Anatomy of a Smear

Seeing all their nefarious power slipping away with the nomination of conservative jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Democrats and their snowflake acolytes are wailing and gnashing their teeth in a pathetic display of childish petulance unable to stop the inevitable erosion of their control over federal institutions, and now liberal California Senator Diane Feinstein, in a bid to increase her liberal credentials in a party now hijacked by radical communist liberals that looks down on her, pulls her own October surprise by springing a last-minute accuser to throw Kavanaugh’s nomination process into chaos and stall for time hoping that support for Kavanaugh eventually falls away.

It has been said that one is more often remembered for their few mistakes rather than their many successes, and this is even more applicable in the age of instant communications where mistakes are hyped in real time across the globe while successes continue to be overlooked. One has to look no further than President Trump to see this aphorism in action as the biased media resort to fake news slandering his administration hyped to the heavens and broadcast instantaneously for all to see despite the fact that no one is paying them much attention anymore. The multiple successes of the Trump administration and its policies of deregulation and lower taxes are ignored in a level of silence which is deafening as the biased media attempts to manipulate Americans into believing that President Trump is a failure despite the mountains of evidence they see before them to the contrary.

Slander is defined as “the crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” Libel is defined as “a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation.” Slander and libel are employed to sow doubt and discord about a person’s reputation while offering no proof that the accusation has merit and deserves serious consideration. The Bible warns that those who slander or libel the reputation of another will face serious consequences for the evil of their misdeeds. Both slander and libel are crimes subject to severe penalties, although they are rarely prosecuted anymore in the age of fake news. The biased media gets away with numerous instances of slander and libel with the excuse that their sources were inaccurate and the fact that most victims have neither the time nor the money to pursue what the public now easily recognizes as media lies.

Politicians from both parties have employed slander tactics to smear the reputations of their opponents since there have been politicians. We’ve all heard varying versions of the classic Democrat smear that some Republican opponent is nothing more than a right-wing extremist religious zealot wishing to return America back to the rigorous existence of the Puritans. Lately, Democrats like to play to their minority base by throwing in charges of the Republican being a fascist white power nationalist bent on promoting the interests of whites at the expense of minorities. These charges are ringing hollow with minorities seeing the economic explosion which is raising all boats under the Trump administration that has their groups at historically low unemployment after the disastrous economic misery of the failed Obama administration.

Republican accusations that their opponent is nothing more than a tax-and-spend Democrat bent on bankrupting the country to hand out free stuff in a socialist free-for-all may not be strictly true for a particular Democrat, but these accusations do have the advantage of being stereotypical of Democrats as a party, especially with the rise of radical socialists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Andrew Gillum in Florida, and Beto O’Rourke in Texas. This new crop of radical socialist Democrats proudly embrace the socialist label while looking to socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for inspiration.

Slander and libel are unproven accusations hurled at someone to intentionally damage their reputation with no intention on the part of the accuser at ever offering proof of these accusations. It is not the intention of the slanderer to actually prove the accusation because that would involve the rigor of a criminal trial at great expense and much hard work while requiring irrefutable proof which the slanderer lacks. If the slanderer had irrefutable proof, then they would report the crime and follow the prosecutorial process. In a criminal trial, it is not enough to “know something is true” on instinct. One must be able to offer proof of the criminal accusation as part of the due process procedure to avoid wrongful convictions of the innocent based on an accusation from someone merely looking to harm another whom they feel has wronged them in some way.

As Americans, we enjoy the presumption of innocence guaranteed to us by the Constitution thanks to the foresight of the Founders. Neither an accusation, nor an arrest, nor a trial is evidence that someone is guilty regardless of how sensationalized those events are made to appear by the media interested in seizing as much of the public’s attention as possible with lurid details designed to manipulate public opinion into a presumption of guilt. The unfortunate result of allowing the media so much leeway in their depictions of events related to criminal activity is that those accused are often tried by the media with the public having made up its mind as to the question of guilt or innocence long before the accused gets their day in court. Even if the accused is acquitted, often they are exiled and excoriated by the public convinced of their guilt by a corrupt media interested only in ratings to inflate their advertising revenue at the expense of truth and justice.

In the world of criminal procedure, the lack of witnesses or physical evidence means a case often boils down to a “he said, she said” situation whereby guilt must be determined on the basis of which participant, either the accuser or the accused, is the more believable in the minds of the jury. The events in question are parsed for the minutest of details in the hopes of uncovering some inconsistency which will lend credibility to one side or the other and assist the jury in its deliberations. Absent evidence of that type, juries are left to struggle with determining which is the more believable and often end up deadlocked because some believe the accuser while others believe the accused. However, at no time are slanderous accusations lacking a basis of proof allowed to be considered as evidence no matter how passionately they are presented.

