into other things we're going to be talking about over the next couple hours, from abortions to elections, to all these other things that impact people's lives every day.  What is systematically happening is a numbing to it. And that numbing is a way that -- when the thing hits -- everybody goes, why is everybody so upset? I don't get it. I don't understand. What are you picking up? What are you hearing out here from people, when they see a presidential candidate out there saying and doing the things in this space -- in this sort of fascist space. EUGENE DANIELS: That's just sort of how Trump is, is often what you hear from even just regular voters, right? That's just Trump, that's how he talks. He's not serious. Those are the ways -- and some Democrats think that same way, too. Like, we heard this from him before. And so, that numbing you're talking about hasn't been going on right now. It's been going on since 2015, when he came down the escalator, and changed the way people perceive how politicians should be speaking, the kinds of things they should be saying. What's appropriate, what's not. Moving the Overton Window so far, that when you talk to everyday voters, some lawmakers, they say, well, he's not actually going to do the things that he says he's going to do. . . .  MINI TIMMARAJU: It is by design, this shock and awe. We're going to do so much crazy stuff that people will not be able to parse it out: that's just Donald Trump being crazy. . . . STEELE: The former president is giving us the framing for the America he wants to create: an American Reich. What was stunning to me about that was how it landed.  MENENDEZ: With a thud? STEELE: Yeah! So it wasn't just me.  . . . MENENDEZ: The recognition of a necessity to take people by the shoulders [mimics shaking someone] and say, this is not normal. STEELE: [Also mimics shaking someone] Snap out of it! Yeah, it's not normal. And it's one of those things that I just find frustrating. The Trump campaign's excuse was, this was not a campaign video. It was created by a random account online and reposted by a staffer who clearly see the word, while the president was in court.  There is so many levels of bs in that statement. And they push it out there. And there is, there is no countermeasure to it. I mean, outside of what we just saw from the President and the First Gentleman -- the Second Gentleman. There is sense I get in the communities out there that it's, it's just a thud.  It just doesn't land the way I think -- when I heard it, I literally was stopped. I had to go back, and I've pulled it up and looked at it in the fine print of it, just to make sure that it wasn't being misreported, because it was so jarring. And yet [thumps hand on desk to make 'thud' sound.] TIMMARAJU: But I think the point you made, Symone, about not everybody understanding the reference is why it was so smart of the President to do that video and say, those are Hitler's words. We have to keep spelling out for voters. STEELE: Spelling out. TIMMARAJU: We assume -- voters are smart. It's not that they're not smart. It's that they're not paying close attention to every little gotcha moment, right? And Trump is counting on it. He's counting on us not paying attention.

NB Blog Feed

'Bulls--t' To Sexism: Morning Joe Lashes Out At 'Cheap Date' Nikki Haley For Trump Support

Even by his unhinged standards, Joe Scarborough's tirade against Nikki Haley on today's Morning Joe was remarkable in its outrage. Scarborough was infuriated by Haley's explanation yesterday of why she will be voting for Trump, after being increasingly critical of him during her primary run. And for the second time this week, Scarborough resorted to vulgarity. On Tuesday, Scarborough called "bullshit" on claims Trump is the victim of a double standard in being prosecuted for actions others wouldn't be. Today, he condemned letting "shit" roll in permitting Haley to get away with her flip-flop. Years ago, Morning Joe installed a seven-second delay when Scarborough dropped an f-bomb.  Will that be replaced by a warning signal to Joe if the end of a show approaches without him unleashing an obscenity? So enraged was Scarborough, that when John Heilemann tried to lighten the mood by observing, apropos Joe's rant, that "the Rudy Coffee is flowing where you are," an angry Scarborough sniped back, "If you're not shocked by that, John. I know, it's really funny, ha, ha, ha. So, yeah, yeah, I'm not laughing about that." This is the second time in recent shows that Scarborough has rudely reacted to Heilemann. Bad blood there? Later, thrice-married adulterer Charlie Sykes sneered "this is peak Nikki Haley. She turns out to be very, very cheap date for Donald Trump...it's so revealing about, first of all, you know, front and center, about her character." Try calling a liberal lady a "very very cheap date," Charlie, and prepare to be flooded with accusations of sexism, misogyny, and slut-shaming. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/23/24 6:06 am EDT NIKKI HALEY: I put my priority on a president who's gonna have the back of our allies, and holds our enemies to account. Who would secure the border, no more excuses .A president that would support capitalism and freedom. A president who understands we need less debt, not more debt.  Trump has not been perfect on these policies.I have made that clear, many,many times. But Biden has been a catastrophe. So, I will be voting for Trump. Having  said that, I stand by what I said in my suspension speech. Trump would be smart to reach out to the millions of people who voted for me, and continue to support me, and not assume that they're just going to be with him. And I genuinely hope he does that. JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, that is one of the most remarkaby unmoored from facts description on why you're voting for Donald Trump I've ever heard in my life. I mean, it is mind-boggling that somebody who actually claims to know anything about policy would say what she just said. Like I said, I'm not shocked she's been cynical. She's been cynical her entire political career. Doesn't shock me she went back to Trump. But you're going to have to do a lot better than that, Nikki. . . .  I mean, think about this. Think about just how wrong -- we were supposed to play back-to-back clips. We were supposed to play those clips, and then what she said in the campaign. I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is how people spread disinformation and lies and get away with it. Where you just let shit keep going. Sometimes, you need to stop things and just explain how big her lies were there. She lied about the economy. She lied about debt. Just look. Just look at the numbers. She lied through her teeth about debt. And she lied about Donald Trump holding our enemies accountable, when he actually praises our enemies and sends love letters to them, and talks about how brilliant they are because they can hold down millions and millions of their countrymen and women. I'll let you go from there. Just seriously, I'm not shocked at the endorsement. I am shocked that she would sink so low so fast and just lie about the facts as badly as she did. JOHN HEILEMANN: Morning, Joe. How are ya? SCARBOROUGH: I'm doing well. How are you doing? HEILEMANN: It seems like the Rudy coffee, the Rudy coffee is flowing where you are. SCARBOROUGH: No, no! I mean, if you're not shocked by that, John. I know, it's really funny, ha, ha, ha. But if you're not shocked by her lying through her teeth that way. Like, she could have picked three, four other issues. She could have talked about Afghanistan, talked about inflation. She could have talked about two or three -- the cost of gasoline. But she picks these three things where she actually picks Donald Trump on policy, his weakest points, and then lied to the American people about it. So, yeah, yeah, I'm not laughing about that. HEILEMANN: I'm not laughing either. I was just saying you're fired up. That was all, that was my only comment about the Rudy coffee. . . .  CHARLIE SYKES: Nikki Haley -- in many ways, this is peak Nikki Haley. She turns out to be a very, very, cheap date for Donald Trump. But this is a choice that she made. It is a very different choice than Liz Cheney made, Adam Kinzinger made, Chris Christie made. It's a different choice than  Mike Pence made.  And I don't know that it actually makes that much of a difference, but it's so revealing about, first of all, you know, front and center, about her character. I once wrote a piece called The Unbearable Lightness of Nikki. So there's nothing surprising about her getting back on the Trump train. She's gone on and off, she's gone on and off. But, you know, to Joe's point, how do you make a full-throated defense of Ukraine, and then turn around and endorse someone who has made it clear that he will pull out of NATO, that he will abandon Ukraine, who actually invited Vladimir Putin to invade Europe? It makes no sense, except in the context of Nikki Haley's unbridled ambition.

