Search the Lounge


« Linguistics Experts in Court | Main | That "Cocky" Trademark »

May 09, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Anthony Gaughan

I originally wrote that Felt was the "acting" FBI director, but he was actually the acting deputy director. He never got higher than #2 in the FBI hierarchy. After J. Edger Hoover's death in May 1972, Felt was passed over by L. Patrick Gray, who served as the acting FBI director during the early stages of the Watergate scandal. Interestingly, in the 2005 Washington Post story confirming that Felt was Deep Throat, the Post notes that Felt's anger at not getting the FBI's top job may have motivated Felt at least in part to serve as Woodward's source. Here's a link to the Post story:

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

Stop it now. Trump is a hero just like Reagan. Reagan got our hostages retuned in one day. Trump got them back within a few weeks.


The ironic twist is that Watergate had no actual porn stars but a porn star name for the informant - Deep Throat.

Trumpgate has actual porn stars who are unraveling the financial conspiracy.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

^^^^And both had tapes too. Nixon spouted anti-Semitism and Trump or his agents spouted Pee. Allegedly. Now, wouldn't it be rich if 18.5 minutes were erased from the PEE PEE Tape?


Yes, movies are a great source for accurate information. Newspapers and periodicals are infallible, as well; well, so long as we are speaking of East Cost liberal organs, like the NYT, Wash Post, Atlantic, etc.

What are appropriate sources? All of the above PLUS the reputable reporters of the "conservative" perspective. In the current environment, the "news" is mostly opinion; the "Facts" are reported in very different ways (or not reported at all) depending on the obvious ideology of the outlet.

The current "news" environment demonstrates how low the journalistic enterprise has fallen (Hollywood was always a source of propaganda and revisionist history). If one listens only to the sources mentioned above, much legitimate, relevant and necessary information will simply go unnoticed.

The poster above epitomizes the putatively "objective" scholar, who is anything but.

Why does anyone care about movies about Watergate?

a.) Because knowledge for the sake of knowledge is its own reward.

b.) Because Watergate is fresh news that everyone should be thinking about every day.

c.) Because nothing is happening in the world, and we are bored.

d.) Because DJT must be impeached, and we need to get ready by studying a famous impeachment (we must never mention Clinton, however; only Nixon is relevant).

We are, after, an academic community interested only in the "truth."


"Monica Lewinsky was invited to a Town & Country magazine event — then uninvited after former President Bill Clinton joined the lineup. She was bumped from the lifestyle mag’s annual Philanthropy Summit Wednesday after Clinton came on board to introduce teen gun control activist Emma Gonzalez, the Huffington Post reports."

This is because the event organizers, I suspect, respect victims of male sexual aggressors.

Ever peruse the list of icons taken down in the "me too" movement? Anything mostly all of them have in common?

Won't see a post discussing any subject of this sort in the FL. Instead, we will be treated to another insightful expose of the minutia of a half-century old scandal, because it involved a Republican president. After all, we are told, "The phrase “follow the money,” which seems ubiquitous lately." Uh huh. Can't go a moment without hearing that phrase.

BTW, where is the penetrating Gaughan post about Stormy's latest film? Scholars of the law need to know!


Gaughan is a watergate scholar, anon. You want to write about Stormy's latest film, then create your own blog and type away. But why come here to denounce other's work?


Because ideologues - who favor a totalitarian society - should listen to the voices they seem never to hear, and realize how silly their obsessions appear to so many of us who don't live in their bubble.

Funny thing is, they can dish it out, but they can't take it, and their senses of humor are null and void (all they can laugh at is the comedy insult dog like approach to T).


Fact: Only one party in the U.S. makes friends with ruthless dictators, and it isnt the democrats.

The only people I know who dont know any facts are the ones watching Fox News, despite your assertion to the contrary. If I remember correctly, research has shown that Fox News viewers are the least knowledgeable news watchers in the country.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

Obsession is the wrong word. Look at the Linguistics post. A better word is passion. Many lawyers and academics are passionate about their career, interests and work. Those are not to be dismissed as "silly."

Watergate is relevant for its precedential value. We have a burglary and theft of documents from a major political party. We have obstruction and firings of investigators. We have the corrupt payoff to a lawyer to purchase "advice" or "access." Nixon was impaired by alcohol and Trump appears to be emotionally and psychologically impaired or compromised to be President.



It is just a game of "you're another" ... and that is the only playbook that liberal ideologues can play: inconvenient truth, Fox News.

A case in point, you state: "If I remember correctly, research has shown that Fox News viewers are the least knowledgeable news watchers in the country."

You don't remember correctly. As usual, you just repeat, uncritically, Democratic Party talking points, and, as usual, you are wrong.

