John already broke down the claims being made by several women regarding unwanted sexual advances by Donald Trump anywhere from ten to thirty years ago, and the hounds have been loosed in the usual media sources. But now that the headlines have had twelve hours or so to percolate, can we talk about the real elephant in the room here? Are we simply going to ignore the awfully convenient timing of this batch of accusations in defiance of reason and the normal rules of engagement in political warfare?
This comes down to a fairly basic case of Occam’s Razor. The two explanations can be defined without much effort by anyone without a vested interest in the outcome of the race. On the one hand we have the possibility that these women are innocent of any subterfuge and are seeking justice for alleged misdeeds. That would also mean that for anywhere from ten to thirty years they somehow found reason to not make much of a big deal out of the incidents. All that time Trump was a nationally known figure and a wealthy person who would be an obvious target for some sort of civil suit if not an outright criminal prosecution. Even if they had “put it all behind them” for some reason, but were reminded of the offenses when they noticed that Trump was running for President, this could have been done as early as the fall of 2014. Or any time in 2015 when Trump was rising in the polls after officially launching his campaign. Or any time during the primary when he was closing the deal. Or even after the convention when he was the official candidate and climbing in the polls.
Instead, it happened in the final three weeks of the election. Where were these stories before now? Were these women beating down the doors of reporters but being cruelly turned away by the Trump loving folks at the New York Times who didn’t want to report on them and possibly damage Trump’s chances? (Try not to choke on the sarcasm in that one.) Were they somehow unaware that the election was going on and that Trump was running until one of them finally purchased a television last week? And these revelations all seem to miraculously happen on the precise days when Wikileaks dumps yet another bale of misery on Hillary Clinton’s head.
There is, of course, a second possible explanation. That would be the case of this being a standard oppo drop from the Clinton campaign which they’ve been sitting on for two years and plenty of folks in the liberal media knew about, but it was being held back until the moment when it could inflict the maximum damage on Trump and provide the greatest amount of cover to deflect attention from any negative press for Clinton. And even if the stories are true (and I wouldn’t rule out the one about kissing) where was the interest in “justice” for these women for the past two years? If they were so poorly treated and in need of justice, why make them wait this long?
As I said… Occam’s Razor.
Jason Miller of the Trump campaign responded along these same lines fairly quickly.
“This entire article is fiction, and for the New York Times to launch a completely false, coordinated character assassination against Mr. Trump on a topic like this is dangerous. To reach back decades in an attempt to smear Mr. Trump trivializes sexual assault, and it sets a new low for where the media is willing to go in its efforts to determine this election.
“It is absurd to think that one of the most recognizable business leaders on the planet with a strong record of empowering women in his companies would do the things alleged in this story, and for this to only become public decades later in the final month of a campaign for president should say it all.
“Further, the Times story buries the pro-Clinton financial and social media activity on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, reinforcing that this truly is nothing more than a political attack. This is a sad day for the Times.”
The fact that these stories are being taken as anything other than a Clinton opposition research drop is disheartening to say the least.