NB Blog Feed

Scarborough Mocks Rudy For Creating Coffee Brand—Forgets He Also Has One!

It's not just Joe Scarborough's phone buddy Joe Biden with troubling issues of memory loss. It's also 61-year-old Scarborough himself. Concerns continue to mount over the Morning Joe host's apparently failing memory. Earlier this month, we noted Scarborough ripping the media for portraying Trump voters as "people stumbling drunk out of their trailer park and shooting raccoons or something like that." Poor Joe had apparently forgotten that he himself had recently mocked Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky claiming apropos of his committee's investigation of Hunter Biden: "We ain't got nuthin' but a squirrel fryer and a hound dog." Now, more troubling evidence has emerged of Scarborough's apparent memory loss and declining mental acuity.   On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough mocked Rudy Giuliani for creating his own eponymously-named brand of coffee.  After the show displayed images of Rudy's coffee, Mika Brzezinski exclaimed, "Oh my God! This is not real, is it? It is! That's the problem." Lamented Scarborough in response, "Yeah, unfortunately. This is our world, 2024." It obviously escaped poor Scarborough's memory that Rudy is not the only one in the political/media world to have his own coffee brand. There's also . . . you, Joe! Perhaps the image here will refresh your enfeebled memory. Starbucks "Morning Joe" brand has been on the market for years. Although Joe and Mika slurred Rudy's coffee as tasting like "hair dye and sweat," it's not clear that "Morning Joe" coffee ever sold well. Although it's still available via Amazon, one reviewer mentioned that it's hard to find in supermarkets. When it first came out, Scarborough tried to promote his coffee, often displaying it on the Morning Joe set.  This is Scarborough's second recent episode of apparent memory loss. Should it happen again, Mika might want to have her husband seen by a good neurologist.  Bonus Coverage: Scarborough Slimes Trump Voters As 'Stupid' In light of Trump's attorneys in the Stormy Daniels hush money trial resting their defense without calling the former president as as a witness, Scarborough opened today's show by repeatedly accusing Trump of lying when he suggested that he was inclined to testify at the trial. Scarborough seized on the matter to slime Trump voters [video here] for believing him about anything. I wonder who's stupid enough to believe him, right? I wonder why his voters keep going back to this guy when he lies. Because it's not just about -- it's about everything.  And speaking of "stupid," Scarborough also fantasized about Trump's campaign people calling him "stupid, dumb" and "an idiot."  Here's the transcript of Scarborough mocking Rudy for marketing a coffee brand, Joe forgetting that he has a coffee brand of his own. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/22/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: For a guy that really doesn't believe anything, that is one thing he believes. That states should be able to take away women's right to get contraceptives, to have abortions, whatever. Then he goes back to his campaign. They go, that was really stupid, Donald. You're really dumb, Donald. You need to change your opinion, Donald. You're an idiot, Donald. That's what they're say to him.  I'm surprised they talk to him that way. But they do, I guess. And so, then he changes his mind again. Oh, wait. No wait. No, those are Democrats that are -- no, they're not Democrats saying thast. Just like the Democrats saying that he was going to testify, when the whole world knew he was lying about testifying because he would perjure himself on the stand, and he was afraid of what he would have to admit about this tawdry encounter with a porn star and a payoff through Michael Cohen. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay. So when asked -- SCARBOROUGH: That's all I have to say, Mika. MIKA: Thank you.Thank you, very much. Right out of the box, he's awake. I was worried when I talked to him on the phone this morning that he was a little sleepy. SAM STEIN: He's had his ice cream. MIKA: Okay.You done good. SCARBOROUGH: You know what it is, Mika, actually. And it's so funny, I called Elisabeth yesterday as well. MIKA: Uh-oh. SCARBOROUGH: It ends up, it's not just me. It's everybody in the Times Washington bureau. When they're tired, they drink Rudy's drip coffee. MIKA: Oh, which you drink black? ELISABETH BUMILLER: No, I don't drink black. SCARBOROUGH: That's what's keeping us awake.  STEIN: Has anyone tried the coffee yet? MIKA: Rudy says it's really good. STEIN: Has anyone tried the coffee yet? SCARBOROUGH: No! STEIN: I'm interested. SCARBOROUGH: Nobody's tried the coffee. I mean, it's the hair dye and sweat. MIKA: It's the hair dye sweat mixed in that gives it a special flavor. BUMILLER: Ugh! STEIN: You have to report it out. MIKA: Then you put it in the Ninja [ice cream maker] and wow, it's fluffy. Okay, so when asked why -- SCARBOROUGH: [Images of Rudy's coffee appear on screen] Oh, yummy. STEIN: What do you think is in the mug? MIKA: Oh my God! This is not real, is it? It is! That's the problem. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, unfortunately. This is our world, 2024. MIKA: Center, center [makes self-calming gesture.]

NB Blog Feed

Macho Joe Scarborough: If I Were Judge Merchan, I'd SHACKLE Trump And Jail Him!