Quoting from the Atlantic, hardly a "conservative" magazine, and Politifact, the trope that you repeat here, popular some years ago, was debunked (see, "Actually, Fox News Viewers Aren't 'Consistently Misinformed' A fact-checking organization deems Jon Stewart's remark "false" Erik Hayden
| Jun 21, 2011":

"On Sunday, during Jon Stewart's twenty-five-minute media criticism debate with Fox News' Chris Wallace, the Daily Show host claimed that Fox viewers were the most "consistently misinformed" in "every poll." Politifact, the fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times, was surprised that Wallace let that claim go unchallenged. Perhaps, like us, he'd heard the refrain so much that he let it slip past him.

Politifact ... investigated Stewart's statement by referring to the media "knowledge" surveys produced by two polling organizations: the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the University of Maryland .... . What they found ... : Fox News scored low among media outlets, but--depending on the survey--it did outpace some competitors. Here's Politifact's nuanced conclusion, leading them to deem Stewart's remark "false": (quoting from Politifact")

"So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn’t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience."

Like the most extreme left wing ideologues, you appear to long for a world where endless hours of bashing your political enemies passes as "news" and there is no other source of information that is even conceivable. (Shows on MSNBC, for example, appear to rarely allow a different pov to be expressed, see. e.g., Maddow, O'Donnell, Williams). This is the likely reason that folks who watched Stewart were found in many instances, by credible organizations, to be less informed than those who watched "Fox News."

Today, it is much worse. Those who are pushing an extreme pov (e.g., by dwelling on the minutia of Watergate to push the notion of impeachment, claiming that "follow the money" is now heard "ubiquitously", relying on movies for information) are just clouding the issues and blurring out a nuanced and more scholarly (and accurate) view.

Ultra left wing extremists, who dwell only in the land of their imaginations, exclude any dissent or contrary opinions and accept the daily dose of hateful rhetoric and distorted hyperbole as the norm. They never, repeat never, look at their own partisans and find fault.

Here, in the FL, this trait is on full display. In a land where left wing partisans regularly beat their chests about "free speech" in practice, they seem to intend something quite different.


And, btw, Anon, the statement "Fact: Only one party in the U.S. makes friends with ruthless dictators, and it isnt the democrats." is beyond risible: this belief, if sincere, is truly a sad confirmation of my conclusions above. Only a very uninformed person could reach that conclusion.


The president* has: praised murderous Dutarte of the Phillipines, congratulated murderous Putin on his "election," said Egyption strongman and human rights abuser el-Sisi was doing "a fantastic job," and suggested that the "presidency for life" of Chinese president Xi was something he liked.

Now, let's try this again: Only one party in the U.S. makes friends with ruthless dictators, and it isnt the democrats.


Let's try that again, Anon.

I'll not stoop to the level of your "proof" (once again, just Democratic Party talking points) by doing a "whatabout" except to refute the first point of your absurd rant (which is all I'll have time to do at this moment):

As reported by Rueters, as President Obama was taking office, July 7, 2009 "Obama praises Russia's Putin before beluga breakfast," Obama stated to Putin:

"I am aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people in your previous role as prime minis-, uh, as president, but in your current role as prime minister,” Obama said at the start of talks."

As a 9 March 2012 Foreign Policy article noted:

“President Obama called Russian President-elect and Prime Minister Putin to congratulate him on his recent victory in the Russian Presidential election,” the White House said in a late Friday afternoon statement (read: news dump) about the Friday morning phone call between the two leaders.

Moreover, as widely reported (probably not on the news media upon which you rely) while running for reelection, on a "hot mike" then President Obama was heard to say to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: "This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility.” “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev.

Of course, Putin was an entirely different person when we are speaking of President Obama, right?

As for praising other ruthless dictators, a similar, objective study would demonstrate the absurdity of your claim.

We should, but won't have time today, fully explore Democratic Party war support (and lack of support) and the lack of consistency there. What dictators have the Democrats supported? None? That's your risible claim here.

One last point: your last barrage, a joke, just underscores what is stated above: left wing extremists are generally unable to understand humor, unless it is at the expense of the ones they hate on ideological grounds (e.g. Colbert). If you don't know or don't care what was actually said around that joke, then there is really no question about your inability to think objectively.

Enrique Guerra Pujol

Speaking of “follow the money,” who is paying Stephanie Clifford’s legal fees?

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

Dictators, wars, and the big one: OIL. What's our oil doing under their sand? That sort of thing. Both parties are responsible. At least President Obama started us down the path toward energy security once again. Carter started it in 1979 and Regan ended conservation in 1983

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad