I don’t think one single Senate vote depends on how Ford and Kavanaugh perform on Thursday, or even whether or not she shows up. The voting will go entirely according to politics and party, and the few possible swing votes will vote on calculations of self-interest.
Ford is a MacGuffin at this point, as are the others. She has served her purpose for the left even before she testifies.
Perhaps the Ford forces thought it would never come to this. Because they couldn’t possibly have thought that anyone would accept these results as evidence of anything except their own conniving and misleading duplicity:
Ah, that's why they didn't want to release it. There are two general questions, and the written statement contains a host of corrections (made when?). https://t.co/RS5y02BsKL
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
The letter looks like it was created by a dyslexic child, and the polygraph test looks like it was administered by some fifth-grader playing detective.
Did they never expect to have to produce this? Did they think their friends in the MSM would just cover for them and claim a polygraph was administered (not that polygraphs actually mean anything, but a lot of people actually set great store by them), and that would be enough to get Brett Kavanaugh rejected?
Well, maybe they were right, at least in the sense that maybe it will be enough, because facts and truth don’t seem to matter one whit to a great many people who will be voting on Kavanaugh in the Senate. If 2 + 2 must be said to equal 5, so be it, if the Party so demands.
And speaking of accusers, accuser number 3—the rape room girl—has this history.
From Politico (not known as a Trump-supporting, conservative site):
A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.
Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.
According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.”
“She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
…Vinneccy, 63, is a registered Democrat, according to Miami-Dade County voting records.
And she has another interesting tidbit in her background:
New: A decade ago, Julie Swetnick made a sexual harassment complaint against her former employer, New York Life Insurance. Representing her was the firm run by Debra Katz, who now reps Christine Blasey Ford. She was ultimately paid a financial settlement. https://t.co/goobX4fivL pic.twitter.com/UJ1LFRRc6M
— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) September 26, 2018
This woman appears to be a serial con artist. I believe that some unknown percentage of sexual harassment suits in the business world are shakedowns by con artists, awarded by companies for whom it’s sometimes easier to give the accuser a small amount of money rather than fight the claim. I have no idea if the percentage is large or small, but I have a strong suspicion it is not infinitesimal.
It’s no accident that the Furies were women:
According to Hesiod’s Theogony, when the Titan Cronus castrated his father, Uranus, and threw his genitalia into the sea, the Erinyes [Furies] (along with the Giants and the Meliae) emerged from the drops of blood which fell on the earth (Gaia), while Aphrodite was born from the crests of sea foam. According to variant accounts, they emerged from an even more primordial level—from Nyx (“Night”), or from a union between air and mother earth.
And then there were the Maenads:
In Greek mythology, maenads…were the female followers of Dionysus and the most significant members of the Thiasus, the god’s retinue. Their name literally translates as “raving ones”…
In Euripides’ play The Bacchae, maenads of Thebes murder King Pentheus after he bans the worship of Dionysus. Dionysus, Pentheus’ cousin, himself lures Pentheus to the woods, where the maenads tear him apart. His corpse is mutilated by his own mother, Agave, who tears off his head, believing it to be that of a lion. A group of maenads also kill Orpheus.
That mention of the death of Orpheus at the hands of the maenads reminds me of this:
Reading this piece by Sarah Hoyt brought all of this to mind. I recommend that you read it if you haven’t already. I’ve been alarmed for a long time about what we’re teaching boys and girls about themselves and their interactions. It seems a kind of madness. And that’s why I, along with Hoyt, feel this way:
Lately, I’ve been getting deeply, profoundly depressed…
So many things are winding up, it’s not even worth listing them all. The most proximal one, though, is the accusation against Kavanaugh, which, even if true, would not be in any way actionable nor, barring this behavior persisting into adulthood, mean anything about his character as a grown up…
And reading her piece left me with a feeling of even deeper depression. As does the accusation du jour.
As did finding this (at least it doesn’t seem like a popular item; there are no comments or ratings).