Muy Macho Joe Scarborough has once again proven himself the toughest hombre this side of Nantucket. Among several past displays of his sizzling manliness, Scarborough once boasted he'd force a tourist to eat his camera if he found him snapping pics inside the Capitol somewhere Scarborough didn't approve.  Macho Joe was back at it on today's Morning Joe. Discussing the situation at Trump's hush money trial yesterday in which Judge Merchan gave a tongue-lashing to defense witness Robert Costello for an exasperated "Jeez" and then an exasperated sigh over Merchan's rulings. Scarborough claimed that in his young-lawyer days in Florida, "if a witness acted toward a judge the way this defense witness acted yesterday, judge would have cleared the courtroom, called in the bailiff, sent him to jail, say, we're going to take a recess and let the witness think about this in jail in 24 hours. And take him out in cuffs, and bring him back the next day." Willie Geist performed his usual sidekick remarks: "Judge Merchan making it clear that whatever you are doing to perform for President Trump right now, whatever you're trying to do to signal that you are continuing to be sort of a tough guy, a thug on behalf and in defense of President Trump, it's not going to work in this courtroom." Scarborough replied "Exactly, And he's playing, like the clowns behind him that all come in with their cyborg red ties, to an audience of one." Macho Joe found no irony that he was wearing a blue blazer, a white shirt, and a red tie -- full cyborg! -- or that he does his own daily show for an audience of one, namely Joe Biden.  As for Costello, Scarborough declared that: "If he were to do it again, he needs to be sent to jail. He needs to be sent to jail immediately." Scarborough then trained his macho sights on Trump. Joe said that Judge Merchan has shown "restraint" in the face of Trump "going out and, and attacking him personally, suggesting that he's corrupt, suggesting that the court system is rigged, making it extraordinarily personal toward him and members of his family."      Scarborough then declared: "I don't care who the defendants were. If I were the judge, they're going to jail. I would bring them in shackles day in and day out. I  don't care if it were a Democrat, a Republican, whether it was a steel worker, at teacher, or the President of the United States." No word from Joe whether he'd order Trump to spend "a night in the box," a la Cool Hand Luke.  For good measure, Scarborough claimed the notion that Trump is the victim of a double standard in which he's being prosecuted for actions others wouldn't be is " just bullshit. Rank bullshit." Yup. Real men go barnyard scatological on national TV. Right, Macho Joe? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/21/24 6:02 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you if, and I'll just say it again, in, in most courtrooms in  America, certainly in courtrooms that I grew up around as a young attorney in northwest Florida, if a witness acted toward a judge the way this defense witness acted yesterday, judge would have cleared the courtroom, called in the bailiff, sent him to jail, say, we're going to take a recess and let the witness think about this in jail in 24 hours. And take him out in cuffs, and bring him back the next day. But obviously, the judge is balancing a lot of different things. We'll get to that in a minute. . . .  WILLIE GEIST: So, an extraordinary moment, and Judge Merchan making it clear that whatever you are doing to perform for President Trump right now, whatever you're trying to do to signal that you are continuing to be sort of a tough guy, a thug on behalf and in defense of President Trump, it's not going to work in this courtroom. SCARBOROUGH: Well, exactly. And he's playing, like the clowns behind him that all come in with their cyborg red ties, to an audience of one. And that makes his disrespectfulness toward the judge, but far more importantly, toward the court, toward the court system itself, all the more maddening. And why if he, if he, if he were to do it again, he needs to be sent to jail. He needs to be sent to jail immediately. Just, let's take a step back. And Judge Merchan has had to show restraint while, every day, you have a defendant going out and, and attacking him personally, suggesting that he's corrupt, suggesting that the court system is rigged, making it extraordinarily personal toward him and members of his family.  And I suppose -- I wouldn't do it. I don't care who the defendant were [sic.] If I'm tthe judge, they're going to jail. And I would bring them in shackles day in and day out. I don't care if it were a Democrat, a Republican, whether it was a steel worker, a teacher, or the President of the United States. You have to respect the judge, because the judge represents the, the, the judicial system. And I understand the balancing act that this judge is in the middle of, Willie, but you take everything in its totality. Maybe it's harder to send a former president to jail for contempt when any other American, any other American, any other American would be sent to jail. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That is correct. SCARBOROUGH: This double standard stuff, that somehow Donald Trump is on the wrong end of the double standard, that's just, as Aristotle used to say when he was debating Socrates, that's just bullshit. Rank bullshit.

NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Crickets As Jerry Nadler Flip-Flops On Providing Arms For Israel

Watching Rep. Jerry Nadler [D-NY] on Saturday's edition of MSNBC's The Weekend, I was struck by how relaxed and comfortable he looked. As well he should be, knowing that his hosts would never challenge their fellow liberal. And so it was that there was not a peep out of Symone Sanders Townsend, Alicia Menendez, or Michael Steele when Nadler laid out his support for cutting off crucial military supplies to Israel should it go into Rafah. The hosting trio either didn't know or didn't care that Nadler's position is diametrically opposite to the one he passionately advocated when Donald Trump was president. Here was Nadler explaining his vote against a bill proposed by Republicans to assure continuing military aid to Israel: "The president is, in my view quite properly, withholding certain very heavy ordinance--2000-pound bombs, etcetera, from Israel, if they go into Rafah. The only use of those weapons is to try to destroy tunnels deep underground. But in so doing, your destroying everything above ground. The kill radius of a 2000-pound bomb is 400 yards. And the president is quite properly withholding that.." So that is Nadler now. But here was Nadler in 2019, when Donald Trump was president [emphasis added]: Aid to Israel: Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) tells Jewish Insider’s Jacob Kornbluh that Democrats who have expressed support for leveraging aid to Israel are “wrong.” Nadler stressed that “We have a $38 billion committment over 10 years for military aid to Israel. The Israelis need it for defense. Whether we approve or disapprove of specific policies, we shouldn’t use military aid as a pressure point on specific policies — because Israel’s security is paramount.” So, Nadler used to adamantly oppose using military aid as a "pressure point" on Israel to coerce it on policy issues. But now, that is precisely what Nadler is proposing. Threaten Israel with withholding badly needed munitions should it go into Rafah.   Nadler condemned as "nonsense" Israel's plan to eliminate Hamas now, once and for all. Instead, Nadler expressed his support for Biden's fantasy-land solution in which Arab countries would send their military forces to occupy Gaza, and perhaps 12 years down the road, a representative Palestinian organization could be created. So Hamas would continue to exist, and Arabs would be fighting Arabs for 12 years in Gaza.  Now, that is true "nonsense!" Before expressing his support for threatening to withhold military aid to Israel, Nadler went on a long-winded explanation of his vote against the Republican-sponsored Antisemitism Awareness Act. Indeed, Nadler bragged of having "led the opposition" to the bill. So let's summarize. Nadler votes against a bill opposing antisemitism. He votes against a bill assuring continued military aid to Israel. He supports leaving Hamas in place in Rafah. He calls Netanyahu the worst Jewish leader in 2,000 years. And none of the show's liberal hosts say boo. Here's a thought: perhaps Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez could make Jerry an honorary member of The Squad! Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 6/18/24 8:54 am EDT MICHAEL STEELE: Congressman, I want to broaden the scope a little bit, internationally. You voted no on two pieces of legislation this week. The Antisemitism Awareness Act, in which you put out a statement saying we need tangible solutions to this crisis, not political grandstanding and showmanship. That's why last week, I led the opposition to a bill that, despite it deceptive title, would chill constitutionally protected speech while do nothing to fund the programs that actually protect college campuses and houses of worship. So you have that piece. And then you had also the, the weapons bill for Israel in which you noted, you voted against another cynical partisan attempt to politicize the U.S-Israeli relationship. . . . JERRY NADLER: The president is, in my view quite properly, withholding certain very heavy ordinance--2000-pound bombs, etcetera, from Israel, if they go into Rafah. And they say they're going to Rafah. The only use of those weapons is to try to destroy tunnels deep underground. But in so doing, your destroying everything above ground. The kill radius of a 2000-pound bomb is 400 yards.  STEELE: Right. NADLER: Which means, if you're standing here and the bomb drops, it could be fatal to, I think, 36th Street. SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: Oh my goodness.  NADLER: And the president is quite properly withholding that. Now, Netanyahu -- who I think is the worst Jewish leader since antiquity -- is saying that, well, there were 12 battalions, 12 Hamas battalions. We took care of eight of them up north. Now we have to take care of the other four. That is nonsense. There may be 12, 12 battalions, but they're fighting up north again.The more you bomb them, you're just radicalizing more people -- STEELE: -- More and more people. NADLER: -- and you're creating it. We should have learned that lesson in Mosul.  And if you want to follow an intelligent policy, you have to do what the president suggested. Bring in various Arab countries. Have them -- you have them, have their military forces occupy the territory. They rebuild it, and you do that for maybe a dozen years, and then you stand up a, a representative organization that can represent the Palestinians.   STEELE: All right. Congressman Jerry Nadler. Thank you so much. Really appreciate you bringing that to us. Really appreciate it very much. 

