Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

The Democrats’ smear campaign isn’t stopping. Instead, it’s hitting new lows. CNN published a story insisting that House Impeachment Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes had visited Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden family. The CNN article opens by saying “(CNN)A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden. The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.” It continues, saying “Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December,’ said Bondy.”

Talk about ironclad hearsay. I’m impressed. Not. This is worthless. It wouldn’t be admitted in a court of law. That isn’t the worst of it, though. This is:

CNN is running a major story that Devin Nunes met with a Ukrainian prosecutor on the word of a defense attorney whose client is facing serious charges? They’re publishing the article without seeing the texts? They’re just taking the defense attorney’s word without verification?

It’s difficult to picture a reporter being that gullible. Did she just throw out everything she learned in Journalism 101? That’s what it looks like.

“For all of the last three years, including the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax, this is the mother of all fake news stories. There is not one bigger than this,” Nunes said. “And so next week, we are going to take them to court. They will have an opportunity to come to court so that we can subpoena each other. We can get discovery. We can set people down for depositions. And I have a bet for you, Sean. CNN and The Daily Beast are going to run for cover. They’re going to fight this. They’re not going to show up in court. They’re not going to accept service.”

Devin Nunes has been maligned by the MSM for years. They’ve insisted that he’s blindly running interference for the Trump administration. What the MSM fails to admit is that, at least once a month, Nunes’ claims are proven right. It’s time CNN and the Daily Beast are held accountable.

Last week, the hate crimes discussion that was cancelled 2 months ago was finally held. According to this SCTimes article, “[the] panel discussing hate crimes was held after security concerns led to a two-month delay at St. Cloud State University Wednesday at the Miller Center Auditorium.” Actually, there weren’t any legitimate security concerns, as I’ve written about here.

The myth of security concerns was likely started by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, aka MDHR. Over 3 hours after the event had gotten cancelled, MDHR issued a statement saying “Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state. Our community deserves better,” says MDHR Commissioner Rebecca Lucero. “I am heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes. The goal of the forum was to discuss the community we want to create. One that is full of dignity and joy.”

The event was officially announced as cancelled at 1:16 pm. The protesters didn’t show up until after 2:00 pm. Further, the St. Cloud Times wrote “despite the ‘public safety concern’ cited by the human rights department, St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton said Wednesday the department received no reports of threats related to the event.

The panel was originally planned to be held Sept. 18 at the St. Cloud Library, but was canceled “due to safety concerns,” according to a release from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

On that day, demonstrators with the Freedom Speaks Coalition protested the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ involvement. On their website, the group claims that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is affiliated with terrorist organizations.

Shame on the Times for soft-pedaling that. It isn’t a claim. It’s a finding of fact from “the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation and its former officials.”

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich “included trial transcripts and exhibits ‘which demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and HAMAS, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995.'”

CAIR’s reputation as a Muslim civil rights organization is tarnished:

CAIR wasn’t founded after 9/11. It was started in the 1990s. It’s difficult to take CAIR seriously an organization that’s promoted by propagandists like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

The SC Times’ latest guilt trip article is worth highlighting. It isn’t worth highlighting because the content. It isn’t worth highlighting because the writing was exceptional. It’s worth highlighting because the picture of hateful graffiti spray-painted on a business’s windows is from July, 2010.

How big of a problem are hate crimes when the most recent hate crimes picture is 9 years old? With the number of hate crimes event scheduled for St. Cloud since Labor Day, you’d think that St. Cloud was the hate crimes capitol of Minnesota. While hate crimes have risen slightly statewide, the numbers simply don’t bear out the notion that St. Cloud is a hotbed of hate crimes. The chart in this article highlights hate crime incidents per bias motivation in 2017. According to the statistics compiled by the FBI, the number of hate crimes in St. Cloud totaled 2, 1 based on the person’s race, ethnicity or ancestry. The other hate crime was based on the victim’s religion.

