Searching (Update: Rudy admits collusion!)

I'd like to say a few -- actually, four -- words about this search result business: It works both ways.

Example: A few weeks ago, I googled "Jeffrey Epstein." Before I had finished typing the name, the autocompletion "Jeffrey Epstein Bill Clinton" appeared. This, despite the fact that most of the things people say about Epstein and Clinton are nonsensical. Clinton never went to that island, and the flight logs show that he never flew in Epstein's jet with women. At the time those flights occurred, nobody wrote about Epstein's seedy side; he was known as a rich man with an interest in science.

Oddly, that autocompletion did not appear when I typed in the name this morning. However, if you hit Google and type in the word "pedophile" (which I was brave enough to just now), one of the first ten results goes to this rather smarmy NY Post story, which implies -- but does not directly state -- that Clinton visited Epstein's island for lewd purposes.

Look, I know what Virginia Roberts said in her Complaint. I was writing about the case well before most people discovered it. I've also corresponded a bit with someone who knew Epstein, way before things got so icky.

But unlike most of the know-it-alls who think they can take me to school on this topic, I've gone through each and every reference to Clinton in those flight logs, and I can assure you that at no point did he share a flight with Roberts or go to that island. The logs designate each airport of departure and landing. It is a simple matter to google each date along with Clinton's name; doing so will reveal that every trip was covered by the news. (He spoke at a number of do-gooder conferences having to do with AIDS and science-y stuff.)

On right-wing sites and on Reddit, people get around this problem by invoking one of the key rules of anti-Clinton propaganda: Imaginary evidence is considered admissible. In this case, it is presumed that the logs were doctored. These people want Clinton to have visited that island, and they won't allow any mere document to disabuse them of this beloved illusion. 

It is infuriating to see the NY Post link Clinton with Epstein without once mentioning Alan Dershowitz, who was a key figure in the original version of Roberts' Complaint. I'm told she still privately maintains that Dershowitz did what the original Complaint said. Nevertheless, the name was struck from the Complaint because mentioning him proved to be an incredible disttraction from the point of her action: She sued the government because Epstein got off with a slap on the wrist, and his victims were never notified of the deal.

If you search "Virginia Roberts Giuffre" (her married name), the first ten responses will not include the information that the person who cut that sweetheart deal, Alexander Acosta, is now Trump's Secretary of Labor. Moreover, that "top ten" list won't include the information that Virginia Roberts was recruited as an Epstein masseuse at Mar-A-Lago, where her father (who seems to be a peach of fellow) worked for Trump and where she was made to wear a disturbingly skimpy uniform despite her age. Other Epstein girls were recruited there.

Perhaps you are of the opinion that this recruitment of Trump employees occurred at Trump's club without Trump's knowledge. If you are of that opinion, your mind works in interesting ways.

I allowed myself to get sidetracked, didn't I? Let's return to my main point: We all have reason for annoyance with Google. The right has proven masterful in its ability to skew results through sheer repetition.

Another Google experiment: If you google the words "Barbara Bush father," two of the first three results will discuss the theory that she was sired by Aleister Crowley. The second link takes us to this impressive article by Jason Louv, which seems well-researched -- until you realize that Louv never bothered to contact the writer of the first article to present this theory.

At this point, one traditionally mumbles something about "Journalism 101."

Let's get back to the Epstein case. This Daily Mail article discusses a lawsuit recently filed by Roberts against Ghislaine Maxwell (the socialite daughter of publishing magnate/Israeli spy Robert Maxwell), who dated Epstein for a while and remained close to him. Can you spot what's missing from this excerpt?

In her lawsuit filed in 2015, Roberts — who now goes by her married name Virginia Giuffre — described how she became a victim of sex trafficking after Maxwell recruited her from a hotel where she worked.

The article was published in May of 2017. How could anyone -- on that date -- write about Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein without noting the far-from-insignificant fact that the "hotel" was actually the Mar-A-Lago? The piece name-drops Clinton but never mentions Trump -- even though Ghislaine Maxwell is well-known to be a long-time Trump friend, and even though an underaged Roberts was made to wear that outfit while in Trump's employ.

This kind of skewed journalism helps to explain the whys and hows of Google search result manipulation.

Rudy. Let's turn to a matter completely unrelated to the above: Would you hire Rudy Giuliana as a lawyer? Here's his latest: "Collusion is not a crime. It was over with before the election." So. After innumerable "No collusion!" tweets, Trump's lawyer now says "Yes, collusion."

Again I ask: Would you hire Rudy Giuliani as a lawyer?

“I can produce an enormous number of witnesses,” the former New York mayor told journalist George Stephanopoulos during an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” adding: “I can produce 20 witnesses to tell you what he was concerned about.”

Witnesses to what, you ask? To the alleged "fact" that Trump was more concerned about protecting his family than his campaign. Because Trump is sooooooo concerned about his family. Just ask Tiffany. Just ask the mother of his eldest children. Just ask his current wife, on whom he has repeatedly cheated.

Remember, Trump originally stated -- on video -- that he knew nothing about payments to women. In fact, Trump's current position seems to be that Cohen made these payments (fronting his own money!) without Der Donald's knowledge.

In other words, Rudy is stipulating that his client is a liar, and that a small battalion of people can prove him a liar.

Trump's latest tweeted meltdown may amuse you:

“Remember, Michael Cohen only became a ‘Rat’ after the FBI did something which was absolutely unthinkable & unheard of until the Witch Hunt was illegally started,” Trump tweeted Sunday. “They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE! Why didn’t they break into the DNC to get the Server, or Crooked’s office?”

Only mobsters use terms like "rat." The FBI search was conducted according to a legal court order; though unusual, it was hardly unprecedented. Trump himself recently claimed that Cohen acted as a PR man, not an attorney. The FBI did, in fact, gain physical access to Hillary Clinton's email server. The DNC's data was not on a server (neither Trump nor his acolytes seems to understand what a server is) and was handed over to the FBI. In earlier tweets, Trump seemed to be under the impression that a server had gone missing, which was nonsense. He has also claimed that John Podesta refused to hand over this non-existent DNC server, an assertion which becomes more bizarre the closer you look at it.

Trump's mind is a strange place: Once a wrongheaded idea finds lodging there, he won't evict it, no matter how many times it proves itself to be a bad tenant. I've met plenty of conspiracy buffs in my day, and most of them are pretty damned stubborn. But Trump has established himself, now and forever, as the world champion in the Lunkheaded Obstinacy contest.

His fans are almost as bad. But even his most obdurate followers must understand that Trump has had his appointees in control of the DOJ and the FBI for two years now. Similarly, Republicans have controlled the House seemingly forever, and they've mounted endless, endless investigations of Hillary Clinton.

And...nothing. They've come up with nothing.

If they had found anything solid with which to charge her, they would have done it long ago. The "Deep State" conspiracy theory (which is really just the latest version of the Illuminati conspiracy theory) is a laughable attempt to explain away the lack of a triable case.

Hillary is innocent. Completely innocent. So is Bill.

And Trump really is a thoroughly evil criminal. He was a crook when he was a Democrat, and he's a crook now. The worst I can say about the Clintons is that they once were on a first-name basis with Donald Trump.