The timing was horrible.

The New York Times published what may be the best journalism done by anyone in recent years at the absolutely worse time.

What were they thinking?

During the height of our national obsession over the confirmation hearing of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Times printed a 15,000-word exposé on the shady financial dealings of Donald Trump and his family, including Trump receiving the equivalent of what today would be at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire and how “much of this money came through tax schemes, including instances of outright fraud.”

Tax schemes and outright fraud?

Yowser.

What the Times documented not only amounts to civil fraud, but actual crimes, although they can’t be prosecuted owing to the statute of limitations.

On the other hand, state and federal authorities can and may well pursue investigations that could lead to tens of millions in fines.

It’s a blockbuster report.

And … no one cares.

Bad timing can’t completely explain that.

How about the short version?

Recognizing the difficulty of getting people to read such a lengthy piece, the Timesproduced a condensed version of its investigation featuring “11 takeaways.”

For example, Donald Trump often brags about having made his fortune after his father loaned him $1 million. According to the Times, “Fred Trump lent his son at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars. Much of it was never repaid, records show.”

It goes on and on.

And … no one cares.

Indifference is the real blockbuster

That’s the real blockbuster.

The fact that a sitting president is accused of tax fraud and no one cares.

Not enough people, anyway.

It’s because those who most ardently support Trump don’t want to know about stuff like this.

The New York Times described what Trump and his family did as “outright fraud.” No hedging of bets. No qualifiers. Nothing that would seem to protect the Times from a gigantic lawsuit if what it published wasn’t true.

New York authorities and the Internal Revenue Service might follow-up on the report and there could be massive fines.

But with any other politician, or perhaps during any other era, being outed as a gargantuan tax cheat would be the end.

Is there a 'cult of ignorance?'

Not these days, not unless supporters of the politician actually care about truth enough to want to learn it.

To read it.

And the president's supporters don’t.

Back in 1980 the scientist and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov wrote an essay for Newsweek magazine under the headline “A Cult of Ignorance.” It’s something that could be written about elements of every generation, I suppose, but it certainly seems to apply today.

Asimov wrote in part, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

Although, it is not a false notion. Not really.

Not as long as an ignorant vote counts just as much as a knowledgeable one.

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

MORE BY MONTINI: