Header Ads

‘She lacks shame’: Anti-Kavanaugh smear merchant Jane Mayer writes passionate defense of Al Franken

Good news, everyone! Sexual misconduct is great again! It seems Al Franken’s probation is over and he’s ready to return to the general population. At least according to the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer:
Oh really?
Hard not to note the irony of Jane Mayer of all ppl writing a long defense of Al Franken, arguing he was unfairly forced to resign for an act of sexual harrassment that was actually *caught on film* plus other unverified accusations. She lacks shame. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken 


And she apparently thinks we lack memory of what she did to Brett Kavanaugh.
With Franken, it's all about 'context' and the politics of his accusers, and the opportunism of Republicans at the time, blah blah blah.

This is the woman who wrote the "Brett Kavanaugh may have flashed me in my sleep, I'm not sure but let's go with it" to tank his nomination.


The irony here is that I actually think (and have always thought) that Franken got a raw deal. But if there's any one person with absolutely no standing to write the case defending him and lamenting his unseemly political knifing, it's Jane f***in' Mayer.


Jane Mayer finally found a victim she doubts! I for one am shocked, shocked said victim is a conservative.


The next time my friends on the Left try to tell me "but Jane Mayer is a great reporter, you should take her work seriously!" this side-by-side comparison will stand for all time as a refutation of that, and proof of her hackery.


One thing I love about Mayer's Franken piece are all the character references she provides for him. Loving family man! Hall monitor at SNL! Stern and morally upright! Many quotes from friends. Except there's PICTORIAL EVIDENCE.


Meanwhile, a woman whose Kavanaugh accusations were literally "I don't really remember this+it might not be true" was written up in a piece which afforded absolutely zero space to ppl speaking on his behalf. She's a partisan, she dresses up her activism in the garb of journalism.




He’s totally right.
No no you don't understand: I like Franken, always have. He shouldn't have been run out the Senate, though it was the "right thing" for the Dems to do politically at the time.

My problem is with Mayer, writing this v. that on Kav/Thomas. Only difference in coverage is politics.

See Esoteric Jeff's other Tweets
As I said above, Franken got a raw deal. Neither here nor there, though the fact that there was an actual piece of visual evidence (however wrongly interpreted) makes it more understandable. But Mayer has no right to write this piece after her previous work. No sense of shame.

See Esoteric Jeff's other Tweets
None whatsoever.
The “pictorial evidence” of Al Franken’s misconduct is still more evidence of impropriety than there was against Brett Kavanaugh.
Building sympathy for the affected man. "He had thought they were on friendly terms." That's pretty damn generous of her. Did she ever consider writing that about Kavanaugh? Don't think so.

View image on Twitter

17 people are talking about this
Oh, @JaneMayerNYer, he says it's "just not true"? Oh wow, guess that settles that! And he doesn't remember her being upset. Hmm. Wonder if there was another guy who didn't remember something happening? Did you give it such credence back then?

View image on Twitter

17 people are talking about this
Awwwww @JaneMayerNYer that's so nice!! He's devoted to his wife. That's so cute. I'm sure you used nice quotes about Kavanaugh's wife to defend him, right?

View image on Twitter

26 people are talking about this
And @JaneMayerNYer, you definitely used quotes from Kavanaugh's friends in a positive light about how he was goofing around. All in jest!

View image on Twitter

See Anthony J.'s other Tweets
And in a brilliant finishing move @JaneMayerNYer quotes the lawyer who built an entire case around the goal of ruining a man's life on unsubstantiated allegations.

View image on Twitter

16 people are talking about this
In short, @JaneMayerNYer should be ashamed that her name is attached to this piece. But if this is her turning over a new leaf in terms of not breathlessly covering baseless allegations, I guess there's some positive aspects to it.

22 people are talking about this
Let’s hear it for silver linings.
"The victim's story just doesn't check out" is a standard I wish Jane Meyer hadn't discovered only this morning.

100 people are talking about this
Pathetic.
It would if there were any doubt that Jane Mayer is not objective.
For a nice pro-abortion Dem, she'll raise context, question motivations of accusers, opportunism of opposing party, get character references.

For a pro-life Repub, she'll run completely unsubstantiated, Dem-lawyered piffle and just say "LOOK WE ESTABLISHED A PATTERN."

See Esoteric Jeff's other Tweets
It's pretty shameful not to evaluate each any every argument on its own merits alone. At least in my perspective. And I fall short of that too, I have my own biases (many of them anti-Trump!) but I still try.

See Esoteric Jeff's other Tweets

Because Jeff, unlike Jane, is not a hack.
More on this from @EsotericCD:
Some negative context Jane Mayer would've given if Franken was a GOP'er: Franken would destroy nominees that came before him in the Judiciary Committee for jokes they made in the past. Remember him attacking Don Willett for saying he'd like to marry bacon? https://reason.com/2017/11/16/senate-dems-pathetic-attack-don-willett/ 

23 people are talking about this
Now Franken is saying his photo was just a joke, though he'd have demolished a nominee who came before him w/the same photo. You'd have thought Jane Mayer, diligent+conscientious reporter that she purportedly is, would have thought to bring up that incident. But shockingly, no!

19 people are talking about this
Listen, what I'm saying here is that Mayer is not an honest reporter: her work is not merely partisan in its slant but untrustworthy & nobody w/any self-respect should push it as anything other than the work of an explicit activist who cares less about truth than Dem Squad Goals.

32 people are talking about this

No comments