[NOTE: And no, of course not all women are like this, jumping on the bandwagon of accusations and male-hatred. But way too many are, and way too many men are jumping on, too. Politics can’t be the only explanation. The nature of humankind seems to make us susceptible.]
Now we have the promised gang-rape allegations from a woman who went to Avenatti (Stormy Daniels’ lawyer) with allegations that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge ran or were participants in a gang rape ring in high school. Drudge has the link; you can read it yourself.
This woman didn’t see fit to report it till now, despite the extreme seriousness of the charges. Nor did anyone else, strangely enough. She says there were tons of people involved (but names no one except Kavanaugh and Judge), and lines of young men waiting to rape the inebriated women. And yet, crickets until now. And none of this, of course, was uncovered during Kavanaugh’s long previous career or in the FBI background checks. But that’s a mere detail, right? Surely this woman is telling the truth?
That was sarcasm on my part, of course. I also wonder whether many people on the left will believe this one, or whether they’ll just use it as a tool to try to shame the GOP into delaying the vote or Kavanaugh into withdrawing. Or perhaps they just want some of their voters to believe it, to help the Democratic masses get all fired up to take control of Congress from those gang-rapist-protecting Republicans.
The more outrageous the charges the better, for those purposes. Once you establish your sacred assumptions—for example, that women never lie, or that all Republicans are scum—any accusation is not only credible but true.
Needless to say, this is a pernicious, destructive, vile game. But the left sees it as a winning one. It’s been played before, in different forms. The Salem witth trials keep being mentioned, but I think that’s an insult to those who participated in that sad and terrible episode in American history for the simple reason that I think that in Salem the accusers were hysterical girls who believed in the apparitions they imagined to be bewitching them. It was a form of mass hysteria, although the consequences were extremely grave and included execution for those they accused.
This, on the other hand, is more akin to the blood libel, and even more to the Soviet show trials (minus the “trials” part, because none of this would ever support a court case). It is a test of our entire society. I hope we don’t fail that test.
[ADDENDUM: John Kass agrees:
But look deeper and you’ll see something else.
The sweeping away of traditions that have been carefully nurtured from the founding of this nation, to protect individual liberty and shield us from the passions of the mob.
Without these principles, we are no longer a republic.
And Kass wrote that before this latest accuser came out.]
[NOTE: This essay is worth reading, as well, as is this one by Victor Davis Hanson, who says we are in Orwell’s dystopia.
I also recommend this essay.]
In one of yesterday’s posts I pointed out that Ronan Farrow has made the following statement about Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez:
She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the Hill independently, and it has cornered her into an awkward position.
In response, commenter Yancey Ward asked a good question:
How exactly did the Democrats “find” Ramirez? Didn’t Ramirez have to float this story somewhere in the last 3 months to catch the attention of the Democrats?
There’s actually quite a bit of information out there about that. For example, one of the authors of the New Yorker article that broke the story, Jane Mayer, gave an interview in which she said the following:
We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months since July. There’d been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about will this thing come out long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward.
So we know that Yale alums, probably from the classes who attended Yale around the time Kavanaugh attended, have had an email thread going since July. Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump on July 9th, so it’s pretty clear by the timing that this discussion in the email thread began around the time of his nomination and in reaction to it (or in strong anticipation of it).
We don’t know their identities, or how many people were involved, or what relation Ramirez had to the email chain (was she part of it? and if so, was that from the start?). We don’t know how much exposure she had to the rumors in the email chain. For that matter, we have no idea how or when the rumors started in the first place. Was it back when the incident is alleged to have occurred? Was it more recently?
And why would we give much credence to a rumor, particularly one about which we know virtually nothing in terms of its development, except that we know that the main character—Ramirez—doubts her own memory of it, and admits to having been completely inebriated at the time the alleged incident occurred?
