The anatomy of a smear: demonise then merchandise

How it’s done from an expert. This is the text of what she said:

Pelosi: It’s called the wrap-up smear. . . . You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it.

And then you [the media] write it, and they’ll say, see it’s reported in the press – that this, this, this and this – so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called a ‘wrap-up smear.’ And now I’m going to merchandize the press’s report on the smear that we made.

Here, for example, and it is only just an example, are more than enough reasons to understand Christine Ford was not playing straight with the truth, none of which was pointed out in the media that was merchandising all the falsehoods the Democrats could conjure:

She refused to hand over the results of her polygraph

She refused to hand over her 2012 therapist’s notes

She said she was afraid to fly, but has flown dozens of times. 

Since she did in fact fly, she offered no other reason for the delay

She said she wanted anonymity but contacted [the Washington Post] multiple times

Said she got advice from “beach friends” but didn’t mention that the primary one was a former FBI lawyer, Monica McLean, who worked for Preet Bharara, a man Trump fired.

She also failed to mention, when talking of her Beach friends at the hearing, that Monica was sitting right behind her. 

She had a perfect memory of 1982 but couldn’t remember basic things from the previous 10 weeks

She’d been drinking. 

She changed the year of the alleged attack

She named 4 people, but had no backers

She couldn’t remember how she got home even though her story had her escaping the house far from home, pre-cell phone.

She gave no location or any details that could be researched for verification.

She never told anyone and never claimed PTSD prior to Kavanaugh’s name circulating 30 years later.

She said that she put the 2nd door on her house because of PTSD, but evidence shows it was to get around zoning laws to create a rentable apartment.

She said she didn’t know that Grassley offered to come to her, even though it was broadcast nationally.

She feigned no knowledge of polygraphs even though her ex’s sworn statement said she’d coached Monica McLean how to beat it in the 1990s, and in any case her profession should have at least well acquainted her with it.

She co-authored a paper on repressed memory creation years before she claimed to have one

Nothing is known of her pharmacology, but given her past alcoholism, her visits to a therapist and her general presentation, odds are high that it’s extensive.

She scrubbed her social media. We know from a pussy hat photo that she was rabidly anti-Trump. 

She had zero family or friends with her, not from the 80s nor from today. She was surrounded only by Democrat Party handlers.

Constant cries of bravery & “nothing to gain” vs a $700,000 GoFundMe and a career boosted a la Anita Hill

Literally all there is her word vs all of the above. Not a shred of evidence.

All that is different this time is that you have seen it before your eyes. The parties of the left in cahoots with the media wilfully warp your perceptions of what is in reality taking place. Without their lies and deceit, they would lose every election in a landslide.

This entry was posted in Media, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to The anatomy of a smear: demonise then merchandise

  1. destroyer D69

    A similar system is being rigorously applied in the climate fear campaign.

  2. Entropy

    Surely that video is out of context!

  3. Dr Fred Lenin

    Steve , the left fascists have never needed evidence to convict their guilty, they create their own version of the truth . The socialist Hitler created evidence to convict his rivals and opponents , Stalin his fellow fascist perfected the method even getting the innoocent to plead guilty to invented crimes that never happened . Today’s fascists persist in trying the same method ,but now it is proving counter productive as people are better informed ,but like all unimaginative people they persist ,the old socialist trick ,you fall in a hole of your ow making then start digging . The Kavanagh attempt will end up biting them in the bum at the mid terms as more and more people understand the evil they represent and always have represented .
    Defund all left creations , destroy the fascists .

  4. cuckoo

    Listening to Radio National on Monday morning was interesting. Hardly a word about the Ford accusations. Surely Fran Kelly should be running around like her hair was on fire at the thought that a rape-gang organiser was now sitting on the Supreme Court. But no, basically crickets. A cynical person might question whether they ever actually believed ‘Professor’ Ford, or just saw her as a useful and instantly disposable tool.

  5. You know what I find so very, very, sad? We have a friend that only watches Their ABC and reads the Age and firmly believes everything they publish. So naturally they were vehemently against Kavanaugh (on principle though it impacted on their life in no way in Australia) and became enraged when he was confirmed.

    The sad thing is that there are so many people in Australia that suffer from exactly the same problem of only reading/listening to the Leftist media and forming a one sided view of the world. And because of that they fill with hate and vitriol towards anyone that is not of that Leftist worldview.

  6. cuckoo

    We have a friend that only watches Their ABC and reads the Age and firmly believes everything they publish. So naturally they were vehemently against Kavanaugh (on principle though it impacted on their life in no way in Australia) and became enraged when he was confirmed.