NB Blog Feed

No Evidence! Joe Scarborough Accuses Justice Alito of Leaking Dobbs Draft

Evidence? Joe Scarborough don't need no stinkin' evidence. On today's Morning Joe, the Biden phone buddy and informal adviser felt entitled to make a very grave--and entirely evidence-free--accusation against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Thus it was that in a segment devoted to a New York Times story skewering Alito for permitting the flying at his home of an upside-down American flag, Scarborough accused Alito of having leaked the draft of the Dobbs opinion [which Alito wrote], overturning Roe v. Wade. This flag defense was an odd take from this show -- which not too long ago let their contributor Mara Gay complain it was "disturbing" to see so many American flags (flown by Trump supporters) when she visited Long Island on D-Day.  That wasn't his only slam of Sam Alito. As Scarborough—who went from having perfect pro-life ratings as a congressman from Florida's conservative panhandle to sounding like a Planned Parenthood fanboy now that he's at MSNBC—put it: "For a Supreme Court Justice, and I will say—my opinion only—but the guy most likely to have had something to do with the leaking of the Dobbs decision. Leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, or somebody connected to him leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, because he wanted to keep Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett frozen in place. I think history will show that." Scarborough later said that with respect to both Alito's explanation of the flag flying, and his denial of being responsible for the leak of the draft Dobbs decision, "nobody believes him." Perhaps "nobody believes" Alito in the liberal cocoon of MSNBC, or amongst Scarborough's summering buddies on liberal-elitist Nantucket. But Joe, you need to get out more. Let's play a thought game. Alito has said that he had no involvement in flying the flag, and that it was his wife who did so in response to objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs that a neighbor had put up.  Now imagine that the wife of a conservative Justice is a liberal. In response to a pro-life sign put up by a conservative neighbor, she puts an "Our Bodies Our Choice--Hands Off Roe!" sign in their front yard -- only to have her husband order her to take it down.  Which would be the more likely reaction from liberals?  Would they applaud the Justice for standing up for judicial independence? Or would they condemn the Justice for patriarchal infringement on his wife's freedom of expression and accuse the Justice of attempting to turn his wife into a Handmaid, and his home into a mini-Gilead [labels with which MSNBCers have slurred Justice Amy Coney Barrett]? Note: Alito has said that he thinks he knows who leaked the Dobbs draft. But unlike Scarborough, given the lack of evidence, he didn't point a finger at any individual. Alito did make a good case, though, as to the motivation behind the leak: He said he was sure the leak “was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft … from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside — as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.” Alito said the theory that the draft was leaked by someone on the right to lock in the five votes necessary to overturn Roe “is infuriating to me.” “Look, this made us targets of assassination,” Alito told his interviewers. “Would I do that to myself? Would the five of us have done that to ourselves? It’s quite implausible.” Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/17/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you, growing up, one of my friend's fathers was a federal judge! I had no idea until I got older whether he was Republican or Democrat. And that was the case in northwest Florida, a very conservative place. The federal judges kept themselves beyond reproach. They never talked politics, ever. In the privacy of their homes, if you ask their opinion, they would just say, not my job, right? I'm a judge. They actually took their oaths seriously! And for a Supreme Court Justice, and I will say—my opinion only—but the guy most likely to have had something to do with the leaking of the Dobbs decision. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. SCARBOROUGH: Leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, or somebody connected to him leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, because he wanted to keep Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett frozen in place. I think history will show that.  But that aside, for a guy who is a Supreme Court Justice, that let that happen at his own home, in one of the most fraught times in American history since, since the Civil War, it's just, it's just sad. And it shows how little respect he has for the institution. It shows how little respect he has for the law. It really does. It's disgusting. . . . WILLIE GEIST: I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag, Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to the Times. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs. Joe, there you have it. MIKA: Wait. Wait a minute. SCARBOROUGH:  So you're going to hate on America because of something a neighbor did? MIKA: You're going to blame your wife? SCARBOROUGH:  Blame your wife? MIKA: And make up that excuse? SCARBOROUGH: What, what is this? MIKA: My wife was mad at a neighbor. SCARBOROUGH: Blaming wives. Anybody care to jump in here? MIKA: Bu I want to know, what, what person, let alone woman, wife, would do that in response to a problem with a neighbor. SCARBOROUGH: Eugene, a neighbor, a neighbor upsets me, comes outa, makes fun of me because the Rays beat the Red Sox last night. And the Red Sox really suck. And so, I'm mad. I'm not gonna hang my flag upside down. EUGENE ROBINSON: Right. Right. SCARBOROUGH: None of this -- this is dumb as what I heard about the Dobbs leak. Nobody believes him.

NB Blog Feed

Biden Buddy Scarborough Brags: Campaign 'Supremely Confident, Holding Four Aces'

On Thursday's Morning Joe, not content to boast about his insider status with the Biden campaign, Joe Scarborough disparaged his panelists for their inferior sources. Said Scarborough: "Just for people at home, it's important for them to kind of see what's behind the scenes. I have, for six months, since people have been freaking out about Biden's team. I'm telling you, every time I go in and talk to anybody that's running the campaign, the big part of the campaign. I don't know what they're telling you and what they're telling other people. They're like, they act like people that are holding four aces.  . . . They're supremely confident." Yes, Scarborough doesn't know what his colleagues are being told by the envelope lickers in the Biden campaign, but when Joe "goes in," he talks to the people running "the big part of the campaign." Impressive! In addition to letting us know that the Biden people are "supremely confident," and act like they're holding "four aces," Scarborough confided that the top campaign people "know something that I think a lot of us don't know." Joe Scarborough plays the super insider. Don't worry about Trump, folks, Team Biden is "supremely confident!" pic.twitter.com/JAokVcBmYg — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 17, 2024 This sounds a lot like Scarborough trying to buck up the morale of Biden voters -- and donors -- in light of the recent New York Times/Siena poll showing Biden losing in five out of six swing states.  Yesterday, we noted Scarborough's frantic effort to tear down that poll, going so far as to claim that the Times intentionally rigged it against Biden in order to be able to write multiple clickbait stories on the results. Bonus Coverage: Morning Joe Airs Jimmy Fallon Imagining Trump Having To Get Parole Officer's Permission For Debate As is its wont, Morning Joe opened today's show with a clip from one of the liberal late-night hosts. In this case, it was Jimmy Fallon, imagining Trump accepting Biden's offer to debate "assuming it's okay with my parole officer."  That won raucous laughter from Fallon's audience, and presumably as well from most Morning Joe viewers.  But it amounts to an admission that the multiple trials entangling Trump, led by Democrat prosecutors, do indeed make campaigning difficult for him. Fallon might find that hilarious. But it could well elicit sympathy for Trump from many voters. We'll see who has the last laugh, Jimmy. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/15/24 6:09 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's a dead heat now. Again, my reaction's not so much to the Times. And I'm dead serious here. It's to people who freak out disproportionately on the Times, and then the Times doing 15 stories on their poll. Fox will not do 15 stories on their Fox poll [which shows Trump leading Biden by one point.] Morning Consult won't. But it's become this cottage industry for people on the other side of the Chinese wall that Mara is not on. So she had nothing to do with this. Please, do not direct any comments or tweets to her. Just for people at home, and I, I, it's important for them to kind of see what's behind the scenes. I have, for six months, since people have been freaking out about Biden's team. I'm telling you, every time I go in and talk to anybody that's running the campaign, the big part of the campaign. I don't know what they're telling you and what they're telling other people. They're like, they act like people that are holding four aces.  [Imagining conversation between himself and confident Biden aides] Well what about this? Yeah, it's pretty bad. What about this? Yeah, yeah, well, that looks really tough. Yeah, boy, Trump. They really -- MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Is this a criticism or -- SCARBOROUGH: No! I'm telling you, they know something that I think a lot of us don't know. And they look at numbers and they see where things are going. They've had a theory of the case, that when people realize Donald Trump is going to be getting into the race, things are going to start gelling better for him.  They understand that you win politics by raising money and organizing on the ground. They understand Donald Trump's numbers are way down in every way in fundraising. And they'll [the Trump campaign] say, oh, we're gonna -- No they're not. They're not gonna -- they're never going to catch Joe Biden.  And as far as organization goes, we all know, anybody who's been involved in a political campaign, if you're tearing up, like, stakes in April and May, you're not gonna put them back down in July and August. Donald Trump is going to be pounded on the ground. The blocking and the tackling, the Biden people feel great about. And they have about a thousand clips of Donald Trump that, every day, they're like, which one are we going to use today? Boop. And it just makes him look horrible. JONATHAN LEMIRE: The Biden campaign -- SCARBOROUGH: They're supremely confident. LEMIRE: Yes. They are cognizant -- MIKA: Makes me nervous. LEMIRE: That it will be very close. They're confident, but they know it's gonna be tight.