We don’t know if the email thread’s original participants were limited to members of Kavanaugh’s Yale class (’87) only, or if they included (or grew to include) people from other classes who were in attendance during all of the years Kavanaugh was there, or if additional Yale alums from still other years had or gained access to the thread. And certainly, the information exchanged on the thread would not necessarily be limited to Yale alums at all—people with access could inform spouses, friends, members of Congress, and the press, at any point in the process. Obviously, Mayer learned about it very early on.
So, how did Senate Democrats get involved, as Mayer’s co-author Ronan Farrow has claimed? Farrow didn’t name the Senate Democrats or describe the process, or explain how those Democrats got the news from the Yale alums, or whether it was the Democrats first and the alums later. But there are many Democrat senators who went to Yale and might have had access, either directly or indirectly, to the emails, although I could find no Democratic senator Yale alums who were in Kavanaugh’s class (you can search here, as I did). The closest I came to finding a classmate was Democrat Amy Klobuchar, senator from Minnesota and Yale Class of 1982, which means she left Yale a year before Kavanaugh entered and would therefore not have been there at the same time.
I think it’s also interesting that Mayer herself is a Yale graduate, Class of ’77, which may have helped her get access to the thread because of Yale alum connections in general, although she certainly was at the school way before Kavanaugh ever got there. And just to round things off, it turns out that Ronan Farrow received a JD from Yale in 2009, although that almost certainly didn’t help him in terms of connections to anyone in Kavanaugh’s class at the college.
More about the Yale emails here:
Robert VerBruggen raises a very obvious possibility: “These emails would appear to be important evidence regarding how this ball got rolling. They also may bear on the question of whether Ramirez’s memory closely matches the anonymous source’s simply because they’re both the account that was circulating while Ramirez was putting her memories together and contacting her former classmates. Let’s see them.” Yeah, let’s. Let’s see if it was Ramirez or someone else who first identified Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her. Let’s see just how many gaps in Ramirez’s memory required filling in by others, seemingly not one of whom actually witnessed the incident. Let’s find out how many second-hand or even third-hand “witnesses” were needed to help the victim herself “remember.”…
This sure sounds like a case of someone’s hazy memory being reshaped after the fact through the power of suggestion.
People are free to email any person or any group of people they wish. But this sort of gossip chain—in which people discuss rumors (no witness to the purported event has ever been located, except for Ramirez) and have plenty of time to develop the story and make the descriptions match—can easily influence a person’s memory and/or description of events, sometimes without the person even realizing how much. The resulting story told is either a conscious lie (that would be a case of #7 on my list from yesterday), or an unconscious distortion in which the person relating the event thinks it is a real memory they’re accessing (numbers 5 or 6 on that same list), but it is not.
Either way, in a court of law this sort of chain of events would make the story and in particular its details highly suspect. But Mayer and company know that they don’t have to deal with a court of law when accusing Kavanaugh. They can just put the story out there and hope that it has its desired effect in the court of public opinion. They can rely on their previous reputations—in the Weinstein revelations, for example—and hope that will give them extra clout in taking down Kavanaugh.
[Hat tip: commenter “AesopFan”]
My my my:
Check out what Ronan Farrow said on Good Morning America earlier today:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did [Deborah Ramirez] come forward?
FARROW: She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the Hill independently, and it has cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.
Now, that should have been Farrow’s story. Maybe he’d have retained some of the respect people had for him till now as an investigative reporter.
This is confirmation of what we all already suspected (as I wrote in previous posts here and here):
Not only was it inevitable that the left would find someone else to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, however vague the accusation and however deeply they had to dig—but it is also fairly obvious that they’ve known about this second person for some time (it took a while to interview her and write the story). I think it’s highly likely that all those negotiations with the Senate over the first accuser’s testimony had one basic goal: to postpone the vote till this second story could be published.
Not only did the Democrats find her, but they kept her existence a secret till the accusation was rolled out in The New Yorker at just the right monent.