    I have those friends too. Was sorely tempted to ask one of them in mid-rant if she could name any of the judges on the Australian High Court, knowing she couldn’t.

  7. Entropy

    Ahh, Pelosi was accusing Republicans of the tactic back in 2017. As usual, look at what the left accuses the other side of doing, and you discover it is actually what they are doing. It’s where they get the idea for the accusation in the first place.

  8. mh

    Maybe the representative for 12th District San Francisco could do a wrap-up smear with the street-bum poop. Then hand it to CNN.

  9. FelixKruell

    Many of these ‘lies’ were directly address by Ford in her testimony. And quite convincingly in my view. The only ones that don’t ring true to me are the ones about flying and her contact with the Democrats/Media when she decided to come forward. They do call into question her honesty, but don’t mean that her statements about the alleged assault were also lies.

  10. .

    If she’s dishonest she’s credible?

    I don’t think Bush-era White House attorney is a great pick, but the accusations are totally bogus and Ford perjured herself.

    Can she explain why her witnesses contradict her or refuse to testify?

    Or her bizarre paper trail re: leaking and “passing on a letter to Ford”?

    No.

  11. candy

    but don’t mean that her statements about the alleged assault were also lies.

    I think there was some assault in her early adulthood, given a young woman drinking a lot and partying puts herself in a vulnerable situation to an opportunistic creepy male, or she knew someone who was assaulted and she has mimicked the story, but why she picked Kavanaugh as the perpetrator seems quite malicious. Only she can explain that one.

  12. stackja

    Leftists can always rely on gullible voters.

  13. Louis

    It’s only going to get worse with the filter bubble bias of social media and Google. Leftists can be completely self-contained in leftist knowledge with no contrary facts ever to pierce the bubble.

  14. Louis

    @mh
    There is a Weiner/Holder 2020 ticket meme going around.

  15. Anita

    Really? Many of Ford’s statements in her testimony were convincing? All whom she named as witnesses denied that the event ever occurred. If fact Ford’s long time friend, Ms Leyland, even went to the extent to state that she never knew Kavanaugh, let alone met at a party. We also understand that Ford’s best friend and ex-FBI employee Monica Ms McLean sent a message to Ms Leyland asking her to change her witness statement. How could one assert that Ford’s testimony was credible. This is a case of the emperor without clothes.

  16. mh

    I always thought Huma Abedin was pretty hot.

    She could have done so much better than Hillary and Weiner.

  17. Dr Fred Lenin

    It’s good to see the left media in Australia calling into question Judge Kavanagh suitability to sit on thr Australian Supreme Court shows public responsibility . Oh wait ! He’s not to sit on our court ,he’s to sit on the US Supreme Court “! The milko s of words spoken on our media are about an American judge ,this of course will have a lot to do with our lives ,or is it because he will reverse the plans on the globalist fascist communists? Like killing live babies or flooding civilised countries with dysfunctional primitives to vote communist ?

  18. Candy:

    given a young woman drinking a lot and partying puts herself in a vulnerable situation to an opportunistic creepy male,

    Let’s invert that, eh?

    given a group of young men drinking a lot and partying put themselves in a vulnerable situation to an opportunistic creepy female,

  19. C.L.

    Ace of Spades has a report that – once the ball got rolling – the FBI was contacted by 1400 women claiming they were raped by Brett Kavanaugh.

  20. C.L.

    As I said on this subject once before, randy or ambitious women have always taken advantage of inebriated men they have their eye on – to ensnare in a relationship, for status or just for pleasure. This has been going on since the Year Dot.

  21. Tiny dancer

    It defies belief that anyone, other than mOron, gives Ford any credit whatsoever. Any complainant who contacts their political party but not the police is absolutely kidding themselves and anyone else. Coming out later is fine but doing it the way she did is beyond pathetic.

    To make matters worse she won’t complain to the police after this “outing”. FMD some people are stupid.

  22. bollux

    No mention of the fact she scrubbed ALL of her social media before the hearing. Why was this never questioned?

  23. Chester Draws

    Scrubbing social media is the one thing I don’t hold against her. It’s simple security for friends and family.

    Anyone coming to public attention, even good public attention, should scrub their media clean.

    Better yet. Don’t have a public social media profile at all.

  24. Radman

    Someone screenshot her Holton Arms yearbooks before they were scrubbed. Not so young and innocent after all.

  25. Rob

    Galatians 6:7: ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap’.

  26. Jo Smyth

    One of the biggest surprises in all this was Jordan Peterson when he advised that Kavanaugh should step down. This from a man who once said, never give in to the mob.

