The smear operation against Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh offers a textbook example of how Democrat opposition research works. Study it.
To begin with, understand that Democrats reach conclusions against Republican nominees before any research is done. The particular allegation is woven around kernals of truth unearthed in the process. It is fabricated with an eye toward deceiving Democrat voters with a seemingly plausible allegation supported by insinuation, not facts.
Prelude
Trump nominated Kavanaugh on July 9. Three days earlier, on July 6, accuser Christine Blasey Ford told Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and the Washington Post that Brett Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her at a party in the mid-1980s. She stated that another boy, Mark Judge, assisted Kavanaugh in the commission of the crime.
On July 10, Ford advisor Ricki Seidman told participants in a conference call to the American Constitution Society, “I do think that over the coming days and weeks there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee.”
As a staffer for Senator Ted Kennedy in 1991, Seidman pressured Anita Hill to publicly smear Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas with allegations of sexual harassment. Several years earlier, she had produced attack ads smearing nominee Robert Bork on behalf of a far-left political action group.
So you can see where all this was going.
A Step-By-Step Guide on How To Smear a Republican Target
- Research every facet of the target’s past and present life
- Arrange the facts into a sensational, fabricated narrative that emotional, gullible Democrat voters want to believe
- Make the supporting events unverifiable
Anatomy of the Kavanaugh Smear
1. Research
The second that Brett Kavanaugh appeared on Trump’s list of potential nominees, opposition researchers hired by the Democrat Party and their supporters gathered all available information about Kavanaugh: work history, school history, social history, family history. They read everything he ever wrote, poured over transcripts of his public remarks, and compiled lists of everyone he ever associated with, including former classmates, co-workers, friends and family. They analyzed everything these people ever did, said or wrote.
If lucky, the researchers uncover a true, hot-off-the-presses incident requiring nothing but a timely release of the damning details. Examples of this would include:
- Finding that the candidate founded the KKK chapter in his state, like Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, who Democrat voters sent to the US Senate for 40 years..
- Finding that the candidate, a drunken philanderer, drove a female staffer off a bridge into a lake and then abandoned her to drown while going back to the hotel to sleep, never telling anyone. That would be Ted Kennedy, who Democrat voters sent to the US Senate for 40 years.
- Finding that the candidate carried on hundreds of extramarital affairs and sexually abused many women, including one staffer that he summoned to his hotel room, exposing his excited member and telling her to “kiss it.” That would be Bill Clinton.
Absent such luck, as in the case of Brett Kavanaugh and his exemplary record (300 opinions in 12 years as a district court judge, first in his class in high school, college and law school), proceed to step 2.
2. Fabricate
The Democrats struck gold when they discovered that one of the hundreds of Kavanuagh’s former classmates wrote a book bragging about being a blackout drunk who did things in high school that he doesn’t remember.
The smear merchants simply needed to assemble the following kernals of truth into a sensational narrative that gullible, emotional Democrat voters would want to believe:
- Former Kavanaugh classmate Mark Judge was a blackout drunk.
- Kavanaugh drinks beer.
- Kavanaugh’s classmates attended parties together.
- The accuser knew Kavanaugh in high school.
- Mark Judge wrote about working at a Safeway in high school.
- The accuser renovated her house in 2008.
If you can’t weave these disparate facts into a rape accusation, you’re not a Democrat Party opposition researcher. If you believe the rape accusation despite Kavanaugh’s exemplary record, hundreds of supporting testimonials from his decades-long associations, and a complete absence of witnesses and evidence, you are a gullible, emotional Democrat voter.
Once the fabricators settled on a potential smear, they researched every girl that could possibly have been within reach of Kavanaugh during any of his 4 years at Georgetown Prep. Their mission: Find one of them who could miraculously place Kavanaugh and the drunken Mark Judge in a rape room with her.
3. Allege events that cannot be verified
- The accuser doesn’t pinpoint a place, time or even year.
- The accuser doesn’t say who drove her home.
- The accuser ascribes actions she took in the ensuing years to an unverifiable state of mind, i.e. fear of flying, a second door.
- The accuser claims that, on a trip with her mother to Safeway, she saw Mark Judge. But she conveniently bails her mother out by saying that her mother didn’t see him because she insisted on separating herself from her mother in the Safeway because of ‘being a teenage girl.’
Sherlock Holmes couldn’t verify these events.
This is what you’re supposed to believe:
Brett Kavanaugh went to the same high school as Mark Judge. When Kavanaugh, who drinks beer, attempted to rape a girl in a drunken frenzy, Mark Judge was the only witness. Judge denies the allegation, but at this exact time he was in the throes of a blackout event and his testimony is therefore unreliable.
The accuser’s daily life is scarred by Kavanaugh’s vicious attack. Fearful of another such incident, she installed a second exit door on the front of her house. She feels trapped when flying but does so constantly on pleasure trips.
The accuser doesn’t remember who invited her to the party, how she got there, or how she got home. But she vividly remembers seeing Mark Judge working at a Safeway exactly 4 to 6 weeks after the incident. How convenient, given that Judge wrote about working there in his 1997 memoir.
While most married women vote Republican and lean conservative, the woman Kavanaugh chose to attack is a hardcore leftist who supported Hillary, attends anti-Trump “resistance” marches and donates strictly to liberal political causes.
The accuser didn’t tell anyone about the event, including her mother and a good friend allegedly present at the party. The friend denies any knowledge of such a party, as do all other alleged attendees.
The accuser remembers almost nothing about the event, including the day, date and year. She doesn’t know the location of the house or whose house it was. The house doesn’t belong to any of the alleged attendees, so apparently these four or five children were swimming, drinking and partying at a house in which none of them lived.
The accuser remodeled her house in 2008. What to make of that? Well, she claimed that its purpose was to install a second front door on the house because of her fear of being trapped by another Brett Kavanaugh. That’ll grab your liberal! But now we know that the renovation added a completely separate space since rented by professionals and college students.
The Senate asked the accuser to testify on Capitol Hill. She claimed a fear of flying. The media backed that up with two friends who claimed to have known that she feared being in places with only one means of exit (like the front of her current house) due to what Kavanaugh did to her, even though she never told them what Kavanaugh did to her. It turns out she flies all the time and oddly lives in a residence with only one front door.
But Brett Kavanaugh does drink beer. Just like you, probably.