According to the St. Cloud Times’ article, a “new three-part series of forums is planned to replace an event on Dismantling Hate Crimes that was abruptly cancelled Sept. 18 ‘because of safety and logistical concerns,’ according to the St. Cloud Area Human Rights Commission.” That’s, at best, misleading. When I wrote this post, I quoted “a statement by St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton. The Times wrote that ‘Despite the public safety concern’ cited by the human rights department, St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton said Wednesday ‘the department received no reports of threats related to the event.‘”

Since St. Cloud’s Chief of Police was participating in the event, it’s likely that the St. Cloud PD was monitoring the chatter. At the time, there was lots of speculation that the cancellation was part of a hoax. What I found was that the event’s cancellation was posted on the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission’s Facebook page at 1:16 pm on the day of the event. The ‘protesters’ were mostly just concerned citizens who showed up after 2:00 pm, well after the event had gotten cancelled.

Further, the Minnesota Department of Human Resources issued a statement after 4:30 pm. I wrote in this post about how the Minnesota Department of Human Resources tried belittling the protesters:

“Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state,” Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero said in a news release issued just over an hour before the planned start of the event. “Our community deserves better.”

“I am heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes. The goal of the forum was to discuss the community we want to create. One that is full of dignity and joy,” she said.

MDHR is full of it. There were 2 groups of protesters at the event. The smaller group was protesting the event. The other group was actually praying for the Persecuted Church. Neither group attempted “to silence discussion on hate crimes.”

The best proof of that came in the form of Jaylani Hussein, who showed up at 6:30, which was half an hour after the event was scheduled to start. He held an impromptu event at the site that was deemed too dangerous. It went off without a hitch. The Times wrote this late in the article:

The St. Cloud Human Rights Commission and Minnesota Department of Human Rights initially planned a forum on hate crimes in September and cancelled it. A group opposed to the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ involvement in the panel planned a protest of the event and showed up even after it was called off.

I’d be surprised if the handful of protesters and people praying for the Persecuted Church were monitoring the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission’s Facebook page. The way that paragraph was written made it sound like the people had something nefarious planned.

The day after House Republicans pushed their way into Adam Schiff’s SCIF, the MSM was out in full force talking about the Republicans’ “stunt”. Vox’s article highlighted the opinion that the Republicans’ “stunt” was intended to use “those complaints to distract from the substance of the probe.” That’s interesting since there doesn’t appear to be any substance to the Democrats’ faux investigation.

First, we were told that a faux whistleblower would finally bring the walls crashing down around our president. Back then, President Trump’s crime was committing a quid pro quo, which literally means this for that. That type of transaction happens countless times between countries. Now we’re finding out that the faux whistleblower didn’t have firsthand information. The faux whistleblower isn’t anything but a gossip. But I digress.

While House Republicans want to put pressure on Democrats, their Wednesday crusade revealed how much heat they and Trump are facing regarding the impeachment inquiry: They don’t seem to have much substantive defense they can offer the president, so instead, they’re going after Democrats’ process.

Actually, Vox isn’t telling the people the truth. John Ratcliffe cross-examined Bill Taylor, the ambassador to Ukraine. Ratcliffe got Taylor to admit that the Ukrainian administration didn’t know that the US-supplied military aid had been held up. They didn’t find out until a month after the Trump-Zelensky phone call.

It’s impossible to extort favors from someone who isn’t aware that he’s been robbed in the first place. To use Ratcliffe’s line, it’s a quid pro quo without the quo. Without that, there isn’t any substance to talk about. Ratcliffe insists that the case wouldn’t get to a jury in a regular court because it was missing an important element of the crime.

I’m tired of the Agenda Media using process as a euphemism. What Republicans have been objecting to is that Democrats haven’t paid attention to the Constitution. Democrats haven’t let President Trump’s attorneys defend the President. Democrats have repeatedly made provocative accusations without proof:

“It is of paramount importance to ensure that witnesses cannot coordinate their testimony with one another to match their description of events, or potentially conceal the truth,” Schiff wrote in a letter to his House colleagues last week. Schiff emphasized that public transcripts of these depositions would be released in the future, and also anticipated that testimony would ultimately be public as well.

