=========

=========

Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.

=========

=========

The Washington post has reached a new level of parody during the Kavanaugh hearings. Everything is worth printing if it meets their end goal, which is to scuttle the guy.

Their latest is an article titled “Experts question GOP prosecutor’s memo on Christine Blasey Ford.”

There’s just one problem. Not a single person they cite actually has the expertise to rebut a career sex crimes prosecutor like Mitchell nor do they even try. It’s all just personal attacks.

“As a former prosecutor myself, I’ve come to no conclusion other than the conclusion that there needs to be more facts to come to a conclusion,” said Douglas Wigdor, an employment lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in sexual assault and harassment cases. Wigdor, a Republican, called the memo “a joke” and “preposterous.”

Nowhere in this guys background is experience in forensic analysis of sexual assault claims. He’s currently a civil employment lawyer. Translation: he sues people for sexual harassment and other work place grievances.

Let’s see who they quote next.

Linda Fairstein, a former sex-crimes prosecutor in Manhattan who is a Democrat, said that Mitchell seemed to misrepresent matters in referring twice to her “independent assessment” and once to her “independent review.” “There is nothing independent about her opinion,” Fairstein said. “She is a hired gun giving an opinion for the side that hired her.”

A Democrat you say? Well, glad the Washington Post really went deep in the well here to find some non-biased “experts.” For being such an expert, she sure shares none of her actual expertise. How long was she a sex crimes prosecutor? At what level? Is she an expert in forensic interviewing like Mitchell? Does she have a single thing to offer as a factual rebuttal to Mitchell or are we just naming calling here?

Third times the charm though, right? This is the final person they went to for comment as an “expert.”

Tasha Menacker, chief strategy officer for the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, said she has heard survivors talking in recent days about how their experiences match the experience described by Ford, including an inability to pinpoint when their assault occurred or other such details. “I’m afraid that survivors in Maricopa County are going to see this and relate to Dr. Ford, and be concerned about whether or not they would be believed,” she said. “Survivors are going to see this and say, ‘I wouldn’t be able to be consistent in my recollections either, remember specific dates either.’ ”

While I’m sure Ms. Menacker is a perfectly fine woman doing perfectly fine work at her awareness group, she is in no way an expert on judging the forensic analysis of sexual assault allegations. She’s also obviously biased in her view toward those accused given her position.

There you have it. The Washington Post needed to put out something rebutting Mrs. Mitchell. Being short on actual “experts,” they ran to an…employment lawyer, a Democrat partisan, and someone who’s not even in the field of law.

Journalism. Makes sense.

Here’s the bigger point. Notice what this article doesn’t do. It makes zero attempt to actually confront or challenge the very real, very undeniable facts that Mrs. Mitchell laid out. The Post decided to instead attack her surface level credibility with no underlying evidence to do so.

As I’ve said many times, our media is a dumpster fire. Anyone that was holding out on calling these people the enemy (in a political sense at least) probably should reevaluate that position. It’s time to call a spade a spade.