  27. Pauly

    Jordan Petersen, from my reading of his comments, assumes that the Ford and the Democrats were acting in good faith. If you accept that then a confirm and step down would allow healing, bury the hatchet and go forward working together without bitterness.
    However, if you believe this a calculated and fabricated hit job then that reasoning falls apart.

  28. Mrs Beardsley

    I am disgusted with the GOP for giving this obvious nutcase a platform, and appalled that some people believe her. Jesus wept.

  29. Chester Draws
    #2835290, posted on October 9, 2018 at 2:48 pm

    Scrubbing social media is the one thing I don’t hold against her. It’s simple security for friends and family.

    Anyone coming to public attention, even good public attention, should scrub their media clean.

    Better yet. Don’t have a public social media profile at all.

    Fairnuff. So how do we explain her BFF Monica L McLean, the former FBI attorney and the woman Ford was with in July in Delaware ALSO SCRUBBING HER ON-LINE HISTORY?

    Ford is a rabid anti-Trump, anti-Kav, pro abortion slut from high school and college.
    She got together with McLean and Dem operatives to derail the confirmation of a man who terrifies them because of the abortion issue. The stakes were high.

  30. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Agree with Mrs. Beardsley. Ford is an obvious nutcase. Public airing of nutcase grievances should never be accepted by those accused. Do it with one and you leave yourself open to doing it with all.

  31. stackja

    Democrats/MSM invented Ford story.
    Why aren’t there consequences?

  32. yarpos

    Pelosi is just repackaging Alinskys Rule 13 , so that even a Democrat can understand it as a slogan.

    “13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

  33. iggie

    So where were the right in Australia when a prominent Labor politician was accused of rape in the ’80s?
    Ah yes, respecting the notion of ‘innocent until proved guilty’.

    And where was the left? Well, they weren’t supporting the accuser.

    All quiet on the ‘believe the victim’ front.

  34. BoyfromTottenham

    This is pure scum politics. How have we (they) sunk so low? Is power such a powerful drug?

  35. Rae

    Fake news, Steve. As I’m sure you know, it’s an edited version of a much longer press interview from 2017 in which Pelosi describes the smear tactics used by Republicans.

    But, you do have a few of the gullible Cats jumping up and down about it.

  36. Rae
    #2835449, posted on October 9, 2018 at 6:39 pm

    Fake news, Steve.

    Yes it is. Edited and very obviously. I’m surprised Steve fell for it.

  37. cohenite

    Ford is either a liar or delusional.

  38. The BigBlueCat

    Rae
    #2835449, posted on October 9, 2018 at 6:39 pm
    Fake news, Steve. As I’m sure you know, it’s an edited version of a much longer press interview from 2017 in which Pelosi describes the smear tactics used by Republicans.

    But, you do have a few of the gullible Cats jumping up and down about it.

    Doesn’t matter if the Republican’s supposedly thought of it first – it’s clear that Pelosi understands the concepts and that the Democrats are well versed in its implementation. Perhaps it goes to show that that the Democrats don’t have an original idea amongst them.

    Hannity on Fox News has a good video of Democrats smearing Republican policies – worth a look. Watch from the 10:00 minute mark … Hannity Fox News Oct 8 2018

    Another good view is one on Lindsey Graham … his takedown of the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee will become a classic. The Best of Lindsey Graham 2.0

  39. Leo G

    Fake news, Steve. As I’m sure you know, it’s an edited version of a much longer press interview from 2017 in which Pelosi describes the smear tactics used by Republicans.

    Not really- since when have the US Republicans had such cosiness with the MSM that they could use the tactic in the way Pelosi describes?
    Pelosi was using her knowlege of a tactic which she called the “wrap-up smear” to dissociate elements of criticism (presumably of herself) as merely part of a rhetorical device.
    Steve Kates just draws attention to the irony in the Democrats widespread use of the tactic since that 2017 interview.

  40. Anon111

    Allow me to hypothesize.

    After watching the Ford testimony, I was perplexed at the response to her answers about flying, but not everyone has a flying anxiety or anxiety, generally. Also, not many people have been invited to testify before Congress and, therefore, hasn’t felt the pressure and anxiety that can illicit (even if you don’t already have anxiety issues).

    I have both a severe flying anxiety and have been invited to testify before Congress. Perhaps I can shed some light on what was going on in Ford’s mind.

    On flying:

    I have a severe flying anxiety. I still fly, but usually with much difficulty.
    My fear is easiest to overcome when the destination is somewhere I want to go. For example, vacations, visits to friends or family, or an important work trip. This isn’t to say that I’ll be fine on the plane–I’ll still be afraid and possibly have a small panic attack, but I can get on the plane.

