So I wake up on Sunday morning, grab the smartphone like a chain smoker grabbing a pack of cigarettes off the night stand, open up Twitter to scan the headlines. . .and all of a sudden it’s Groundhog Day, only circa 2018, and the media circus surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court is in high dudgeon. For a moment, I actually believed myself trapped in some version of purgatory where I would be forced to relive that saga again and again—and I prayed for escape into another purgatory in which I have to defend the series finale of Lost in front of an angry crowd of disappointed fans, trapped there until I could convince them that the ending really was what J.J. Abrams had in mind all along.
Could this really be happening all over again?
Sadly, it was—but, like most sequels that nobody wanted in the first place, this time they doubled down on what made the first one so stupid that it may well have torn the fabric of space-time with its sheer awfulness. By “they,” of course, I mean the national news media. You know, the folks who soiled themselves during Kavanaugh’s confirmation by trying to pass off lies, innuendo and unsourced rumors as actual reporting? Yeah, apparently they don’t think that they discredited themselves enough during that last go-round, so now they’re back with fresh lies, innuendo and unsourced rumors. Erick and Steve capably covered the details of this non-story already, and the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway has a great thread debunking it, so I don’t need to rehash any of that here. Suffice it to say, if you thought the previous accusations against Kavanaugh made for pretty thin gruel, these new revelations are literally nonexistent.
That, however, hasn’t stopped the leftist Twitterati from beclowning themselves—again—by adding their own unique insights to the drama. Take, for instance, this chap:
Yes, that would be the same Jeffrey Toobin who is a self-described legal analyst for CNN. I know he’s a lawyer and all—but I am left to wonder whether he skipped class the day they talked about evidentiary standards, if he actually thinks that uncorroborated accounts of sexual misconduct from decades earlier amount to “credible accusations.” Because that’s all that Christine Blasey Ford and Anita Hill had to offer against Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court appointees to whom Toobin refers in this hum-dinger of a tweet. If that’s all it takes to be credible in his eyes, I have a few million bucks I’d like his help in moving out of the country. All I need is your bank account number, Jeff.
Oh, and then there’s this pearl of wisdom:
Boykin is—you guessed it—a CNN commentator as well (they sure know how to pick ‘em over there, don’t they?). He also seems to be fighting with Toobin over the title of His Royal Majesty, the King of Non-Sequitirs. To wit:
There is no Constitutional requirement that the President win the popular vote to assume office, much less achieve it as a prerequisite for appointing Supreme Court justices.
“Credibly accused” is not only a canard, it’s leftists parroting the same talking point that has zero basis in fact.
Gorsuch was not appointed to a “stolen seat,” whatever that is. The Senate merely availed itself of its prerogative—under the Constitution—to not perform its advise and consent role when Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the last year of his presidency.
As to the last point, you can grumble about Cocaine Mitch tabling Garland’s nomination as a dirty political ploy, but saying it amounts to theft is bull, and Boykin knows it. It’s just another way of stirring the pot to keep the Left perpetually enraged, and a feeble attempt to delegitimize anyone on the court who isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool progressive.
Even so, the intellectual void on display in that pair of tweets pales in comparison to this little gem, since deleted by the New York Times:
Yes, who doesn’t remember all those great times they had in college having random genitalia thrust in their faces?
Understandably, the Times quickly deleted the tweet—probably not so much ashamed at the lack of evidence to back of their claim as they were about coupling the word “penis” with “harmless fun.” But then Times editors compounded the error by issuing a retraction that included the original tweet, stating, “We have deleted an earlier tweet to this article that was poorly phrased.” Ya think?
After that they decided to hell with it and retracted the retraction, leaving in its place an apology that didn’t address what they were apologizing for. Ladies and gentlemen. . .the Newspaper of Record, in all of its glory.