I hate that I am tempted to write this every day now, often several times a day, but how can anyone of good character and admirable values continue to support a political party, whatever its claimed beliefs are, that behaves this way?

Yesterday EA discussed the desperate Democratic Party tactic of picking 19 photos (out of thousands) that showed a young Donald Trump (and other progressive hate-objects, like Alan Dershowitz and Steve Bannon) in the company of sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein when he was known as just another billionaire on the celebrity party circuit or in the company of unidentified women. These were described in some of the Axis media as “bombshell” and “explosive” photos, though it is unclear when and where most of the photos were taken, many of them had been publicly released before, and none of them suggested any criminal, illicit or even unethical activity.

Despite that, political hack Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) had the gall to say, “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world. We will not rest until the American people get the truth.”

He might as well have added, “And we won’t stop lying about this phony Epstein scandal either until we Get Trump!”

Today Professor Jonathan Turley, a one-time Democrat who is obviously disgusted with Democrats, pointed out that what his former party has done with the photos is a classic example of a tort known as “false light,” where true photos are presented in a misleading and harmful way to damage a reputation or otherwise harm an individual via innuendo . It is essentially photographic deceit. He writes,

The photos of Trump show women with their faces obscured as “possible” victims of human trafficking with underaged girls. Even a photo with a single woman on what appears to be a plane is blacked out. There is no context offered, but the blacked-out faces suggest that these women have to be protected as possible victims…However, the real question of false light is the inclusion with the other photos selected for release. The Democrats included pictures of sex toys, novelty condom boxes with Trump’s face (saying “I’m Huuuge”) and even Epstein in a bathtub. The combination is meant to make the other photos seem more sinister, even though we have no information on where they were taken or who the women are in the images. Just Xs….

Under a false light claim, a person can sue when a publication or image implies something that is both highly offensive and untrue. Where defamation deals with false statements, false light deals with false implications….The standard California jury instruction asks the jury if “the false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position” and whether “there is clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant] knew the disclosure would create a false impression … or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.”… Congress is protected from such lawsuits, and even without those protections, it is unlikely that this case would be viable as a tort action. However, the underlying concept is still relevant. The Democrats were suggesting that there was a cover-up of Trump’s (and others’) involvement in these crimes. They have not produced such evidence. They can, however, release images in a way that suggests such untoward or even illegal conduct.

One tangible result of the false light photos has been to attract attention to one of the few women in the photos Democrats left visible, since she was obviously not underage. It is retired Belgian super-model Ingrid Seynhaeve in the photo that led off yesterday’s post on the selective photo dump. The Daily Mirror reveals that the shot was taken at a Victoria’s Secret party before that sexy women’s wear company crashed and burned, the victim of post-#MeToo insanity and the descent of The Great Stupid over the land.

So that phto wasn’t even proof of Trump attending an Epstein party: he and Epstein were invited to the same corporate party, and were talking with the same, beautiful, age-of-consent model…

How disturbing. How disturbing that we have a major political party so devoid of respect for the public and its duty to democracy that it engages in such slimy tactics. How disturbing that all my lawyer friends whose Trump Derangement causes them to rant daily about imagined outrages by the nation’s President lack the self-awareness and integrity to condemn this kind of conduct by the President’s political enemies.

It’s also disturbing that I know with 100% certainty that if I dared to issue a Facebook post shaming these once-competent lawyers for their ethics blindness, I would forfeit their friendships and that of about 2/3 of the rest of my social media friends, though my relationship with none of them are or ever have been based on politics or ideological positions.

But I am getting closer to crossing that line every day.