NB Blog Feed

CNN's Jennings Takes a Minute to Undo CNN's 24/7 Trump Trial Hype -- No Minds Will Change

Before we get to the substance of their dialogue, let's begin by observing that in introducing Scott Jennings on her CNN This Morning panel Tuesday, host Kasie Hunt described Jennings as a "conservative columnist." It said the same on screen.  Question: when's the last time Hunt or any CNN host introduced someone as a "liberal" columnist? Yeah, I can't think of such a time, either. Meanwhile, Kasie Hunt offered no identifiers for Elliot Williams (eight years serving President Obama), reporter Molly Ball (Nancy Pelosi apple-polisher) or "Republican" Sarah Matthews (who really wants Trump to lose). Conservative people are fine with being called conservative. What's ridiculous is that everyone who agrees with CNN is presented as nonpartisan or objective. Okay, on to the discussion. In the context of the Stormy Daniels hush money trial, Hunt challenged Jennings: "It's reminding everyone of what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States. Uh, and: I'm just kind of curious. How do you feel about defending him with these allegations out there?" Translation: aren't you ashamed of defending this reprobate? This, from the Clinton News Network that defended all of Bill's #MeToo antics. Jennings, over the course of the discussion, made the obvious point: that this trial reveals nothing new about Trump, and is therefore unlikely to change many votes. As he facetiously put put it in conclusion: "October of 2016. No one knew that Donald Trump had had sex with lots of women out there, some of whom were not his wife. No one could have possibly known!" JENNINGS (on Republicans): But they would say things like, this case should have never been brought. This is a terrible court. This prosecutor is a partisan hack -- whatever. And they would also say this: I don't care about sex paperwork, but I do care about that the president has driven as to an inflationary crisis and is going wobbly on our ally, Israel. You're going to see Republicans all over the country make that argument. And I think whether he is convicted, whether the jury is on or whether he's acquitted, I think this will move the needle for virtually no one. This amounted to a small dissent from the 24/7 Trump-trial hype on CNN, including the dramatic readings of court transcripts.  Note: Jennings in turn challenged Hunt to describe what the crime is that Trump is alleged to have committed. Hunt had to admit, "I understand that you are technically correct," i.e., that no one can describe a crime other than a paperwork snafu. Note: As to Hunt saying that the trial is "reminding everyone of what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States," millions of Americans are thinking, Yeah, reminds me that when Trump was president, I could afford to fill my gas tank and shop for groceries, and we weren't involved in foreign wars. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 5/14/24 6:03 am EDT KASIE HUNT: Our panel's here: former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams, Molly Ball, senior political correspondent at at the Wall Street Journal, conservative columnist Scott Jennings, and Sarah Matthews, [disgruntled] former deputy White House press secretary under President Trump. Welcome all! . . .  Scott Jennings, this is a guy that, you know, he's the presumptive Republican nominee for president. It's [the Stormy Daniels hush money trial], it's reminding everyone of, kind of, what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States. And I'm just kind curious: how do you feel about defending him with these allegations out there? SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, nothing new has happened here. I think what you're seeing, such a muted reaction from people, is because it's already priced in, it's baked into his candidacy, it's baked into who he is. Nothing -- we know all of this. And I don't have to, no Republican really has to defend anyone's personal behavior to make this -- HUNT: Well, there are a bunch of Republicans standing up behind him. JENNINGS: Well, but they're not necessarily defending his personal behavior. But they would say things like, this case should have never been brought. This is a terrible court. This prosecutor is a partisan hack: whatever. And they would also say this: I don't care about sex paperwork, but I do care about that the president has driven as to an inflationary crisis and is going wobbly on our ally, Israel. You're going to see Republicans all over the country make that argument. And I think whether he is convicted, whether the jury is on or whether he's acquitted, I think this will move the needle for virtually no one. SARAH MATTHEWS: You don't think if he's convicted, it's not going to make a difference at at all? I mean, there was a CNN poll that showed that 24% of Trump backers said that if there is a conviction, that they would reconsider their support. I will admit, that doesn't mean that they are going to change their support, but they would reconsider. And I mean, on an election that's going to be on the margins, then, I think you would be worried about every vote. JENNINGS: If you are someone who -- I'm trying to envision the voter who would go to the polls, say, you know, I was going to vote for Donald Trump, but then I found out he got the paperwork wrong because he had sex with somebody. I don't know who that person is. I don't know who that person is! HUNT: I don't think that paperwork-wrong thing is, is. I mean, to Sarah's point, I mean, he would be convicted for -- the perception is not going to be paperwork. JENNINGS: What's he being convicted for, then? If it's not a paperwork, what's he being -- HUNT: I understand that you are technically correct. I just think -- can anyone consume this -- it's like -- JENNINGS: The problem with this case is, no one can actually explain what he's being convicted for. It was obvious that the case was brought so they could put people on the stand to try to personally embarrass him. That's what it is. HUNT: They were paying her to keep quiet so that voters, particularly women, wouldn't think badly of Trump before the election, right? JENNINGS: [Facetiously] October, October of 2016: no one, no one IIknew that Donald Trump had had sex with lots of women out there, some of whom were not his wife. No one could have possibly known!

