'Hackiest of the HACKS': WaPo's Ruth Marcus DEFENDS Kavanaugh hit-piece while accusing GOP of a 'cherry-picked attack' on Ketanji Brown Jackson

As Democrats and the mainstream media accuse the GOP of cherry-picking Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record to ‘attack her’, we can’t help but think about what they did to Justice Kavanaugh and his family just because it was Donald Trump who nominated him. They were willing to destroy his life (and his family) over trumped-up allegations that went nowhere, from a woman with a childlike voice who couldn’t remember any of the details of the ‘attack’ and whose friends also had no recollection of it.

But you know, it’s the GOP who isn’t being fair.

Funny how that works.

funny how that works pic.twitter.com/5ZijQfr3YC

— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) March 20, 2022

Ain’t it though? HILARIOUS even.

Ruth Marcus didn’t like being called out for her hypocrisy so she fired back … or at least tried to.

Both of these columns are fair, accurate and consistent. I found Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony about about Brett Kavanaugh’s behavior convincing, but there was room for doubt. Here there is a completely out of context and cherry-picked attack on a nominee. https://t.co/776tHwYwTK

— Ruth Marcus (@RuthMarcus) March 20, 2022

It’s WaPo but as President Silver Alert himself would say, C’MON MAN!

Room for doubt? Gosh, ya’ think?

And here’s the thing, nobody is even making up some weird attack allegation, they are simply pointing out very real cases and judgments from Brown Jackson. How is that attacking her?

This may be the hackiest thing ever written by a WaPo person…

And that's saying something.

— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) March 20, 2022

Right?

Some crazy stuff right there.

You claiming “fair, accurate & consistent” are why the media has a lower approval rating than congress.

— SeldenGADawgs (@SeldenGADawgs) March 20, 2022

Ouch.

And accurate.

there was zero room for doubt that she was a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD from the moment her hoax story hit the papers

and if you genuinely didn't see that you have cognitive deficiency disorder

but you're really just lying again… you knew full well as we did

— The Virginia Project (@ProjectVirginia) March 20, 2022

No. They’re not.

One of these are provable matters of record which concern a SCOTUS nominee’s rulings as a judge.

The other was an uncorroborated account with faulty details from a questionable witness about a SCOTUS nominee’s behavior in high school.

Do better.

— Critical Thinking (@irtated_bowels) March 20, 2022

Ruth, you’re lying. You wrote the first column more than 10 days before Blasey Ford actually testified. You couldn’t have found her testimony “convincing” when she had not testified yet. You didn’t need any testimony to make up your mind about the narrative you wanted to tell.

— Deep Goat (@deepgoatdc) March 20, 2022

Room for doubt?

He assaulted me. Well, maybe it was him. I don't know when or where. There are no witnesses or anything else to confirm anything abt when and where or who was there or if any of it ever. I never told anyone at the time either. I used to drink a lot back then.

— 🇺🇸🇰🇭🇮🇱Oy Vey (@OyVeyIzhMir) March 20, 2022

Convincing in what way?

No date/month/season/year. (So he couldn't alibi)

No location (so no way to find others there)

HER "witness" didn't back story

No idea how she got home (so no witness to her after the alleged attack)

No nothing.

Just a scripted political attack.

— beccasu (@CocoaMonoi) March 20, 2022