Blue Dress Proof: What it takes to get the media to believe a Democrat did wrong. By Melissa McKenzie.
For a damaging story about a Democrat to be true, DNA must be found on a blue dress. There must be Blue Dress Proof™. It’s not enough to have a witness and a victim. It’s not enough to have a computer, a cache of validated emails, thousands of affadavits signed under the threat of perjury. There must be actual DNA, videotaped evidence. If the bad guy is a Democrat, there must be Blue Dress Proof.
For a damaging story about a Republican to be true, nothing has to be true at all. Third-hand hearsay about hookers and pee, a smile on a face, or a sarcastic tweet or phrase taken out of context can make even the most absurd conclusion be portrayed as fact and conveyed as truth in perpetuity. If the bad guy is a Republican, no proof is needed.
Hunter Biden, the China-compromised (to the tune of a request of 10 million smackers), Russian oligarch–payoff taking, crack pipe–smoking, naked-picture havin’ Democrat has been given every benefit of the doubt. The media and technology companies forbade mentioning the story before the election. No one who watched CNN or NBC or MSNBC or read the New York Times or the Washington Post knew about the story. Those on Twitter whose tweets weren’t throttled or blocked outright were called names by the media. The story, which had witnesses, corroboration, and evidence, was deemed a conspiracy theory.
It’s all true. The DOJ and FBI knew it was all true, and, shockingly, the intelligence agencies that leaked like 30-year-old sieves throughout the Trump administration miraculously learned how to keep a secret for over a year. They stayed mum through the primaries. They were quiet through the presidential election while sitting on a laptop full of emails, images, and texts of Biden corruption. …
Remember Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky?
What did Bill and Monica do? Well, they had sex in the Oval Office. Bill used the contents of his humidor creatively. Monica, clad in a blue dress, satisfied the needs of the president of the United States. It was messy. She had genetic proof. Monica loved him. She wanted a souvenir.
When the sordid tale unfolded, the media of the time, like the media now, couldn’t believe that the Man from Hope would do something so untoward. Not one major media outlet broke the story. No media wanted to be cut off from the sweet, sweet access at the White House.
Hillary Clinton famously fumed that the rumors were a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Bill Clinton famously held a press conference where he bit his lower lip, pointed his thumb at the reporters, and looked plaintively into the cameras and said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
It was a lie. The media believed him. …
The truth only came out because of scientific evidence, and not through the MSM:
What goaded the media into finally reporting the truth? The blue dress. In the course of the investigation, the president had to produce a DNA sample. The semen on the blue dress proved beyond a shadow of a doubt and forced everyone, finally, at long last, to believe what had been obviously true for months: William Jefferson Clinton had had sexual relations with that intern, that young woman, Miss Lewinsky.
Who broke the story? Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report. An alternative internet news source and website, a relative unknown, posted the story. The mainstream media wouldn’t touch it until they couldn’t help it anymore. …
The double standard today is even worse, because rinos participate:
Not much has changed 20 years later, except that the news environment has gotten worse. Any fantastical story about a Republican is immediately believed — and by conservative news outlets, too. The worst motives, the worst actions are accepted as fact. The conservative commentariat are as hateful to their own and nearly as forgiving of Democrats as the mainstream media. The police in the death of George Floyd? Still condemned despite compelling exonerating evidence. Nick Sandmann, the pro-life teen? Condemned by the mainstream media and conservative media alike.
Any bad action by Democrats, in contrast, is instantly viewed as innocent. Joe Biden being beholden to China and using his son to pimp his name for money, giving communists easy access to U.S. information? Why, this is just a father helping out and trying to protect his son — when the exact opposite explanation is far more sensible and has witnesses, emails, corroboration evidence — PROOF — that shows Joe Biden was and is a man willing to use his fragile, drug-addicted son to get money trading on the family name. It’s disgusting, and it’s being swept away by an incurious media. …
Election fraud:
The mainstream media is not interested in examining the evidence to find out if there’s a there there. Like two decades ago, the facts will come out in some form of alternative media. It will have to be so compelling that no Democrat, journalist, or cynical so-called conservative commentator can ignore it. Anything less and it will be dismissed as a conspiracy theory no matter how trustworthy and believable the witnesses. The media didn’t listen to Eileen Wellstone, a couple anonymous college students, Juanita Broaddrick, Carolyn Moffet, Paula Jones, Christy Zercher, or Kathleen Willey even though each case was compelling and detailed, there were police reports, and the women have all stuck by their stories. But Bill Clinton, Democrats, and the craven media liars couldn’t deny the Blue Dress Proof™.
When it comes to election fraud turning the results to favor Joe Biden, the pathetic non-candidate who couldn’t turn out five people to a “rally,” there will need to be Blue Dress Proof. Let’s hope it’s found quickly. This wound should not fester. A Republic is at stake.
I think the Clinton/Lewinsky affair was a real turning point with the press. When it first broke, I remember Sam Donaldson saying that if it was true, obviously Clinton would have to resign. But within a few days the Democrats, very much including the press, had circled the wagons around Clinton and were willing to recycle any pro-Clinton talking point, and scoff at anything that hurt Clinton, in a way that was, at the time, unprecedentedly brazen.
