In the past week, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has been chastised by the media for being obsessed with the accusations of sexual impropriety alleged by several women.

There are several issues here.  One is that these women are all of a sudden coming out of the woodwork one month before the general election.  One may ask: if they were so injured by Trump's actions, why they didn't go to the newspapers sooner?  If these actions happened 10, 20, or more years ago, why all of a sudden, when Trump is running for president, did their consciences motivate them to report his behavior?  After all, Trump was in the public eye for decades.  They could have given their stories over the 14-year tenure of his TV show, but they didn't.

The other question that arises is, if these stories were so important, and these women didn't have the courage to reveal them until one month before the election, does this mean that if Trump never ran for president, they would never have complained about his behavior?  This indicates a link between these stories and a strategy to discredit Trump's presidential campaign.

There is a more subtle tactic here, a dirty tricks strategy Democrats love to perpetrate: the tactic of creating a controversy or chaotic situation, then blaming the victim – in this case, Donald Trump – for responding to it. 

This is revealed by the way the media describe the situation.  With the Trump touching allegations, there are two steps involved.  One was the printing of the stories in the NYT and, secondly, Trump's reaction at campaign rallies, calling the women who made these allegations "liars" and blaming the media for publicizing them one month before the election.

Some of these stories have been discredited.  They have yet to be thoroughly investigated.  But to discuss these details is still to get caught up in the fray.

The nature of the fray, and how the fray was set up by the media, is the most interesting phenomenon: that they are helping Hillary.  Here's the proof: when Trump called these women liars, he was pounced upon by the media for allowing himself to get distracted, for straying away from the focus of his campaign, the important issues of jobs, national security, and the economy.  But if Trump is wrong to bring this distraction, the voter may ask if the NYT and CNN were also wrong to bring these distractions into the election in the first instance.  Should this be thought of as good reporting, another example of the exercise of a double standard, or is there another strategy involved? 

That there may be another strategy was suggested by some clandestine video recordings made by a group called Project Veritas Action.  Members of this group videoed two Democratic Party campaign operatives, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, and these operatives admitted that the violence at Trump campaign rallies, which was picked up by the media as signs that Trump is instigating racial hatred toward immigrants and minorities, was deliberately staged.  They had people planted at those rallies who would start shouting, pushing, and shoving, creating physical confrontations.  And just by coincidence, there was always someone standing nearby with a video camera, with fully charged batteries and a focused lens, ready to capture the pushing and shoving going on between somebody holding a Trump sign and a Hillary agitator.

DNC operatives admitted to setting up these false scenarios of violence.  These trips were organized by a group called Democracy Partners.  But the mainstream media don't show the videos made by Project Veritas Action.  They do not appear on big media websites. 

So bad behavior was used to set up Trump as the cause of the bad behavior.  This issue then becomes, was the NYT's use of the touching allegations, and the subsequent criticism of Trump's reaction, a similarly set up event?  Did the media intentionally agitate Trump with these touching allegations, then condemn him for responding?  Everyone who watches a football or basketball game sees that occasionally someone pushes another player, then the player pushes back, and the player who pushed back is always tagged for committing a personal foul.

The recent Wikileaks emails prove that the Hillary campaign has been involved in a conspiracy to discredit Trump as well as Bernie Sanders.  And the emails further indicate that there was correspondence between the Hillary campaign and so-called journalists who were involved with the debates.  Someone gave Donna Brazile a heads-up to some questions Hillary would be asked.  So in the areas of physical confrontations at rallies and giving Hillary an advantage at debates, we now know there is evidence of collusion, some of it illegal.

From now on, the media should discuss the initial, instigating action, not Trump's reaction to it.  If they only discuss Trump's reaction, they look like willing participants, just as Hillary's operatives at Trump's rallies were willing participants.

If the media can't sort this out, the voters will have to sort it out for themselves.  Voters now have a right to be suspicious about the allegations of violence at Trump rallies, since there never was violence at a Hillary rally or a Bernie Sanders rally – only at Trump rallies.  And now there is proof that the violence at Trump rallies was set up by Hillary operatives.

It will be interesting to see if from now on, the media say that the NYT and CNN are dragging the campaign into the dirt, taking the low road, by putting touching and other personal  allegations into the headlines.  But they won't.  This proves they are part of it.  They won't even discuss this as a possibility; they don't want voters to give a critical look to the touching allegations.  They don't want to smarten them up.  If they don't report this viewpoint, that they are responsible for this lowball campaign strategy, it proves they are part of it.  They don't want to give up their tactic.  It's a form of a scam, a con.  And one rule of the con artists is never to give up the con. 

It will be very interesting if Trump and Melania sue the NYT, to see if their lawyers get hold of emails between the NYT and the Hillary campaign.  During a court case, each side has the right  to force the other, through discovery, to turn over all available documents, including cell phone records and emails. 

Eighty years ago, the media and big politicians had a "gentlemen's agreement" not to discuss personal behavior.  The liberal writer David Halberstam documented this.  Now they not only report on it, but create it out of thin air, to support only one party.