Just as Bush knew deep within his gut that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hording weapons of mass destruction, so too does Blow instinctively know that Russia has meddled in the American electoral process. Despite the lack of direct proof, "this is not a debatable issue. This is not a witch hunt. This has happened."
No matter that "we are still not conclusively able to connect the dots on the question of whether there was any coordination or collusion between members of Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians who interfered in our election to benefit him, but those dots do continue to multiply at an alarming rate."
With not a hint of irony, Blow complains that all the subterfuge, deflection, finger-pointing and misdirection are preventing liberal pundits like him from finding within the dot pattern whatever it is they want to see. They know, deep within their guts, that criminal collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is there. It just has to be.
Therefore, they fight subterfuge with innuendo, misdirection with distraction. RussiaGate is duly exposed as a hall of mirrors.
"There is something there, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is," Blow jokingly continues. "And unlike some others, I find no glee in the prospect of something amiss."
How quickly Blow pivots from knowing deep within his gut that "this is not a debatable issue" to it being the mere prospect of something not quite right. If he is that un-gleeful about his innuendo-spreading, I'd recommend an immediate appointment with a sympathetic professional.
Perhaps Blow could begin with a therapeutic reading of philosopher W.K. Clifford who wrote that "it is wrong, always and everywhere, to believe anything on insufficient evidence." Either that, or take a remedial crash course in Journalism 101.
As Stephen Law writes in the philosophy journal TPM Online, people like Bush and Blow who "just know" things despite possessing no evidence to back up their assertions are using the same technique employed by so-called psychics who claim to commune with the dead on a regular basis. They get away with it, because of course there is always the possibility that they are correct, that they can see things that mere mortals cannot. If Bush and Blow sincerely believe in what they say, then who are we to doubt their sincerity and their good faith?
So as to further deflect rational thinking, Blow next complains about the "prurience" of the content-consuming American public. Unlike the high intellectual capacity of his own instincts, the gut of the rabble is not prudent enough to digest innuendo. They simply lack the intestinal fortitude to believe in the cult of Hillary Really Won This Election.
Having duly instilled doubt and confusion into the brain-centered minds of his gutless readers, Blow's editorial gaslighting finally comes to a blessed end. He feebly attempts to cover his own rear end as he smarmily admits:
Charles Blow seems to be suffering from a very painful case of mental constipation. He has imbibed so many undigestible weasel-worded dots that the "mounting suggestions of impropriety" seem stuck in the middle of his mind-gut. He offers neither evidence nor solutions. All he can emit in his column is one more futile Clintonoid blast of editorial gas.At this point this is all conjecture. First we must clear the hurdle of finding out exactly what happened and who was involved. That could take months, if not years.We must now decide how to process the mounting suggestions of impropriety.
As I wrote in my published Times comment on his piece,
There's plenty of real, solid evidence against Trump, evidence that in a just society would have sentenced him to prison decades ago. But rather than admit that he is merely the end-product of a corrupt political system, that he's a lot like those too big to fail corrupt financial institutions that get bailed out time and time again, we pursue McCarthyism in the name of neoliberal predatory capitalism.
Enough with instinctive journalism. It's time not only for a gut check but for a reality check.