NB Blog Feed

Deeply Disturbed Scarborough Accuses New York Times Of Rigging Polls AGAINST Biden!

As we've noted in the past, Mika Brzezinski has expressed concerns over the fragile psyche of her husband and co-host Joe Scarborough, at one point ordering him to take an extended break from the show. Mika might be inclined to give Joe another long time-out after his disturbed and disturbing performance on Wednesday's Morning Joe. Scarborough absolutely freaked out [see screencap and Mika's stone-faced reaction] over a New York Times/Siena poll showing Trump leading in five out of six swing states. Note that the show never actually displayed the bad-for-Biden poll results in question on screen, no doubt not wanting to provide them any additional publicity. Scarborough began by saying that he believed in conspiracy theories, and believed that the Times had entered into a conspiracy with psychiatrists in blue states to split the profits on psychiatric care in return for the Times using skewed methodology in Trump's favor. Joe was - at least we hope - kidding about that. But Scarborough was dead serious when he accused the Times of rigging the polls against Biden in order to write clickbait stories about them: Maybe they're trying to make up for '20, when they skewed in Biden's direction by about four or five points? But every one of these New York Times/Siena polls have been wildly skewed when you compare them to other polls that come out at the same time. (...) And by the way, people are calling Mika, saying this is a just reaction to one poll. No. You can go back. You can look at the tape. We do this every time when the New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It's always an outlier, and the New York Times always gets 15 or 16 articles out of them that everybody rushes to, because it says, Earth ends at 5:00. Hit link at New York Times, 15 times, and they keep writing articles about it.      At one point, an incredulous John Heilemann put it to Scarborough: "You're saying the New York Times is systematically putting these polls out in a way to try to amplify them to drive the news cycle?" Responded Scarborough: "Yes. Yes, I am saying that." Scarborough rudely shouted down Heilemann, who had very politely and cautiously tried to differ ever so slightly in his take (Click "expand"): HEILEMANN: I'm not saying it's not close. I'm not going to carry water for the New York Times or the methodology of this poll. I would keep going back to the thing that I try to say every time we talk about these things. Which is, that I'm really interested in -- and I know you know this. What are the polls showing us directionally about the race? SCARBOROUGH: I understand. There's a difference, though, with the New York Times/ Siena poll, and you know this. It's given disproportionate impact. This year, this cycle, it is skewed wildly in Donald Trump's direction. [Heilemann tries to speak.] Hold on. And the New York Times feasts on it with clickbait stories, like, a dozen at a time. HEILEMANN: And I, what I'm trying to focus on is what I think people should pay attention to [tries to continue]-- SCARBOROUGH: -- [Interrupting] But what I'm trying to focus on is, the New York Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles, where this poll comes out on a Sunday, and on Monday, people go, oh -- and I heard it! And I'm sitting there going, don't be so stupid. That's why we're doing this. [Heilemann tries to respond. Scarborough shouts.]  Hold on. No! No! Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no,. Hold on. We recently noted evidence that wife and co-host Mika Brzezinski was getting fed up with Scarborough's insolent, incessant interruptions of her. Combine that with Scarborough's intemperate big-footing of Heilemann today, and his explicitly expressed belief that the New York Times—of all media outlets—was manipulating its polls against Biden, and serious questions arise about Scarborough's mental state. Note: Scarborough mentioned that when NPR looked into some of the people quoted in Times articles saying they voted for Biden in 2020 but are now switching to Trump, it was found that they had never voted before. Could be. But ask yourself: when asked by a reporter or pollster about their presidential preference, who was the average person less likely to admit they prefer? Good Ol' Joe Biden, or Trump, whom the media consistently portrays as a monster who will end democracy forever? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC Morning Joe 5/15/23 6:11 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: I have said for the past couple of days, as I've said for the past couple of months, that -- and I believe now that there is a conspiracy. And I do believe in conspiracies. I think psychiatrists in blue states have conspired with the New York Times/Siena pollsters and said, listen: we'll split the profits on psychiatric care if you guys will, will, will have the craziest methodology, which they always have. Maybe they're trying to make up for '20, when they skewed in Biden's direction by about four or five points? But every one of these New York Times/Siena polls have been wildly skewed when you compare them to other polls that come out at the same time. . . .  And by the way, people are calling Mika, saying this is a just reaction to one poll. No. You can go back. You can look at the tape. We do this every time when the New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It's always an outlier, and the New York Times always gets 15 or 16 articles out of them that everybody rushes to, because it says, Earth ends at 5:00. Hit link at New York Times, 15 times, and they keep writing articles about it.  There are, and NPR has found some of these voters that said, well you know, I voted for Biden before. And they said, but wait. This guy, we checked the voting rolls. He has never voted. Other news organizations offer three, four more examples. Not just of people in the surveys but people the New York Times quoted in their article: "Well, here's one of many people we interviewed who said he's disillusioned and is going to vote for Trump." No record of him voting. JOHN HEILEMANN: Yeah. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay? HEILEMANN: You know -- MIKA: Are you feeling something, John Heilemann, that you want to say? HEILEMANN: I think sometimes as a general matter, there's maybe an overreliance on voters telling the truth about things in general. Hate to say it. Reporters find this occasionally that reporters lie. Here is what I say about this poll. If I were to ask you this question, Joe: do you know anybody on either side who doesn't think that it's the case that of the battleground states, that Joe Biden is stronger in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin than he is in Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia? SCARBOROUGH: It sounds about right. I've seen some polls that show Georgia's very close. Greg Bluestein actually had an article that says the CNN poll is wildly off. HEILEMANN: I'm not saying it's not close. I'm not going to carry water for the New York Times or the methodology of this poll. I would keep going back to the thing that I try to say every time we talk about these things. Which is, that I'm really interested in -- and I know you know this. What are the polls showing us directionally about the race? SCARBOROUGH: I understand. There's a difference, though, with the New York Times/ Siena poll, and you know this. It's given disproportionate impact. This year, this cycle, it is skewed wildly in Donald Trump's direction. [Heilemann tries to speak.] Hold on. And the New York Times feasts on it with clickbait stories, like, a dozen at a time. HEILEMANN: And I, what I'm trying to focus on is what I think people should pay attention to [tries to continue]-- SCARBOROUGH: -- [Interrupting] But what I'm trying to focus on is, the New York Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles, where this poll comes out on a Sunday, and on Monday, people go, oh -- and I heard it! And I'm sitting there going, don't be so stupid. That's why we're doing this. [Heilemann tries to respond. Scarborough shouts.]  Hold on. No! No! Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no,. Hold on. What I hear is after these Siena polls come out, every time: oh, well, everything that Joe Biden's done since the, since the State of the Union address, all these, all this money he has put out. All of the campaigning is for naught.  No, it's not! No, it's not! There's one poll that's wildly skewed every time. And it does shape -- if it's a New York Times poll versus a Morning Consult poll and the New York Times then amplifies it 15, 16, 17, times, it, it, it warps reality and everybody responds to that in the media and in the political world. HEILEMANN: So if you're -- all I'd say about this is that I agree with you. That the problem to me, unless you want to speculate, unless you want to suggest you think there is a conspiracy at the Times about this which you're -- SCARBOROUGH: Their methodology is bizarre and Larry Sabato said this, Wall Street [Journal] said that. HEILEMANN: Joe, you're saying something more than that. You're saying the New York Times is systematically putting these polls out in a way to try to amplify them to drive the news cycle. SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Yes, I am saying that. HEILEMANN: And I'm  saying, I'm not, I'd like to know,  I'm curious, as somebody who understands your level of sophistication about reading the media, why you think that's true. What I'm trying to say is, I agree with you. The best bulwark against any polls, outliers or anything else, is for people who are actually consumers of this information, is to not let these -- any given news outlet, or any given poll, shape your perception of the race unduly. SCARBOROUGH: But John, that's not realistic. And I'll tell you why it's not realistic. Because, and I'll say to you, I know people come up to you after every New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It completely changes the political battlefield out there for about a week, week-and-a-half. It distorts the questions that are asked of the White House. It distorts the questions that are asked of Donald Trump. It distorts all of the opinion. It distorts everything.  And that keeps happening every month when this comes out. And then finally, about two weeks later, after the residue of the New York Times/Siena poll leaves, people go, I think Joe Biden's on a winning streak. And then two weeks later it comes out again, and it's garbage. It's an outlier. And yes, the New York Times,  when they have all of these experts questioning the methodology. When they're calling about 20% of the people likely voters who have never voted before, or didn't vote in the last two primaries. When they're even quoting people who say they're switching their vote from Joe Biden, who have never voted before? I'm sorry! The New York Times has to know what they are doing!

