Liberal double standards are on display at the Washington Post over the Roy Moore hit piece that attempts to make a case that the U.S. Senate hopeful needs to be removed from consideration over allegations of sexual improprieties that are four decades old.
The defenders of the Post are quick to push back against critics who cite the suspicious timing of the story as well as point out that the incident allegedly took place in 1979.
So what if it was 38-years ago? So sayeth the Post’s flunkies and liberals out for scalps, they are just as relevant today as they ever were.
That, however, flies in the face of the paper which in 2009 featuring an editorial by neocon banshee Anne Applebaum that it just wasn’t fair to persecute the poor pedophile Roman Polanski for something that happened so long ago.
Pulitzer Prize winner Glenn Greenwald who reported on the NSA contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden pointed this out in a Monday morning tweet:
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 13, 2017
According to Applebaum in her piece “The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski”:
Of all nations, why was it Switzerland — the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators — that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre — though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.
Here are some of the facts: Polanski’s crime — statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl — was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.
I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren’t famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
By Anne Applebaum | September 27, 2009; 3:13 PM ET
The column was amazingly still up although it will probably disappear very quickly now that word is out but here is a screenshot.
With the left it is always do as we say, pay no attention to what we do.