    If I feel the trip is trivial or I have to do something I don’t want to do once I reach my destination, it is much harder to overcome a flying anxiety. It is incredibly easy to find any excuse to avoid the trip, including my fear of flying.

    On testifying before Congress:
    Ford clearly did not want to testify. She had many reasons for this, including loss of privacy and having to relive a traumatic experience in front of strangers. The biggest, I’m guessing, was that she was terrified of going before Congress and testifying before them and the entire viewing public. Wouldn’t you?
    Remember, she is a professor, used to speaking in front of students and maybe some conference attendees, not telling some of the most intimate details of her life to a somewhat hostile government body and a definitely hostile public (which she’d already experienced on social media.)

    Added up, testifying–until it was absolutely necessary–was not enough to overcome her fear of flying.
    Once Kavanaugh’s appointment was imminent and her story became more and more central to the effort to stop his confirmation, her “sense of duty” or whatever motivated her to come forward in the first place, was enough to overcome her fears.

    My two cents.

  41. mareeS

    I’m a woman, a good professional, woman,wife and mother. This stuff shames women like me, I hate it. These women are abasing themselves, attempting victimhood as a path forward. Go away, girls.

  42. One ScoMo doesn’t make a Spring

    Their ABC interviewed Syd Uni Professor yesterday and covered the same ground as MSM. Kavanaugh s temperament came under the microscope. …. blah blah blah. Suitable for SCOTUS? Same same same.
    No reference to Australia’s own High Court Appointment process and Lionel Murphy.

  43. Rae

    I’m a woman, a good professional, woman,wife and mother.

    Fake news?

  44. Mother Lode

    Ace of Spades has a report that – once the ball got rolling – the FBI was contacted by 1400 women claiming they were raped by Brett Kavanaugh.

    And not one of them thought of reporting it at the time.

  45. Mother Lode

    I’m a woman, a good professional, woman,wife and mother.

    Fake news?

    Fake, you say?

    Are you sure, Septimus?

  46. Rae

    Fake, you say?

    Are you sure, Septimus?

    More fake news. You did better with The Ballad of Grigor and Beth, your one and only work of note.

    [Note to self. Go look up Septimus in the Cat archives. You told Notafan you would]

  47. W Hogg

    Reminder: There are Cats who endorsed anti-Trump voting (Hillary, third party, abstain) because he would trash revered institutions and was generally an all-round bad guy.

    Shamefully, Nevertrumpers went within 80,000 votes of delivering power to the scum who organised rape fabrications to rig the SCOTUS their way.

    Those of who who have not yet done the decent thing with a necktie, it’s not enough to merely admit error.

  48. W Hogg

    Fake news, Steve. As I’m sure you know, it’s an edited version of a much longer press interview from 2017 in which Pelosi describes the smear tactics used by Republicans.

    Fuck off, grub. As I’m sure you know, “that which the Left accuse you of, is what they are doing.”

  49. mareeS

    Our son and daughter were pretty wild in their mid-teens, as were my husband and myself in the 1960s. We are all responsible adults, unlike the victim people at present.

  50. mareeS

    PS, Septimus, not fake, just the sort or non-victim person who gets along with life quite nicely.

  51. Leo G

    Ford clearly did not want to testify.
    … My two cents.

    Ford apparently preferred to testify before Congress in public. She was offered a private testimony in her home town, but did not accept the offer.
    btw- It has been a long time since the US first-class postal rate was 2 cents an ounce.

  52. Rae

    Ford apparently preferred to testify before Congress in public.

    What Ford preferred, apparently or otherwise, didn’t matter. The Senate (not Congress) went through the motions, then voted along Party lines.

  53. Rae

    We are all responsible adults, unlike the victim people at present.

    Define “responsible”. Unlike the victim people? Yes, sure, hun. How’d you go with your daughters granny flat/hubbys artists garret in the backyard that you claimed the council was victimizing you about?

  54. Leo G

    What Ford preferred, apparently or otherwise, didn’t matter. The Senate (not Congress) went through the motions, then voted along Party lines.

    The question was “what was going on in Ford’s mind” with respect to her testimony before a committee of the US Congress. Ford’s preferences necessarily mattered. How the Senate subsequently voted could hardly influence her prior state of mind.

  55. Ros

    Christopher J. Walker law professor at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

    “In 2015 and 2016 federal agencies promulgated more than 7,000 final rules filling more than 60,000 pages in the Federal Register. During that same time, by contrast, the 114th Congress enacted just 329 public laws filling about 3,000 pages in the Statutes at Large.