Toward the end of the 1991 confirmation hearings for the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg received a leaked FBI report that Anita Hill, a former colleague of Thomas, had accused Thomas of making unwanted sexual comments while working with him at the EEOC. Totenberg’s publication of the leaked report led to hearing sessions examining Hill’s lurid accusations and graphic sexual details which Thomas vehemently denied. A litany of women whom Thomas had worked with over the years testified to the committee baring witness to the impeccable character of Thomas and the fact that they had never experienced anything from Thomas but the utmost professional behavior and respect during their time together. The Democrat plan to destroy his character in the hopes of sinking his nomination with these last minute accusations from Anita Hill failed as the public eventually sided with Thomas and he was confirmed by the Senate.

The events surrounding the Democrat plot to sink the nomination of Clarence Thomas were much more subtly executed with Nina Totenberg claiming to have scored a journalistic coup in obtaining the leaked FBI report which led to Anita Hill being called to testify as if one thing led to the next rather than the scripted plan put in play by Democrats fearful that a conservative Thomas would threaten cherished liberal shibboleths such as abortion. The public was much more trusting of the media back in 1991 which made Totenberg’s part much more plausible. What sank the plan was the professional behavior of Thomas who worked with numerous women over the course of his career while putting himself beyond reproach with his professional demeanor. Instead of boiling down to a “he said, she said” situation, Thomas’ supporters were able to offer a plethora of women who had worked with Thomas and were willing to testify to his professionalism to turn it into a “she said, they said” situation with only Anita Hill offering an unsubstantiated accusation against multiple credible witnesses to the character of Clarence Thomas.

Once again, with the nomination of conservative jurist Brett Kavanaugh, liberal Democrats see a conservative nominated to the Supreme Court whom they believe is a threat to their cherished liberal shibboleths of abortion and other liberal issues. Only this time, instead of merely replacing a liberal Justice with a conservative Justice, Kavanaugh represents a hard tilt away from a mostly liberal Court supportive of liberal causes to a firm conservative Court whose conservative members may have the appetite and will have the votes to finally go after and rescind many of the liberal precedents so at odds with the Constitution and the intent of the Founders. Kavanaugh’s nomination is especially contentious because it comes on the heels of liberal Democrats having lost control of Congress, most of the state legislatures across the country, and the White House with the election of Donald Trump over Crooked Hillary which Democrats were not expecting and for which they were definitely not prepared.

After the high point of the Obama administration, the radical socialist progressives were all set to fortify their power base with the election of Crooked Hillary acting in the role of a third Obama term to cement the Obama legacy and enshrine his disastrous policies for a generation or more. Hillary’s elitist contempt for Americans in flyover country she derisively labeled as “deplorables” only confirmed to millions of Americans that she could not be trusted to look after their interests as president. With her loss, the Democrat Party is still unwilling to confront the fact that the Obama administration was a disaster for the party which cost them over a thousand legislative seats across the country including both Houses of Congress, and that his policies have been soundly rejected by Americans tired of suffering under them. Obama’s contempt for President Trump’s ability to revive the economy was revealed in his characterization of Trump waving a “magic wand” to revitalize the economy which has come back to bite him as the economy has indeed exploded through Trump’s policies of deregulation and tax cuts.

As President Trump promised, he first nominated Neil Gorsuch from his list of conservative judges to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Court, and now he has nominated Brett Kavanaugh from the same conservative list of judges to fill the seat of retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. Meanwhile, Diane Feinstein failed to secure the endorsement of the California Democrat Party in her bid for reelection to the Senate because they felt she was not sufficiently liberal for their tastes, and so they tacitly endorsed her more liberal opponent Kevin de Leon by withholding their endorsement for anyone. Feinstein is facing reelection in a party which no longer wants her in favor of more radical socialist candidates as it doubles down on policies which Americans have constantly rejected in the misguided hope that this will finally be the time.

To burnish her liberal credentials in an attempt to appear more radical, Feinstein, as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sat on a letter she received from liberal California Representative Anna Eshoo back in July which Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford sent to Eshoo detailing allegations of sexual misconduct Kavanaugh supposedly committed against her while both were in high school. Feinstein refused to reveal the existence of this letter despite privately meeting with Kavanaugh as part of the confirmation process, waiting until the last minute before the committee vote to mention its existence while then refusing to release its contents. This was all carefully orchestrated to throw Kavanaugh’s nomination into chaos right when it had entered the final stages before what was likely a confirmation along party lines.

