That bastion of fair play and the highest journalistic ethics – ethics so high you cannot perceive them – The New York Times, has published another anti-Trump story with the intent to derail his presidential campaign once and for all.
The Times’ furious efforts to advance the ambitions of the Clinton Cartel appeared so promising over the weekend, and the Times thought it had driven a stake through the Trump campaign’s heart when it printed in a story the vulgarities Trump spoke in a secret video recording 11 years ago. The Times’ hard work was intended to shock and inflame readers, and its editors and reporters had little difficulty shrugging off any ethics or time-honored practices that could get in the way.
Their road to success, however, twisted and turned and rocked them with unforeseen potholes, namely Trump’s pantheresque performance at the second presidential debate Sunday, October 9, and his feral counteroffensive against Hillary, the GOP establishment, and the mud being hurled at him.
Trump clawed his way through Hillary’s layers of deceit and practiced pretense and left her policies and promises and curriculum vitae in tatters. He shredded Paul Ryan and other establishment elitists for jumping ship and handing Hillary a get-out-of-jail-and-into-the-white-house-free card with the sabotage of their own party’s candidate and ideals. Plus, Trump apologized for his verbal sins and stated he was a changed man.
All those things not only kept the campaign’s ship afloat, they re-started the engine and propelled it full steam ahead.
The Clinton Cartel and its media collaborators could not tolerate that!
Yesterday and late Tuesday, one or possibly two suggestions that Hillary might skip the third debate floated about the peripheries of the noticiasphere (noticias is Spanish for news and, as I have said, I am half Hispanic; there, I’ve coined a new word!). Then late yesterday, The New York Times published an online piece about two women who claimed Trump had touched or kissed them without their consent. One of the women, a Ms. Leeds, claimed she had never met Trump before the alleged incident but that as she recollected it she knew it was him.
She said the incident occurred some 30 years ago on a plane.
In general, I take women’s claims about sexual assault seriously and soberly. It’s a matter we must deal with fairly and adequately.
That does not mean we should accept without proof each and every claim made. Skepticism kicks in whenever someone years later, and at a time that can be particularly damaging to the accused, decides to do something about an incident she should have managed at the time, or close to the time, of its occurrence.
I am sure Donald Trump has angered his share of people over the years. He drives tough bargains. People may have lost out on deals they wanted badly. He hosts beauty pageants which by nature of the inherent competition all but one of contestants lose. That losing bruises egos and sends dollars and prestige and future opportunities away from several people to one person.
Further, it’s hard to escape the fact that several organs of the news media, broadcast and press alike, have been hurling mud at Trump for a long time, possibly in collaboration with one another and with the Clinton Cartel. They scrutinize Trump more broadly and deeply than they do Hillary or previous candidates. They find fault and carp about those faults with an amplifier.
The incessancy of their efforts belies a deliberate manipulation of the outcome of this 2016 presidential election, and where these have not been able to create and sustain voter preference for Hillary’s character or policies, they have driven a steamy, distracting narrative about Trump’s private life to make her seem the better choice.
Remember The New York Times story on Roxanne Brewer? The day the Times published its story on the interview with her, Brewer stood up and asserted the story she read about herself wasn’t the story she gave to the Times. Many of the women Trump has tutored and worked with have stood up and loudly proclaimed they have never experienced the type of behavior the Times and other organs have been trying to pin on Trump for a long time: savvy business person Amarosa, beauty queen Carrie Prejean, and fashion designer Nicole Miller in a Business Insider interview in August of 2015 stand out as just a few of the many.
Now the Times is reaching back 30 years, hoping to pull a rabbit out of its bag of tricks. The Times knows there is little time left for the allegations to be proven or disproven prior to the election; indeed, how could they be? How would Ms. Leeds prove her 30-year-old contention? How would Trump prove a negative, in other words, that he did not touch or kiss anyone without her consent?
It’s just a little bit fishy that all this sensational, sizzling, sexual stuff is emerging from the keyboards of the Fourth Estate squatters at the exact time when Wikileaks is providing Americans with a treasure trove of genuine documents, facts, and uncensored expressions from the Hillary campaign and Clinton Cartel emails. Wikileaks is doing what the Fourth Estate, if we had one, should have been doing all along. In the emails, Hillary and/or her staff openly:
– ridicule Catholics and Christians
– admit she tells Wall Street one thing and the public another
– look down on common Americans as ignorant and unworthy of honesty
– admit it’s impossible to adequately vet Muslim immigrants and refugees
– are in touch with the Justice Department and FBI investigating her
– may be obtaining advance notice of debate questions
– desires open borders regardless of economic consequences for Americans
– obtains veto power over what will be allowed in a New York Times article about her
– gets speech and appearance tips from one of the debate moderators.
Wikileaks has unloaded so many emails that it has been impossible to read and process and curate them all, much less sensibly publish them.
So how does one trust the reporting of the media? How does one take the allegations of the women seriously while protecting Trump’s right to innocency until proven guilty? How does one get at the truth of these allegations ever, much less in time for November’s vote? And how does one weigh them against the litany of Hillary’s wrongdoing and dishonesty, a litany that, like some web pages, one seems to never be able to scroll down to the end of. Which candidate’s flaws will actually have a greater impact on we the people and our country as we know it?
Please note the difference in what has been happening to Trump versus what is supposed to happen. Almost from Day One the media either dismissed Trump’s candidacy or it belittled it or reviled it. It was an outsider campaign, outside the establishment system that included the major media organs. As Trump’s candidacy defied the odds and thrived, gaining zealous support from tens of millions of disenfranchised Americans, those organs ratcheted up their criticisms and innuendo and began to search for evidence that would back up the stridency and dismissiveness they exuded from the beginning.
That is what worries the composed, rational mind. Trump may or may not have done the deeds described in some of the allegations, but the manner and the timing and the history of unsubstantiated claims of all the hostile media organs casts doubt upon their motives and “fact-finding”. It’s hard to believe that these stories are driven by anything but rabid partiality. If some of them are true, then the news organs themselves have subverted the women and their claims by placing a higher premium on the pursuit of partiality. The media have relegated the women to pawns in a political chess match.