I also made this previous prediction:
Another point that occurs to me is that, not only was the campaign to delay the confirmation vote and let Ford testify before the Senate based on the knowledge that this New Yorker article was in the hopper, and the delay was precisely timed to make sure it was published shortly beforehand, but now Ford really doesn’t have to testify at all. Maybe she will, but maybe she won’t. But the negotiations and delay to get to this second accuser were the point. And if Ramirez wants to testify—or temporarily claims she does—the idea would be to effect another delay until, if possible, the rollout of another accuser.
The third accuser certainly wasn’t long in coming, although there are some indications that the promised revelation may be in the process of fizzling out. But even if it never fully emerges, the story already served its purpose by just being out there, even in extremely vague form. It’s the old pig-f***ing thing all over again.
By the way, Ramirez seems to be refusing to testify. Surprise, surprise.
But none of that really matters. The only thing that matters is what how the GOP Gang of Four is going to vote. By my count, two one can defect, but no more. I make no predictions on that at this point, whatever their public utterances.
I wonder why.
Traffic’s up all around the blogosphere with this Kavanaugh brouhaha. I think it might be a consequence of that. I doubt it’s specific to me, though; the spam seems to be of the very ordinary kind.
So far the spam filter is up to the task. Bravo, spam filter!
Yesterday I put up a short clip of Clarence Thomas excoriating the Senate Democrats at his 1991 hearing. I want to highlight it now:
Thomas speaks with great eloquence, but it’s his affect that is especially arresting. You can feel his outraged dignity in every word and every glint of his eye. It is all the more powerful for being under control.
You know that this is a man who’s been through the fire before. And if you know Thomas’ personal history, you know that he had a great many early struggles with poverty and discrimination, and triumphed over them all by dint of hard work and determination.
Arthur Miller’s play about the Salem witch trials is called “The Crucible,” and the meaning of that word is this:
1 : a vessel of a very refractory material (such as porcelain) used for melting and calcining a substance that requires a high degree of heat
2 : a severe test
3 : a place or situation in which concentrated forces interact to cause or influence change or development
So we have a crisis that functions not only as a test, but as a formative experience enhancing character. Some pass it, some melt.
Clarence Thomas’ speech had special force because of the element of race it contained. His listeners knew it, too. When Thomas said he was facing “a high-tech lynching,” the word “lynching” had a very specific meaning which he emphasized by following it up with this:
…it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you: you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured, by a committee of the US Senate rather than hung from a tree.
What Thomas is doing there, among other things, is taking the Democrats’ cloak of “we are the party of civil rights” rectitude and ripping it away, exposing the corollary “only if you toe our party line; otherwise we will destroy you with every trick in our nasty book.” Now that nearly thirty years have passed since that hearing, we’ve seen that play out time and again. It is open season on conservative blacks, not just Clarence Thomas (who has continued to be disrespected and excoriated by the left) but on all blacks who “think for themselves, do for themselves, have different ideas.” It’s true for women, too; Republican women aren’t real women, as someone like Sarah Palin learned all too well, and as the rest of us observed.
Fast forward to the Kavanuagh situation, in which Kavanaugh is also being lynched. Jimmy Kimmel’s light little joke last night (Kimmel’s “’compromise’ to the battle of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is to chop off the judge’s ‘pesky penis,’ should he be confirmed”) was not really funny and was in obvious bad taste, but what Kimmel may or may not have realized is that it harks back to some exceptionally vile body desecrations that sometimes occurred during lynchings.
Even so, of course, Kavanaugh doesn’t have the option of saying he’s an uppity black being lynched. Clearly, he’s not. Au contraire. He’s a “privileged white guy” who went to the finest schools and according to all previous reports has played by all the rules. But for that reason, it is possible that (although he’s been a federal judge) this is the first real crucible that he’s been through.
If that is in fact the case, it would certainly not be his fault. Fortunately for most of us, most of us have never experienced anything remotely like the terrible public pressure he’s under. But at this point it would help if he had, if not Thomas’ history, at least the gravitas and fire that Thomas brought to his hearings because of his previous experiences that had helped to forge (that’s an appropriate word, too, in terms of the crucible metaphor) his steely character.