Adding to the chaos was Feinstein’s insistence on releasing the letter to the FBI and calling for an investigation before proceeding with the nomination in a calculated effort to further delay the nomination past the midterm elections in the hopes that Democrats would seize control of the Senate and could thus block Kavanagh’s nomination as part of their borking strategy against him. Christine Blasey Ford and her attorneys refused to commit to Chairman Grassley’s attempts to schedule her testimony for Monday to hear her side and frustrate Democrat attempts to stall the nomination process. For her part, Ford strategically aligned her strategy with that of Feinstein and the Democrats to insist on an FBI investigation before agreeing to testify in a blatant attempt to further stall the process. Realizing that she had overplayed her hand, Ford and her Democrat attorneys then began negotiating with Chairman Grassley on an appearance before the committee. Grassley insisted on an appearance sooner rather than later as Ford and her attorneys have insisted upon, while the delays are damaging both her credibility and Kavanaugh’s reputation.

The sheer transparency of the Democrats’ attempts to stall the Kavanaugh nomination with such a lame stunt as springing a last-minute allegation sat on for all this time only reinforces to Americans the notion that Democrats are desperate and will stop at nothing to retain their grasp on the levers of power. Americans elected Donald Trump over Crooked Hillary precisely because they reject the radical socialist agenda of the Democrat Party. Candidate Trump promised to nominate Justices from a list of conservative judges, and Americans responded positively to that promise. To the delight of his supporters and the astonishment of others, President Trump has kept his promises to the benefit of the economy and the country. However, Democrats doubling down on their embrace of radical socialism have learned nothing as they continue to swirl around the bowl into political oblivion rejected by Americans hostile to their contempt.

The timing of Ford’s accusation lends suspicion to her motives, and the question has been asked why she waited so long to come forward. She could have easily come forward when Kavanaugh’s name appeared on Trump’s original list of conservative judges. I am inclined to believe that many women who have suffered sexual abuse refuse to come forward for fear of professional or personal retaliation, just as many people refuse to come forward for the same reasons when faced with other situations of injustice perpetrated upon them by those in power. It’s not just a women thing to suffer in silence when forced into a situation against one’s principles. I also believe that many instances of unwanted sexual attention, not involving actual physical violation, do not rise to the level of merit being accorded them by the hysterical #MeToo movement.

The incident in question allegedly occurred when both were in high school which is a time when young people are struggling to fit into society and not keen on isolating themselves with such a serious accusation. Under these circumstances, it is believable that Ford would not want to make a big deal out of an alleged incident that she apparently handled on her own if her portrayal is accurate. Young people struggle to fit in, but they also struggle with attraction to the opposite sex and both must learn to navigate the tricky waters of social interaction both on interpersonal and intimate levels. An awkward attempt to navigate these difficult waters of intimacy does not necessarily disqualify one from success later in life. This all presupposes that the events in question actually occurred, which has not been established and is in serious doubt.

It is a testament to the ferocity and underhandedness of liberal Democrats and the quality of Kavanaugh’s reputation that they reached back all the way to Kavanaugh’s high school years as a teenager to portray an awkward incident of an alleged sexual advance which they sat on during the nomination process only to spring it in an obvious attempt to sow chaos and discord they hope will stall the nomination and eventually derail Kavanaugh from consideration. In this era of the #MeToo movement, even an awkward sexual advance by a teenager is considered enough to disqualify a man from participation in life while these same sexual Pharisees ignore real victims such as Juanita Broaddrick whom Bill Clinton raped in 1978, and Karen Monahan who has accused DNC Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison of physical and emotional abuse while they were a couple.

It has long been obvious that the Democrats turn to the courts to enact those parts of its radical progressive socialist agenda that Americans reject at the polls. Democrats have worked for decades to insinuate their liberal acolytes into every level of the state and federal courts system to obstruct and frustrate conservative attempts to preserve fidelity to the Constitution and the intent of the Founders. The obviously unconstitutional actions of federal judges issuing orders to block President Trump’s attempts to prevent the entry of immigrants from countries hostile to the United States whose citizens are overwhelmingly involved in radical Islamic terrorism despite clear constitutional authority granted to the president to control immigration policy demonstrates the power of radical progressive ideologues to obstruct commonsense protections for the benefit of Americans who have suffered under the hands of these radical Islamic terrorists.

The smear tactics developed by Democrats in the 1987 obstruction of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court and honed by Democrats against the 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas are now being employed against Brett Kavanaugh in an attempt to derail the nomination of another constitutional conservative to the Supreme Court who opposes the radical socialist agenda of the progressive Democrats. Caught unaware in 1987, conservatives were unable to save Robert Bork’s nomination, but they were better prepared in 1991 when these smear tactics were employed against Clarence Thomas. Feinstein’s mishandling of the smear attempt against Brett Kavanaugh along with accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s overlaying her hand in obvious delaying attempts are boosting Kavanaugh’s credibility and providing the impetus for Committee Chairman Charles Grassley to press ahead with a vote.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Progressive Agenda, SCOTUS and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.