In a sane world, vague last-minute accusations against a respected judge sailing toward confirmation as a Supreme Court justice would be met with grave doubt, if not open scorn and mockery.
But we are not living in a sane world, of course, and so we are all forced to endure this Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford circus.
The sideshow was taken to a new level when Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) decided to weigh in by insisting Ford is being truthful about the alleged decades-old sex assault, despite an absence of evidence. But, according to Gillibrand, what better way to obtain such evidence than an FBI investigation?
Now that Ford has agreed to testify publicly on the allegations, and a request stands for the FBI to get involved, it’s clear the circus is far from over.
Repulsive Reasoning
“I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she’s telling the truth,” Gillibrand pronounced from on high. She continued:
“You know it by her story. You know it by the fact that she told her therapist five years ago. She told her husband. This is a trauma she’s been dealing with her whole life. She doesn’t want to be in a bedroom that doesn’t have two doors. People knew that about her a long time ago.
These are the hallmarks of truth, these are the hallmarks of someone who wants to be believed. I believe her because she’s telling the truth.”
The most despicable part of the charade is the notion peddled by desperate Democrats that we must believe the accuser because she is a woman. That's it. No facts. No evidence. She's a woman. Believe her.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson accurately honed in on how revolting Democrats have been in declaring Kavanaugh guilty based only on an accusation. "Now in logic class they call this circular reasoning,” Carlson said, “which isn't actually reasoning at all. Instead, it's simply a demand that you believe something because someone else is asserting it. Children talk this way."
Media Synchronicity
One would sincerely hope that a responsible media would detail the horrific implications of a United States senator resorting to such deeply flawed thinking as she besmirches an upstanding citizen's life-long reputation.
Alas, we don't have a responsible media. Instead of putting Gillibrand's feet to the fire, we have major media outlets scurrying to back up her poisonous reasoning. This is called complicity in an orchestrated campaign. And it should be no surprise to anyone that the most grotesque media partner in this ugly, multi-pronged operation would be The New York Times.
A Times "news" article by Kate Zernike titled "Many Voters Tend to Believe Christine Blasey Ford, Even if They Question Her Motive" truly emulates Pravda at the height of the Soviet Union's iron grip on Eastern Europe. The article is from top to bottom designed to buttress Gillibrand's nutty and dangerous logic by insisting it is in sync with how regular small-town Americans think.
Isn't this exactly what the USSR would do back in the day? Quote "random" proletarian factory workers who just so happen to be spouting the party line with unswerving accuracy?
Zernike lays out the case that the people of Doylestown, Pa. are "inclined to believe" Ford's accusations, and gee, Republican or Democrat, they just so happen to be repeating the exact message that the perpetrators of the smear campaign against Kavanaugh want hammered home, no matter how implausible it may sound to anyone with a brain.
"It’s completely insane that anyone would think that this woman would put herself out there without this being a real thing,” one Blair Elliot is quoted as saying.
"Somebody who was lying about what happened wouldn’t be asking the FBI to investigate.”
That quote repeats almost verbatim what Gillibrand states is somehow proof of Ford's honesty and Kavanaugh's guilt.
“It costs more to come forward than it does to stay silent,” Heidi Froehlich tells Zernicke. “Anybody who believes there is something to be gained coming forward has no idea what it’s like to be a woman in this country right now.”
How that is evidence of wrongdoing on Kavanaugh's part is of course a mystery not worth pondering by The New York Times and their intrepid reporters. Perhaps the most ridiculous quote comes from a woman identified as a Republican.
“I would tend to generally believe people who come forward,” Paula Steele says,
“What’s the motive otherwise?”
Incredibly, this person is saying anyone who has ever stepped forward to accuse someone of something – anything – should "generally" be believed. And The Times is quoting this as a window into how "real" America thinks.
Stalin's propagandists would be proud.
Unworthy of Trust
Am I accusing The Times of fabricating quotes? No, though they do not deserve to be trusted on even so simple a task as this. But there are so many ways for a reporter to come up with the quotes he or she wants to fit a narrative.
How the questions are asked, for example. A reporter can lead a subject in the direction he wants simply by how he frames it. And then you can simply cherry-pick interviewees. One merely leaves out the responses that do not fit the narrative, and plays up the quotes that gibe perfectly.
An Axios/Survey Monkey poll in June found that a whopping 70% of Americans surveyed "across the board" believe that "traditional major news sources report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading."
A New York Times news article that so eerily coincides with the talking points of Democrat politicians advancing their brand of the politics of personal destruction only furthers the complete erosion of trust in what passes as major media news reporting today.