    By congressional design, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is the nation’s pre-eminent administrative law court and arguably “the second most important court” overall, after the Supreme Court. And D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh — President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court — is one of the most sophisticated, provocative and creative voices in the federal judiciary when it comes to administrative law.

    During his dozen years of service on the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh has authored around 300 opinions, more than a third of which deal with administrative law. As detailed below, Kavanaugh has written numerous major administrative law opinions — including dissents and concurrences, which Aaron Nielson has collected here — and the Supreme Court has embraced his approach on a number of occasions.”

    My paranoia tells me that this is what this huge embarrassment for the United States has been all about, the Secret State’s fight to stop Trump dismantling their undemocratic rule via Administrative Law. And the dopey woman, ( the other 2 rather suggest 15 seconds will suffice until they need another hit), has allowed herself to be used by “the “active investors” , the media, bloggers, activists, short-sellers, competitors, etc…and….Network attack programs broadcast packaged stories by plaintis’ lawyers equipped with Dezenhall’s construct of “victims, villains, and vindicators.”

  56. .

    “Short sellers!”

    This also means anyone who gets out at the top, you realise?

    Anyway.

    The US President has administrative law powers a Commonwealth PM would never dream of (one area where he is more powerful).

    He is elected but through an electoral College. So it is somewhat democratic.

    It is up to Trump to sort this mess out for the most part.

  57. Rae

    What Ford preferred, apparently or otherwise, didn’t matter. The Senate (not Congress) went through the motions, then voted along Party lines.

    The question was “what was going on in Ford’s mind” with respect to her testimony before a committee of the US Congress. Ford’s preferences necessarily mattered. How the Senate subsequently voted could hardly influence her prior state of mind.

    Leo (that’s the name of my neighbours cat, btw), you seem confused. There never was, and never was going to be, any testimony before a committee of the US Congress in relation to Kavanaughs Supreme Court nomination. Maybe the name Senate Judiciary Committee is the source of your confusion, although it does say Senate, definitely not Congress.

    And I care not that you may or may not have been interested in what was going on in Fords mind. My interest was in what you said and what was wrong about what you said, and that’s what I commented on.

  58. Leo G

    The US President … is elected but through an electoral College. So it is somewhat democratic.

    It’s hard to see how the election of a presidential head of state is even somewhat congruous with a principle of political and social equality of all citizens.

  59. Ros

    Seems like Trump is giving it a go, returning power to the people and their elected representatives, sort of. While his executive order in requiring two deregulatory actions for every new major regulation enacted hasn’t always happened, the pace of new major regulations has slowed to a crawl. Something vaguely ironic about that. And of course the powers he is exercising are legitimate, though Obama’s vast numbers of regulations, particularly to scupper Congress, might have tested that.

    And he is going well in his judicial appointments, or his Supreme Court ones at least. Neil Gorsuch too challenges the legal concept of the Chevron deference, “Chevron deference describes the deference a court grants to a federal administrative agency when it comes to statutory interpretation.”

    A Mother Jones headline prior to the decision of the Democrats and their mates to use character assasination to stop Kavanaugh suggests both a determined reason and a tactic for going after Kavanaugh on the behalf of the swamp and its inhabitants.
    “How Brett Kavanaugh Could Cripple the Next Democratic President. Two words: Chevron deference.””

    Well they failed. So as it seems it is a given for the Democrats, that they should rule without the limitations of the will of the people, Good.

    Only Democrats could be affected, or it only matters if Democrat Presidents are affected?

  60. Leo G

    Maybe the name Senate Judiciary Committee is the source of your confusion, although it does say Senate, definitely not Congress.

    The US Congress is a legislature with two chambers. The Senate is one of the two chambers. A Senate committee is a committee of the legislature of the US government.

  61. Ros

    “The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the Federal government of the United States. The legislature consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

  62. Rae

    The US Congress is a legislature with two chambers. The Senate is one of the two chambers. A Senate committee is a committee of the legislature of the US government.

    and:

    “The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the Federal government of the United States. The legislature consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

    Yes. Yay for Google. No doubt you also saw the televised proceedings showing Congressman Grassley and Congressman Feinstein and Congressman and Congressman Hatch and Congressman Durbin and …..

  63. Leo G

    Yes. Yay for Google.

    Is that as close as “Never-Wrong” Rae gets to an admission of error?

  64. Rae

    Is that as close as “Never-Wrong” Rae gets to an admission of error?

    Mea culpa. I erred in the last sentence of my previous comment. There is one too many “and Congressman” in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.