I don’t know that much about Kavanaugh’s life. Perhaps he has endured tests of his own that will stand him in good stead throughout this terrible ordeal. I hope that something will sustain him. Perhaps his faith, which apparently is strong, and his family.
Being associated with President Trump isn’t for the faint of heart. Ask Paul Manafort, for example; whatever he has done or hasn’t done, guilty or not, does anyone think he’d stand convicted now had he not had his little fling with the Trump campaign? Of course not. And ask Michael Flynn or Carter Page or Michael Cohen or any number of other people whose lives would probably be going quite smoothly right now were it not for the fact that they worked for Donald Trump and the left decided to try to destroy them.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed and the Democrats win the House in November, the new House may try to impeach him. If he’s not confirmed and the Democrats win the House in November, the new House may try to impeach him from the judgeship he now holds. If they have the votes, they can do it, too. I don’t know how far they will go with this. But they have conjured up forces of rage and destruction that they may have to placate by sacrificing Brett Kavanaugh further, and putting him through a few more crucibles.
The answer might seem obvious, but I think it’s more complicated than most people might think.
Let’s leave out accusers who are telling the truth. I’m interested in the ones who are not. They can have multiple motives, too. This list is not all-inclusive, but here are the major ones:
(1) Revenge. The person actually has hurt you in some way—estranged spouses are notorious for this motivation—but you’re making up a story with an accusation that can hurt them even more than the truth would, and you justify it by telling yourself they deserve it.
(2) You’re a sociopath who enjoys lying and gets off on seeing people squirm. Makes you feel superior to all those stupid normals.
(3) Someone has paid you money to lie.
(4) You want your 15 minutes of fame.
(5) An actual psychological contagion effect, a kind of mass hysteria in which people start thinking they remember something that is really just a reflection of what they’re hearing from others. Obviously, for this motive to be operating there must be other accusers and a lot of attention given to them, which is often true for a public figure. I believe that this was at least part of the motive for the girls doing the accusing in the Salem witch trials, for example. Do not underestimate the power of the strangeness of the human mind.
(6) (This one is related to #5, but somewhat different.) Some time ago, something happened to you that was bad, but your memory is foggy on some details. When you really think about it [added for clarification: or are coaxed to do so, perhaps by a therapist], you become convinced that it happened a certain way at a certain person’s hands. And yet this is actually a manufactured memory detail superimposed on a much hazier basic memory that is real. People who are undergoing numbers 5 or 6 can make very convincing witnesses indeed, because they have convinced themselves of the absolute truth of their memories and can therefore speak with the power of tremendous conviction.
(7) You believe this is a noble lie you are telling because the cause is noble. This is the mentality of some spies, or people working for the real Resistance during a war, in which that person can easily justify lying, making false documents, perhaps even assassination, for the sake of the greater good. Right now, for example, if a person believes, truly truly believes, that the right is waging a War on Women, let’s say, and that women’s very liberty is at stake if the evil Kavanaugh gets on the Court, that person could easily justify lying in order to take him down. I think that mentality is quite rampant these days.
(8) You once had something similar happen to you at the hands of someone else, and that person shares a lot of traits with the person being accused. Let’s say, for example, that the person who hurt you went to a Catholic prep school and wore his hair like Kavanaugh did in his high school yearbook, maybe even talked a bit like him, and became a lawyer or a judge. That person did something very upsetting to you, and never apologized or looked back, and then went on to great glory and fame and achievement in life. You want justice and never got it. For some people in that circumstance it is easy to tell themselves that all Catholic prep grads who look something like that or talk something like that are the same sort of scumbag. So what’s wrong with telling a little white lie to expose what a scumbag that person must be? You may be lying, but you’re telling A Greater Truth.
Too much information, Brett!