The people who’ve testified thus far have been diplomats with an axe to grind against President Trump, a woman from the Defense Department. The likelihood of any of these people coordinating their testimony to protect President Trump is virtually nonexistent. That’s why they have an axe to grind against President Trump. One last thought on the witnesses called thus far: the only person who doesn’t fit that profile was Ambassador Sondland, who was a political appointee.

The ‘we can’t let these witnesses coordinate their testimony’ line is BS. Other than Ambassador Sondland, these people don’t like President Trump. They aren’t coordinating testimony to protect President Trump. If anything, there’s a better chance of them coordinating their testimony to sink President Trump.

The claim that Republicans did anything to distract from the testimony that’s supposedly harming President Trump is foolish. Thus far, most of the testimony is second- and third-hand information. That isn’t worrying experienced prosecutors like John Ratcliffe. When it’s heard by the American public when the public trial starts, that type of information will backfire on the media and other Democrats. Why would Republicans worry about that type of information?

Honestly, I’d consider the Vox article nothing but spin. These aren’t reporters as much as they are propagandists. This is the only media coverage that wasn’t wall-to-wall spin:

Watching Juan Williams’ rant, it struck me that he didn’t mention a single piece of evidence. That’s of a piece with these hearings. Thus far, it’s mostly been second- and third-hand information. That’s hearsay, not evidence. As Congressman Ratcliffe highlighted, you can’t have a quid pro quo if you don’t have the quo. If the Ukrainians didn’t know that their military aid was being withheld and the Biden investigation didn’t happen, then it’s impossible to have a quid pro quo.

This isn’t damaging President Trump. It’s demolishing what’s left of the MSM’s credibility.

I won’t dispute that President Trump has made mistakes. Pulling the troops out of Syria by itself wasn’t a mistake. Pulling out without consultations with the Kurds was a mistake.

Mick Mulvaney’s Friday afternoon press conference wasn’t a mistake. Mick Mulvaney’s Friday afternoon press conference was an in-your-face-things-have-changed masterpiece. That’s the gospel of Kevin McCullough:

I know that the mouth breathers mixed amongst the White House press corps acted as though acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney committed some set of cardinal sins on Friday. Excuse me if I disagree. It was a stroke of pure genius on the administration’s part. And for the record they would do themselves a huge favor by continuing this practice for the duration of Pelosi’s faux impeachment.

Since Pelosi and Schiff aren’t conducting a lawful impeachment nor observing the long held practices of past impeachments, there is absolutely zero rationale in participating in their charade. They want to interrogate everyone in secret and not make the exculpatory testimony (of nearly everyone they speak with) available to the people. They want to undo lawful elections and remove the overwhelming winner of those contests via illegitimate and fraudulent means. Hence the president should reserve the right of using his press briefings to more or less call his own witnesses and let them blister the media with testimony exactly the way Mulvaney did on Friday.

The first rule of dealing with schoolyard bullies is to punch them hard so they know that there’s a price to pay for being a bully. If there isn’t a price for bullying, the bullying will continue. Democrats in the media aren’t used to having the person from the podium punch back. Based on their reactions, those Democrats aren’t handling it that well.

I’m not sure what bothered the press more: that Mulvaney made it clear that he wouldn’t play their semantic word games or that he unloaded facts to the public with such force. He also irritated them to no end in blatantly explaining that the aid America gives to any group of people that are not American will be on a basis that is assessed on a primary consideration of how they cooperate with the interests of America!

In other words, President Trump is insisting that money is spent wisely. The Democrats’ media accomplices acted like Mulvaney committed multiple mortal sins. The vast majority of the White House press corps are a bunch of sniveling ninnies. It’s time for them to grow up.

Likewise, it’s time for Republicans to start standing up to the Democrats’ enablers.