NB Blog Feed

Joe Scarborough's Mother's Day Brag: I Was A Multi-Sport Star!

Regular Morning Joe viewers are all too familiar with Joe Scarborough's annoying habit of working the fact that he used to be a congressman into conversations. But for a bragging change of pace, Scarborough somehow managed to slip into his Mother's Day reminiscences that in high school, he apparently was a multi-sport star.  In baseball: "I played baseball. All-Star, had a high average, all this stuff." In basketball: "I was scoring like 30, 35 points a game." Honk if this makes you think of another famous Joe who brags about being a football legend in high school in Delaware. The irony is that, for Scarborough, on those rare occasions when he failed in sports, his mother was anything but sympathetic. When he struck out to end a game, she told him: "If you can't do any better than that, Joey, you'd be doing yourself and the family a great service by never playing baseball again." And when his team lost a basketball game, her reaction was: "You know, it would have been so great if God would have given us at least one natural athlete." Yikes! Scarborough also shared this poignant memory: that his mother really didn't want to have him at all! She didn't want a third child, who was Joe. Though Scarborough claimed she eventually got over it and that he was even the apple of her eye.  I'm reminded of the joke about the two mothers chatting, and one brags to the other: "My son pays his psychoanalyst $375/hr., and all he talks about is me!" Paging Dr. Freud to Scarborough's rescue...Or perhaps, Stuart Smalley. Repeat after us, Joe: "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggone it, people like me." And sure, feel free to throw in: "Did I ever mention that I used to be a Member of Congress?" Far be it from me to delve into Scarborough's psyche. But could it be that the scars of his mother's tough love, and knowing that, at least at first, she was disappointed to give birth to him, in some way account for his penchant for bragging, be it about what a macho man he is, having been a congressman, and now, about having been a high school multi-sport star? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/13/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, it's so interesting. I, um, everybody loves to talk about their moms. Oh, she was so sweet and the most loving, she was an angel. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Mary Jo. SCARBOROUGH: As you know, Mary Jo loved Joey. She loved me so much. And some people would say, like, that I was the apple of her eye after she got over having me. She wasn't really pleased to have a third, a third child, but she eventually did. She was there every step of theway and was the biggest supporter.  But, you know, there was another side of my mom that, that people don't talk about. And I know this sounds weird. This is only, like, 20, 30 seconds, but I saw Ed Sheeran on Howard Stern's show last year, and it explains the success of my mom in being a mom. Here's Howard Stern talking to Ed Sheeran. ED SHEERAN: You learn nothing from success, nothing. You learn everything from the failures. And this is the thing that annoys me about the state that the world is in at the moment. No one talks about failureanymore. It's like shame.Like, failure is shame, like, let's just bury that and not talkabout it. No one goes, oh, what did we learn from this? Whereas with success, everyone shouts about it. But there is nothing in success. Success happens from failing hundreds of times. SCARBOROUGH: So the reason that reminds me of my mom is one of -- I think one of her best moments was, I played baseball.  And, you know, All-Star, had a high average, all of this stuff. Bases loaded, and a key game, and I struck out. Threw my bat down, walked to the car. I was so angry. I got in the back seat, and I said, I said, I'm just going to quit. My mom, you know, drives off. And she quietly says, Well, if you can't do any better than that, Joey, you'd be doing yourself and the family a great service by never playing baseball again.  MIKA: Oh, ouch. SCARBOROUGH: Right? So I sit back, and I'm like, what? That's not what a mom is supposed to say! Guess what? It made me go out and practice harder. It was unconditional love. MIKA: Aww/ She knew you. SCARBOROUGH: But man, she was tough. She was a tough mother, and she never -- like, no time for, like, sympathy for, you know, if we messed up. She let us know. And that, that combination of love and toughness, I think, it makes all the difference. . . .  SCARBOROUGH: And when we lost, my mom let us know. Like, I lost a basketball game. I remember, again, back seat, you know, and I was, I was scoring, like, 30, 35 points a game. We still lost, and my mother turns to my dad in the front seat, so her three children can hear it in the back. She goes, You know, it would have been so great if God would have given us at least one natural athlete." MIKA: Aw, come on. SCARBOROUGH: Who says that? No! No! So, what happens, we get home, I get the basketball out, and I'm shooting for, like, the next two hours.  This is parenting! I mean, it's not just hugging people and being -- you know, Mika, that term, snowplow parents, where we, we want to do everything for our kids and we don't want our kids to ever feel any discomfort. No! That's not what's being a good parent is about.

