There were two only good things that came from the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco we all endured before last year’s election. One was that we ended up getting confirmed a decent, conservative jurist out of the chaos. The other was getting to witness the rebirth of Lindsey Graham 2.0 into an unquestioned political gangster.

Outside of that, the entire ordeal was a nightmare, mostly for Brett Kavanaugh and his family, as the media and Democrats spread salacious, unsupported rumors ranging from him drugging women to chairing high school rape gangs. To say it was a season of insanity is to understate the matter.

As usual though, the media at large never offered any mea culpas for their horrendously unfair (and often false) coverage. NBC was even found to have hidden evidence that could have played in Kavanaugh’s favor. They suffered no repercussions for such hackery.

Worse, many outlets are still pushing the lies surrounding the case. One of the most infuriating was the idea that because Brett Kavanaugh responded with indignation to being falsely accused of gang rape, he must be guilty. This nonsense apparently still lives on and is seen in an article put out by The Atlantic yesterday.

The closest comparison here might be to the #MeToo target now on the Supreme Court. The substance of what the two men have been accused of differs vastly, but their responses—and the cultural scripts they draw upon—rhyme. Brett Kavanaugh shouted about Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations as being unfair given the life he’s lived, while Kelly argued that his previous acquittal meant the present allegations were also “unfair.” Boys-will-be-boyslogic—whether about drunken tomfoolery or sexual conquest—play in both’s defense. Most strikingly, the force and fury of the tactics used by both men make the same dare.

If by closest comparison they mean there’s no comparison, then sure. I suspect that’s not what they mean though.  Noting anger in the act of a response to an accusal and pretending that can be extrapolated into a judgement of guilt is just partisan foolishness. Both innocent and guilty people can have emotional responses to their situation. It should surprise no one that both have a penchant for responding in anger, despite there being very different logical reasons why they would do so.

If you’ve had your family destroyed, your name destroyed, and possibly your entire life destroyed by false accusations, you are likely going to be angry. At the same time, if you are guilty of a crime and have been caught, you are also likely going to respond in anger. No comparison exists past that and to pretend you can judge guilt or innocence based on an angry defense is moronic and unfair.

In reality, this is just another weak attempt of false equivalence by a liberal media that ranks below the Venezuelan bolivar on the value scale. They can’t even report on the meltdown of a serial child rapist without having to throw a reference to a Republican in the mix, no matter how crazy of a stretch it is. These people never learn, they never apologize, and they never change their ways because the biased narrative is always king. They double and triple down, knowing there will never be any consequences for their ridiculous reporting.