But perhaps helpful and necessary information. The left picked quite a target for their sexual misconduct charges:
Or course, the left will mock him for this. They will also say that’s why he had to rape people when in his cups—he was so terribly repressed and out of the mainstream.
And no doubt this gives them the opportunity to drag forth a stream of Yale coeds (is that still the term?) who were there at the right time to swear that they slept with Brett Kavanaugh, that Casanova. Soon there will be a line of them as long as the members of my tiresome generation who claim to have been at Woodstock.
For the record, I wasn’t at Woodstock, and Brett Kavanaugh never raped me or even had sex with me.
ADDENDUM: Comment found at Althouse’s:
they’ve tried witch hunts, and that didnt work out.
Now they’re going to sacrifice a virgin
Just now I read that Brett Kavanaugh had issued a statement about the new accusations and the fact that he plans to fight them. I wanted to look at his exact words, so I Googled “Brett Kavanaugh statement” and then the filter that said to limit the selection to only the last hour.
The first page that came up was divided between Christine Blasey Ford’s statement that she will not let fear intimidate her into not testifying, and a petition signed by 900 Yale graduates saying they believe Christine. Not a thing about Kavanaugh’s statement.
So I went to page 2, and in the ten links there I found a single one to Kavanaugh’s letter. The link was to a Fox News story. But it contained only a few quotes.
I finally got to the full text of the letter by Googling one of the exact quotes from the Fox story. That made it much much easier, and there were several sources from which to choose. Here’s one, and this is a portion of it:
There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring.
These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.
As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed.
I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to defend my integrity and my name.
He owes it to all of us.
ADDENDUM: And I think it’s very important to look back at this piece of history from twenty-seven years ago. It is very powerful:
Needless to say, the New Yorker was extremely eager to pin another accusation on Kavanaugh. So their motives to publish the Ramirez story are obvious. Farrow and Mayer have also carved out a sort of niche of accusative journalism involving sexual abuse or harrassment allegations against public figures, and have achieved no small fame for it.
So why would they want to compromise that reputation by publishing such an iffy story? As I said, the motive to get Kavanaugh is strong, but that’s not the only reason they felt empowered to do this. Their probable defense is that they never say that Kavanaugh is guilty, they merely report what Ramirez said, and they even report that there are gaps in her memory and that the other named supposed-witnesses deny ever being privy to such a scene.
So Farrow and Mayer can say that they were reporting unverified rumors but they actually presented them as such, upfront, and therefore are protected because they didn’t publish them with “reckless disregard for the truth.”
I think it’s hogwash, for the simple reason that they know that in the current climate these unverified rumors have enormous force, and publishing them at all without strong evidence that they are true is to publish them with malice aforethought. But I’m not a judge and I’m not a jury.
This journalistic technique is not new. One previous instance that comes to mind was the attempt by the NY Times to smear John McCain during the 2008 election, in which the Times carefully calibrated its smears against McCain by reporting them this way:
The uproar was over an assertion in the second paragraph that during McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, some of his top advisers became “convinced” he was having a “romantic” relationship with a female lobbyist and intervened to protect the candidate from himself. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, denied they had an affair, and at a press conference after the article was published, McCain denied that anyone ever confronted him about their relationship. He described her as a friend.
The article had repercussions for both McCain and The Times. He may benefit, at least in the short run, from a conservative backlash against the “liberal” New York Times. The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.
In a follow-up article on Friday, the newspaper even seemed to play down its role in the sex angle. It described the previous day’s article as talking about McCain’s “ties” to Iseman and his “association” with her. The only mention of romance came in quoting a question to McCain at his press conference.
That was ten years ago, and the MSM was more careful back then. But it’s the same modus operandi as that used by Farrow and Mayer now. Now the charges are much bolder, although the sourcing is probably even weaker, if such a thing be possible. But events in the last ten years—the Cosby trial, the Herman Cain accusations, the Moore debacle, the Steele dossier, and of course #MeToo—have created a climate in which this sort of thing will become more and more common and more and more outrageous and unfair.