Back on March 27, 2006, I wrote this post. That’s when I coined the phrase Agenda Media. By definition, the Agenda Media is interested in furthering the Democrats’ leftist agenda. The Agenda Media isn’t interested in spreading the truth. If the Agenda Media had a mission statement, I’m betting that it would say that acquiring, then maintaining, power for Democrats is their mission. That’s a shameful mission.

Kim Strassel’s new book, titled Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America is essentially about the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Resist movement couldn’t exist without the Agenda Media’s help. Ms. Strassel writes:

Last week The Washington Post revealed the alarming news that House Democrats were considering having their anonymous “whistleblower” testify from a remote location, and in disguise. Just as shocking as the details of this plan was the justification the Post ladled on this Democratic effort to hide impeachment information from the public.

It explained, high up in the story, that the cloak-and-dagger approach was merely Democrats expressing “distrust of their GOP colleagues, whom they see as fully invested in defending a president who has attacked the whistleblower’s credibility and demanded absolute loyalty from Republicans.”

This year, House Minority Leader McCarthy coined a phrase that said “Democrats hate President Trump more than they love America. That’d sound extreme if you haven’t paid attention to the Democrats’ actions. If you’ve paid attention to the Democrats’ actions, Leader McCarthy’s cliché is legitimate.

It’d be wrong to call Pelosi’s Democrats a domestic terrorist organization but I wouldn’t be that far off. Since President Trump’s election, Democrats have voted virtually unanimously against prosperity and against giving President Trump some political victories. Let’s not forget that every Democrat in DC voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that’s been the heart of this incredible economic performance.

Let’s remember that every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against confirming Justice Kavanaugh. In fact, those Democrats did everything imaginable to destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation and Justice Kavanaugh’s family. It isn’t surprising that every Democrat voted against Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

The Resist Movement is spearheaded by the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Agenda Media is significantly to the left of traditional Democrats. That doesn’t mean that today’s Democrats are moderates. They definitely aren’t. The AOC wing of the Democratic Party is the biggest wing of the Party. They’re also the craziest part of the Party. Check out this interview:

Notice that Leslie Marshall cites polls favoring impeachment rather than defending the secrecy with which House Democrats are conducting their sham impeachment proceedings. Marshall didn’t attempt to defend Pelosi’s or Schiff’s indefensible actions.

That’s changed in the age of Trump. The press has embraced its bias, joined the Resistance and declared its allegiance to one side of a partisan war. It now openly declares those who offer any fair defense of this administration as Trump “enablers.” It writes off those who question the FBI or Department of Justice actions in 2016 as “conspiracy” theorists. It acts as willing scribes for Democrats and former Obama officials; peddles evidence-free accusations; sources stories from people with clear political axes to grind; and closes its eyes to clear evidence of government abuse.

It’s time for truth-loving Republicans and independents to shove the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post off a non-literal cliff. They’re propagandists. They aren’t real journalists.

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi will need a different point person for impeachment. that’s because Chairman Schiff just got caught lying about the whistleblower:

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

That’s entirely different than what he told the crew of Morning Joe:

Early in the interview, Chairman Schiff told Sam Stein that “We have not spoken directly with the whistle-blower. We would like to but I’m sure that the whistle-blower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the Inspector General or the Director of National Intelligence.”

Mr. Schiff, this is the second time in the past 2 weeks where you’ve gotten caught lying. You first said that you haven’t spoken with the whistleblower. Now the NYTimes reports that you “learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer” filed an official complaint. I’m inclined to believe that you knew about this before the whistleblower went public because you said some things that mirrored things that the whistleblower said in his/her complaint.

It’s important to remember that this isn’t the first time that Schiff lived up to his nickname of Shiffty Schiff. At last week’s hearing with Acting Director of the DNI Joseph Maguire, Schiff made up an entire portion of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy:

Considering how frequently Chairman Schiff has gotten caught lying, shouldn’t he be dismissed by Speaker Pelosi as the person in charge of impeachment? With an issue as important and sensitive as impeachment, we need someone trustworthy steering the ship. That description doesn’t fit Chairman ‘Shiffty’ Schiff. It’s important to remember that Schiff also is famous for saying early in the Trump administration that he had evidence that was stronger than circumstantial evidence but that wasn’t direct evidence. We’re still waiting to see that.

