The Washington Post, which led the 2018 Democrat effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life by falsely accusing him of serial gang rape, now claims asking Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson questions about her judicial record is worse.
The WaPo Editorial Board, whose deputy editorial page editor Ruth Marcus wrote a book smearing Kavanaugh, argued on Wednesday that Republican questioning on Jackson’s radical track record, lenience on child porn offenders, and lack of willingness to define “woman” or state when life begins is “egregious behavior” that far outweighs its months-long campaign against Kavanaugh.
The Washington Post article is built around demonstrably false claims that Christine Blasey Ford “credibly accused Mr. Kavanaugh of sexual assault” and that “Republicans have done the most damage” to the SCOTUS confirmation process and the nominees involved. These spurious claims could not be further from the truth.
In a last-ditch attempt to prevent the Trump nominee from joining the court, the Washington Post published a series of tendentious and inaccurate stories laying forth Christine Blasey Ford’s unsubstantiated rape allegations against Kavanaugh.
WaPo ran the baseless stories after Blasey Ford threatened to take her tip line submission to The New York Times if she did not receive a quick enough response. When a sex crimes prosecutor interviewed Blasey Ford, she told investigators there wasn’t enough evidence to secure a search warrant, much less an indictment, and yet the Post put forth the unsubstantiated tale as if it were credible.
There is no evidence that Blasey Ford ever even met Kavanaugh, apart from her claim supported by no witnesses. When WaPo printed the story despite Blasey Ford’s lack of proof and ever-changing claims, she did not even receive a vote of confidence from her close childhood friend Leland Keyser. The Post hid the identity of the close friend, who was subsequently threatened by Blasey Ford allies for refusing to go along with the tale. That tampering with the witness was later reported to the FBI, and was a major reason Democrats were unable to kill Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Blasey Ford’s own family, which “stayed conspicuously silent” as she repeatedly smeared Kavanaugh, did not believe her story. Blasey Ford claimed not to know where or when the alleged rape happened or how she got home after. The media, including The Washington Post, falsely claimed Blasey Ford was unable to testify in a timely fashion because of a deathly fear of flying, a claim debunked by her own testimony that she loved to surf on small, remote islands she flew to. Kavanaugh’s story stayed the same, backed by a calendar record, and multiple character witnesses.
Despite the groundless nature of Blasey Ford’s account, every corrupt corporate media outlet latched onto the false narrative pushed by the Post and quickly became, as Federalist Editor in Chief Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino put it in their book “Justice On Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court,” “the public relations arm of the anti-Kavanaugh movement” in an effort to smear the soon-to-be Supreme Court justice.
The same coordinated effort by corporate media and other Democrats was displayed this week, this time in favor of moving Jackson’s nomination forward.
National Review assisted Democrats this week by publishing an article defending Jackson’s lenience on child porn offenders, an article The Washington Post and Senate Democrats proudly cited. When Kavanaugh was plagued with false allegations during his confirmation process, select few media outlets fought back against the massive and coordinated propaganda effort, particularly when it began.
The Washington Post now says their full-throated campaign to destroy a federal judge with 12 years experience and a reputation as an upstanding husband and father is less bad than asking someone about her judicial record. Such a claim is vile and completely untrue.
The Washington Post threw all of its credibility out the window when it decided to run with a shaky story that fit its political agenda. The editorial board’s commentaries on Jackson are not only patently false but their phony claims about Jackson’s confirmation hearing deserve endless taunting.
