Impartially disproving an accuser’s lies

If you are confronted with an accusation about yourself that makes you look really bad, there is a way out.   The first thing to remember is that if you apologize, it’s over.  You’re guilty.  Done.   So, rule number one, never apologize for anything, even if they have videotape.  You can always argue the tape was an extremely well-financed forgery, a complete fake.

That goes to rule number two of what are sometimes called Roy Cohn’s rules or Roger Stone’s rules.   These are the rules the president lives by as well, he imbibed them at the breasts of these two father figures.   Rule one is admit nothing/never apologize.  Rule number two is counterattack twice as hard.
You do this by going on the offensive.   Two women testify that you did aggressive, sexually fucked up things to them when you were drunk.   It goes without saying that they are liars, so there is no reason to dignify those infuriating charges.   Say something like this, as you snort in righteous, barely containable anger, the women peddling these vicious lies are part of:



Once you have established this new story line, everybody on your team merely has to double down.  You have fired up your base, they will begin swinging their clubs for you.   The skeptics and critics will always cavil, try to show illogic, etc., but if you have the money and the votes– fuck them, seriously.

The third thing you have to do, after doubling down, is keep repeating your talking point.   The Democrats have no shame, they made a circus of the hearings, they denied the nominee the presumption of innocence that every accused criminal is entitled to under our system of law.   They hate the presumption of innocence, they are a lynch mob, an enraged out of control mob.  A mob of ruthless, lying haters!


Justice Kavanaugh said he wrote this opening statement himself, a powerful refutation of  all the many false charges that he’d ever done anything wrong while drunk as a teenager.  I take that claim, like many of his other statements, as worthy of skepticism.   In fact, I can affirm under the penalty of perjury that I wrote the above words.   You can see they are in my handwriting.

Seriously, though, Stephen Miller seems to have had a hand in its composition, as does the philosopher Sean Hannity.   Rush Limbaugh may also have given some editorial input.

The president is very generous with the presumption of innocence, for those who publicly kiss his ass, as well as for those whose power he respects.   A strong, powerful denial is as good as a full investigation, a trial in a court and full exoneration, if you’re someone he loves.  The inadvertent murder of a Saudi journalist, dismembered in the Saudi embassy in Istanbul?   According to the AP, the president had this to say: “You know, here we go again with, you know, you’re guilty until proven innocent.  We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh.  And he was innocent all the way.”   Again, another witch hunt, like with the unconscionable Democrat torture of Brett Kavanaugh who also forcefully and strongly denied everything.  Hey, he fucking denied it!   The Saudi’s completely denied it.    So what if they accidentally did murder a critical journalist working for the Washington Post?   So?  What don’t you get about a strong, powerful denial?

Oh, yeah, now I can go after Horseface.  A loser.   I’m not a baby.  No baby!  No puppet. You’re the puppets, you’re the puppets!    

Unfortunately, you can’t make this shit up, boys and girls.


can you spot the typo in this second version of the statement I wrote?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s