It’s time to call out the St. Cloud Times for protecting their leftist cronies. This Our View Editorial is disgusting. It’s about the postponed Dismantling Hate Crimes event from this past Wednesday. Here’s the opening of the SCTimes’ article:

Sadly, people driven by fear are still driving the public agenda. Witness about two dozen people who showed up Wednesday at the St. Cloud Library to protest a panel discussion about dismantling hate crimes because, well, spreading hate and fear is their go-to.

Shame on the Times for publishing this trash. This isn’t worthy of a college newspaper, much less worthy of a once-respectable newspaper. This editorial is cringeworthy for its sloppiness and fact gathering.

First, the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission published a postponement notice on their Facebook page Wednesday afternoon. The timestamp for the post is 1:16 pm on Sept. 18th:

Next, 2 groups were there at the Library that might’ve been considered protest groups. One was a group who prayed for the Persecuted Church. The other organization is called the “Freedom Speaks Coalition.”

One of the groups applied for and received a permit to use a room in the Public Library from 2:00 pm-4:00 pm September 18. The Dismantling Hate Crimes event didn’t start until 6:00 pm. The Times’ hit piece continues:

First, though, many of the picketers (who showed up despite the cancellation that came soon before the event was to begin) would not stand up for their beliefs in the most basic way possible, by putting their names to their convictions. Offered the opportunity by journalists from the St. Cloud Times and other news outlets to explain their point of view, many offered their thoughts but most refused to provide their names.

Why would a sane person give the Times their name considering the Times Editorial Board’s penchant for smearing its political opponents? The Times is a media organization. Do they think we don’t know that they’re aware of Antifa protests on college campuses against conservatives and Christians? Am I supposed to believe that they aren’t aware of the violence that #BlackLivesMatters has perpetrated? Democrat-affiliated thugs like Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter and CAIR shouldn’t be trusted.

Notice that the Times trusted MDHR’s and CAIR’s narrative that the event was cancelled because some peaceful protesters showed up at the event. What the Times didn’t mention is that the event was postponed before the protesters arrived at the Library. Notice that the Times omitted the fact that Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton told Times reporter Jenny Berg that they hadn’t received any threats regarding the event.

Does the Times actually think that this postponement is legitimate? The SC Chief of Police was scheduled to participate in the discussion, as was an FBI supervisor. Also, 2 St. Cloud police officers were there. To think that CAIR and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights would get frightened by these protesters is foolish.

I’m tired of the Times Editorial Board either watering down their editorials to protect their political favorites or ignoring major facts. (Think Jeff Oxton’s statement.) The Times is supposed to be a news-gathering organization. It’d be nice if their work product reflected that. This video by Marni Hockenberg lays out pretty much the same facts that I laid out in this post:

In the stranger-than-fiction category, it’s apparent that the official statement issued by Commissioner Rebecca Lucero are spreading nationwide. These media outlets accept as Gospel Commissioner Lucero’s non-truths. For instance, this article quotes Lucero when she said “Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state.” The article continues, saying “Lucero says she is ‘heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes.'”

No attempt was made to stifle free speech. Commissioner Lucero shouldn’t spread lies about people exercising their right to speak freely about matters of religion and government. I don’t know what’s worse — Commissioner Lucero spreading propaganda or the Minnesota Department of Human Rights attempting to criticize people exercising their right to free speech.

The right to free speech doesn’t just apply to Democrats. A wise man once said that ‘the law protects everyone or it doesn’t protect anyone.’ How can the Human Rights Commissioner in Minnesota dispute that.