NB Blog Feed

CNN Claims This 'Sordid Detail' from Stormy Daniels Will Hurt Trump With Women Voters

On CNN This Morning, CNN senior political analyst Mark Preston said that porn star Stormy Daniels claiming in court that Donald Trump didn't use a condom ("protection") during their alleged sexual encounter constitutes a "sordid detail" that will hurt Trump with women voters in swing states.  Preston: I assume now that there are women in these five or six states that we're looking at now, whether it's Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Nevada, Arizona, or Georgia who perhaps would have thought about voting for President Trump. But then they, see this, and not to be very sordid. But this is pretty sordid. I would assume if I cheated on my wife, I mean, she'd kill me, but that would be one thing. She'd probably kill me twice. There's, another thing, though, to, I believe to cheat on your wife and then have it publicly come out that you didn't use protection. And I think that that is -- I'm telling you though -- that is something that I think will hit home. Host Kasie Hunt gleefully agreed with Preston, chuckling as she said, "It's all very sordid." No qualifiers from anyone on the panel about the porn star's claims being "alleged." The veracity of her testimony was seemingly taken as a given. And CNN has been gavel-to-gavel "sordid" during Stormy Daniels Week. Meghan Hays, a former Biden aide, was also only too happy to agree, saying that come September and October, those sordid "details" would be highlighted in TV ads targeting moderate women voters. Preston should know a thing or two about sordid sexual details in the lives of prominent politicians. He's a former aide to . . . Sen. Ted Kennedy. Note: When Preston said that his wife would "kill" him if he cheated on her, a laughing Hunt interjected, "I would hope so." Fine. Now imagine the reaction if a woman on the panel said that her husband would kill her if she cheated on him.  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 5/10/24 6:06 am EDT MARK PRESTON: We're seeing what's happening in the courtroom right now, and we're paying a lot attention to these sordid details. In the court of law, I don't think the sordid details are going to matter, and perhaps could backfire, what have you. Court of public opinion, though. I mean, we are talking about trying to -- I assume now, that there are women in these five or six states that we're looking at now, whether it's Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, you know, who perhaps would have thought about voting for President Trump. But then they, see this, and, and, and not to be very sordid -- but this is pretty sordid.  KASIE HUNT: [Chuckling] It's all very sordid.  PRESTON: I would assume if I cheated on my wife, that would, I mean, she'd kill me, but that would be one thing.  HUNT: I would hope so [laughs.] PRESTON: She'd probably kill me twice. [Extended Hunt laugh.] There's, another thing, though. To, I believe, to cheat on your wife and then have it publicly come out that you didn't use protection. And I think that that is -- I'm telling you though -- that is something that I think will hit home. You're laughing, Meghan, but it's true. I think that that is something that, there's a trust level. There's the moralistic level, you know, issue, that people wrestle with. I'm wrestling with that right now on TV. HUNT: I am too, for the record. MEGHAN HAYS: To your point about these five or six states that they're trying to play to. Those are the Nikki Haley voters that are these moderate women in suburban cities that are going to vote. Who are they going to vote for? They are the undecided.  And these are the things that are going to come up. And these are the ads that the Super PACs and other people are going to put forth come September and October to remind these women of these details.

NB Blog Feed

Morning Joe Mocks Trump In Bomber Jacket: Biden/Obama, Hello?

Morning Joe had great fun today mocking Donald Trump over hosting a dinner at Mar-a-Lago last night for purchasers of his NFT trading cards, which feature Trump in a variety of heroic images. He's George Washington on the Delaware, he's Elvis Presley in a black jumpsuit with shades. But those weren't the ones they mocked. "MSNBC Republican" Elise Jordan singled out one image for particular ridicule: "The bomber jacket. Now, that is really quite a -- what did they do? Take Tom Cruise, and then just put Trump's head on it? I mean, that is actual, just complete propaganda." It apparently didn't occur to Jordan or any of the other panelists that Trump is not the only president with an affinity for bomber jackets. The difference is that people at MSNBC actually worship the coolness of Obama. Do the images below refresh your memory, Elise? CBS News, 2019: "Barack Obama goes viral in custom '44' jacket at Duke-UNC game." GQ, 2019:  "Barack Obama's Bomber Jacket: The Inside Story:The most exciting part of last night's Duke-UNC game took place off the court." Esquire, 2020: "The Story Behind Obama's (Extremely Good) Three-Point Bomber Jacket: The suddenly stylish former President has been rocking one particularly enviable pick from Lululemon." A replica Obama bomber jacket is actually on sale to the public. No word on whether Barack gets a piece of the action.  You can easily Google some embarrassing Obama-Adoration bomber jackets for sale. But apparently, that's on brand for MSNBC.  As long as we're on the subject, may we point out to Jordan that Tom Cruise was also a fictional fighter pilot? It's a mark of how popular culture is more real to some people than actual historical figures, fighter pilots like Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover -- John McCain! -- among others.   Trump's sale of pieces of the suit he wore for his iconic mugshot in the dubious Fani Willis prosecution in Georgia was also the object of great mirth and hilarity, with Scarborough exclaiming "Oh my God! What the holy F is going on here?" And the normally even-handed Willie Geist flatly declared that the pieces of the mugshot suit for sale are "undoubtedly" not from that suit.  Evidence, Willie—or are all accusations against Trump fair game? He may not rival Obama in the movie-star worship, but even Joe Biden fans can buy the "Joe Biden Aviation Jacket" in leather. And don't miss the opportunity to get your own "Biden Harris Peace Love Equality Hope Diversity" bomber jacket on eBay. Elise Jordan should have one of those. The Biden-Harris website seems to prefer those "Dark Brandon" products with the shiny red eyes.  Kamala Harris superfans can just go to the National Archives Store for their "Madam Vice President" polo shirt and cap in pink, not to mention the cartoony "Madam Vice President" socks. Merchandise is bipartisan.  

NB Blog Feed

Morning Joe Expert: Stormy Daniels' Testimony Hands Defense 'Major Issue' For Appeal

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos has once again proven himself to be an independent thinker, someone who calls them as he sees them and doesn't dutifully toe the liberal media line. In the past, we've noted Cevallos saying that Roe was ripe to be overturned, because there was no constitutional basis for it. More recently, he called a Hunter Biden plea deal not merely a sweetheart deal, but a "gift from Heaven." Cevallos was back at his iconoclastic truth-telling on today's Morning Joe. He repeatedly called Stormy Daniels' testimony in Donald Trump's hush money trial a "major issue" available to the defense for the appeal of any possible conviction, which could lead to it being overturned. The notion was that her testimony was excessively prejudicial to Trump. Cevallos analogized the situation to the recent overturning of one of Harvey Weinstein's convictions on the grounds that overly prejudicial testimony had been admitted. Cevallos mentioned that even though trial judge Juan Merchan had rejected a defense motion for a mistrial based on Daniels' testimony, he did acknowledge that some of her testimony perhaps should not have been allowed. Said Cevallos: "If you're a defense attorney, you're marking your notebook, and now you have your first major issue." Concluded Cevallos: Concluded Cevallos: "So if two years from now, we're back here saying, the conviction got overturned: this is terrible! Well, this might be what we look at. And we can say, well, the prosecution took a calculated risk, and it's yielded benefits in the last 24 hours. But maybe in a couple years, those benefits will not have been worth the risk.        Bonus Coverage: Scarborough Bigfoots Mika Again -- And Again! Amid a press report that Mika is fed up with the incessant interruptions of Joe Scarborogh -- her husband co-host -- Scarborough was back at his bigfooting of Mika in the very first minute of today's show. It was clear from Mika's facial expression and body language that she was not pleased. Mika even emitted a "wow" in reaction to Joe's rude recidivism. Scarborough acknowledged that his latest interruption was sure to incite lots of email criticism. And despite asking Mika to forgive him, just three minutes later Scarborough cut Mika off yet again! Mika has forged a side career based on her "Know Your Value" books and conferences. The notion is to encourage and empower women to stick up for themselves in their careers. So, not a good look for Mika to permit herself to be regularly trampled by Bully Boy Scarborough.  View Rude Joe in action here.