Should We Call it the Feinstein Effect?


You’ve heard of the Streisand Effect. Wikipedia defines it as “a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely.”

Streisand sued a photographer working on a coastal erosion project for posting a picture of her home online. Before Babs outrage, six people had viewed it, two of them her lawers. By the time Streisand lost the lawsuit plus the cost of the photographer’s legal fees, millions had seen the thing she didn’t want anyone to see.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein just did something similar.

She intended to use the written testimony of an anonymous rape victim, provided at the last minute, to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh to drop his nomination bid. A bit of mystery and media pressure pushes Kavanaugh off the stage and leaves the seat vacant long enough for Democrats to take Congress and hold the seat hostage.

No one needs to know the victim, certainly not the public, and the accusation never has to stand up to scrutiny.

Instead, Feinstein’s alleged victim’s name becomes public, the confirmation circus becomes a national obsession, the left behaves about as badly in public as you’d expect (but worse than most Americans remember or imagine), waking the Republican base right before a mid-term election Democrats felt sure they’d win.

Talk about an October surprise.

Surprise, you just shot yourselves in the foot.

They thought they could scare Kavanaugh off. They thought they could make Senate Republicans run scared. But in the shadow of President Trump, the wind appears to be blowing a different direction. No one backed down (except lame-duck RINO Jeff Flake), and even that didn’t matter.

Kavanaugh won with bi-partisan support thanks to Democrat Joe Manchin who is in fear for his political life.

And while the election is still too close to call the Democrat advantage that dominated the news all year is gone. All thanks to Dianne Feinstein’s little letter.

A letter that may have been written with the help of retired FBI Trump hater and credited to Christine Blasey Ford because that’s who they could find. A letter meant more as a jump-scare than an object of scrutiny. An accusation premised on the likelihood that it would never need to stand up to the light of day.

Clarice Feldman, writing at the American Thinker, has a piece titled Seedpods from the Garden of Stupid. She’s quoting Greg Gutfeld in her title, but that’s not where I’d like to focus. In the article, she includes a quick recap of the flimsiness of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations by an online friend. It’s that light of day the letter was never meant to see.

She refused to hand over the results of her polygraph

She refused to hand over her 2012 therapist’s notes

She said she was afraid to fly, but has flown dozens of times. 

Since she did in fact fly, she offered no other reason for the delay

She said she wanted anonymity but contacted [the Washington Post] multiple times

Said she got advice from “beach friends” but didn’t mention that the primary one was a former FBI lawyer, Monica McLean, who worked for Preet Bharara, a man Trump fired. She also failed to mention, when talking of her Beach friends at the hearing, that Monica was sitting right behind her. 

She had a perfect memory of 1982 but couldn’t remember basic things from the previous 10 weeks

She’d been drinking. 

She changed the year of the alleged attack

She named 4 people, but had no backers

She couldn’t remember how she got home even though her story had her escaping the house far from home, pre-cell phone.

She gave no location or any details that could be researched for verification.

She never told anyone and never claimed PTSD prior to Kavanaugh’s name circulating 30 years later.

She said that she put the 2nd door on her house because of PTSD, but evidence shows it was to get around zoning laws to create a rentable apartment.

She said she didn’t know that Grassley offered to come to her, even though it was broadcast nationally.

She feigned no knowledge of polygraphs even though her ex’s sworn statement said she’d coached Monica McLean how to beat it in the 1990s, and in any case her profession should have at least well acquainted her with it.

She co-authored a paper on repressed memory creation years before she claimed to have one

Nothing is known of her pharmacology, but given her past alcoholism, her visits to a therapist and her general presentation, odds are high that it’s extensive.

She scrubbed her social media. We know from a pussy hat photo that she was rabidly anti-Trump. 

She had zero family or friends with her, not from the 80s nor from today. She was surrounded only by Democrat Party handlers.

Constant cries of bravery & “nothing to gain” vs a $700,000 GoFundMe and a career boosted a la Anita Hill

Literally all there is her word vs all of the above. Not a shred of evidence.

The Democrats and the seedpods from the garden of stupid are so possessed of the need to stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh at all cost that they neglected to consider that the cost might be their chances in the 2018 election.

They didn’t stop Kavanaugh but they did put on a show in front of a huge audience that votes, whose theme was that if they so choose you are guilty until proven innocent with the subplot that actual evidence doesn’t really matter.

Despotic Banana Republic “justice.” Oh, and by the way, please vote for that in November.

If a majority of viewers decide they didn’t like what they saw, the Left will not take back the House, and they will lose seats in the Senate.

The thing that was supposed to save the Court for the Left and by doing so clear a landing path for the blue wave in November may have done exactly the opposite.

If that turns out to be true, we should call that the Feinstein effect.