The sad part is that Commissioner Lucero’s propaganda is spreading like wildfire. The AP article stripped out things like the fact that Jeff Oxton, the St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief, said that they were monitoring things but that they hadn’t received any threats concerning the event. Why didn’t the AP keep that part of the SCTimes article in the AP article? It’s like the AP intentionally did that just like the NYTimes’ editors omitted the part about the supposed victim doesn’t recall the incident and isn’t talking to anyone.

The more articles I see with Commissioner Lucero’s highly inaccurate quote, the more certain I am that the Dismantling Hate Crimes event was nothing more than a Democrat publicity stunt. Our commissioners don’t just serve the governor. They’re supposed to serve We The People, too. I don’t know how they can do that when they turn a blind eye on a special interest’s propaganda. That’s what CAIR did with Jaylani Hussein’s rhetoric.

Hussein said that CAIR is a civil rights organization in one breath, then insists that groups like “Freedom Speaks Coalition is a hate group.” This is the USA, where that type of organization can criticize organizations like CAIR or politicians like Commissioner Lucero. Apparently, CAIR didn’t learn that in Civil Rights 101 when it was in law school. Perhaps they were attending a Farrakhan rally the day they taught that.

Then again, they might not have learned that because CAIR is really just Hamas DBA as CAIR in the USA:

It’s one thing for CAIR to spread their propaganda. It’s quite another when a commissioner that works for us puts out a statement that accuses her bosses, aka We The People, of committing hate crimes. That’s quite a prejudice for a human rights department.

Yesterday, I watched Harris Faulkner’s interview of former NYTimes’ Executive Editor Jill Abramson. This article shows that Ms. Faulkner is a great interviewer because she’s a quick thinker who relies on logic.

Here’s a partial transcript of the key exchange:

“It’s true that material fact was left out and The Times ran an editor’s note explaining that, which is what you do when you leave something out, but it was no conspiracy to leave out that fact. It was, you know, unfortunately, cut from the piece — as I understand it,” Abramson said.

Faulkner responded by asking how the accuracy could be challenged when the alleged victim, and an alleged witness, didn’t cooperate.

“It’s hard to take on something that even the victims doesn’t say happened,” Faulkner said.

“Well, it’s friends of the victim… she has chosen not to talk to the press,” Abramson said, before adding that alleged witness Max Stier went to the FBI over the alleged incident.

Faulkner quickly added that Stier is a “former Democratic operative for the Clintons,” but the ex-Times honcho downplayed his liberal agenda.

“He works for a nonpartisan political group now,” Abramson said. “I don’t know that you can characterize him as a partisan. If he was such a partisan, why didn’t he go public with this right during the confirmation hearing when he could have really dealt a blow?”

Faulkner reminded Abramson that Stier did go to the FBI at the time. Abramson said that proved the investigation into Kavanaugh was a “sham,” to which Faulkner asked, “Then why did it end up in your paper?” Abramson responded that the incident is a “third example of sexual impropriety” by Justice Kavanaugh, to which Faulkner quickly added, “allegation.” “It’s important,” Abramson said.

That’s when Faulkner’s jaw dropped:

“Wow, you really think that, without the evidence from the victim’s own mouth,” a stunned Faulkner said.

There isn’t a court in this nation that would convict a person who was accused of any crime by a witness who didn’t see the alleged crime but who heard about it third-hand. Further, the ‘witness’ (Max Stier) would get demolished on cross-examination because he was part of Bill Clinton’s legal team while Justice Kavanaugh was part of Independent Counsel Kenneth Star’s team. There isn’t an ounce of corroboration in the article. Victims who don’t talk and lawyers who won’t consent to interviews with law enforcement don’t strengthen a case.

When people accuse a high-profile person of a heinous crime, they’d better have everything nailed down 9 ways to Sunday. If they’re only sort of prepared, they’ll get annihilated in court. A legal system that routinely allows hearsay testimony and that lets people get convicted on allegations alone isn’t a nation. It’s a third world dictatorship.

God help us if we’ve descended that far.