It is very apparent that Christine Blasey Ford will not
be able to substantiate her accusation of rape by Judge Brett Kavanaugh when he
was 17 and she was 15. So what do the desperate Dems do? They find another
woman with an even sketchier memory than Ford’s who claims sexual assault by
waving his penis in front of her face when Freshmen at Yale.
I haven’t had the chance to digest all the facts on the
Ramirez accusation yet, ergo below are a couple of posts from relatively
Conservative sources (because I don’t trust lame-stream media sources and
because I know Dems lie).
JRH 9/24/18
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping
in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
*******************
JUDGE SEX CLAIMS
Who is Deborah Ramirez? Brett Kavanaugh’s Yale University
classmate who accused him of sexual misconduct
By Nicola Stow
September 24, 2018 3:57 pm
Who is Deborah Ramirez?
Deborah Ramirez, 53, was raised a "devout
catholic" in Connecticut, according to the New
Yorker.
She and Kavanaugh were classmates at Yale, where she studied
sociology and psychology. the pair graduated in 1987.
According to NBC News, Deborah is a board member and
volunteer at Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, an organisation
that helps domestic abuse victims.
She currently lives in Boulder, Colorado. … READ
THE REST
+++++++++++++
Yes, Let’s See The Emails That
Led To Deborah Ramirez’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh
By ALLAHPUNDIT
Posted at 1:31 pm on September 24, 2018
Here’s how the New
Yorker described Deborah Ramirez’s journey towards speaking up:
She was at first hesitant to speak
publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been
drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial
conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize
Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of
carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said
that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she
remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust
his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she
pushed him away…
Mark Krasberg, an assistant
professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico who was also a member
of Kavanaugh and Ramirez’s class at Yale, said Kavanaugh’s college
behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students
soon after Kavanaugh’s nomination. In one e-mail that Krasberg received in
September, the classmate who recalled hearing about the incident with Ramirez
alluded to the allegation and wrote that it “would qualify as a sexual
assault,” he speculated, “if it’s true.”
Emails? Tell us more about these emails, Jane Mayer:
The Senate Judiciary Committee's top democrat says the confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh should be postponed. This comes after the New Yorker published a woman's new allegation against Kavanaugh. @JaneMayerNYer wrote the article. She joins us: pic.twitter.com/F2ozUrE13C— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) September 24, 2018
Read the excerpt above again. After 35 years of
uncertainty, within the span of six days, Ramirez somehow recovered
her memories sufficiently to accuse a Supreme Court nominee of having sexually
assaulted her. And coincidentally, this memory recovery appeared to happen only
after her classmates had begun emailing about Kavanaugh’s time at Yale
following his nomination this summer. At some point, by Ronan Farrow’s own
admission, Senate Democrats got involved in the process.
Robert
VerBruggen raises a very obvious possibility: “These emails
would appear to be important evidence regarding how this ball got rolling. They
also may bear on the question of whether Ramirez’s memory closely matches the
anonymous source’s simply because they’re both the account that was circulating
while Ramirez was putting her memories together and contacting her former
classmates. Let’s see them.” Yeah, let’s. Let’s see if it was Ramirez or
someone else who first identified Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her.
Let’s see just how many gaps in Ramirez’s memory required filling in by others,
seemingly not one of whom actually witnessed the incident. Let’s
find out how many second-hand or even third-hand “witnesses” were needed to
help the victim herself “remember.”
The New York Times spent a lot of time looking for
first-hand witnesses over the past week. No
dice:
The Times had interviewed several
dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story,
and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself
contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told
some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who
exposed himself.
This sure sounds like a case of someone’s hazy memory being
reshaped after the fact through the power of suggestion. Ramirez may have
remembered that someone did something lewd to her once at a Yale party along
the lines of what she described to the New Yorker and then gradually became
convinced that it was Kavanaugh after classmates told her “I heard from a
friend of a friend at the time that it was Kavanaugh.” Or maybe it was less
innocent than that: One person who spoke to the New Yorker told them that they
thought Ramirez’s accusation “may have been politically motivated,” albeit
without hard evidence. Imagine how much suggestive power a plea from someone
attached to Senate Democrats in a high-stakes confirmation battle might have
had on the memory of a person who’s inclined for ideological reasons to support
Democrats anyway.
Ramirez isn’t the only person connected to the New Yorker
piece whose credibility is shaky. I can’t imagine what Ronan Farrow was
thinking attaching his name to such
a journalistic sh*tpile, lacking not only even one first-hand
witness to the incident but saddled with a victim whose memory he has every
reason to believe is unreliable. He and Jane Mayer seem fully aware that the
story is garbage too, per their careful framing of Ramirez’s accusation. It’s
not that it’s true or even probably true, you see, it’s that Democrats
are interested in it:
Because the claim was so flimsy, it **didn’t** meet the standards for a straight-up “BK did this” story—which is why it was framed as a “**Dems are investigating** if BK did this” piece. Now the Dems are saying, “OMG!! Look at this New Yorker story!! We need to investigate!!” https://t.co/Utssy3Vfae— George Conway (@gtconway3d) September 24, 2018
What a shrewd way to launder a smear into “news.”
Investigate it privately, leak to the New Yorker that you’re investigating it,
then cite their report that you’re investigating it privately as evidence of
its seriousness, worthy
of yet another delay in the confirmation vote. If you asked me
yesterday to name five big-name non-Fox mainstream reporters who are broadly
respected on the right, I would have told you “Jake Tapper, Ronan Farrow, and
uhhh…” That’s a testament to how compelling Farrow’s #MeToo reporting over the
past year has been: Even credentials like a stint on MSNBC and time spent
working for the Obama administration weren’t enough to spoil all the
credibility he earned among right-wingers from his reporting on Weinstein, Eric
Schneiderman, and Les Moonves. The scariest words any Republican heard over the
last week were “Ronan Farrow is looking into this” because you know what that
usually means — he has the goods. Multiple accusers, in all likelihood, and
even if not, at least multiple examples of contemporaneous corroboration from a
single accuser. Instead he produced Deborah “I think it happened, but maybe
not” Ramirez. The New York Times wouldn’t publish her claim, so thin was it.
But Farrow would.
I don’t think his motive here was primarily partisan,
although he obviously leans left. Weinstein and Schneiderman were both
Democratic power players and he had no qualms about nuking them from orbit.
More likely he and the New Yorker decided to lower their standards because the
hunt for a second Kavanaugh accuser is the hottest story in America right now.
Ramirez was under some form of pressure (intentional or not) from her classmates,
it seems, to confirm that Kavanaugh was the man who assaulted her. But Farrow
was under pressure too. He owns this beat. He’s the reporter
everyone is looking to for the smoking gun that Kavanaugh really is a sleaze.
And the clock is ticking. It’s possible that the Judiciary Committee will vote
to confirm Kavanaugh this week, which wouldn’t close any window on accusations
against him but might very well close the window on public interest in the
matter. Under normal circumstances, Farrow and Mayer would have kept the story
in a drawer and spent the next few weeks talking to sources while they tried to
substantiate Ramirez’s claim. Instead the two of them and the New Yorker threw
what they had at the wall, replete with some ass-covering “to be sure”
qualifiers. Maybe Kavanaugh did something to Ramirez, but maybe not — but
maybe! Ask yourself: What possible reason could there have been to rush this
half-baked story into print apart from either (a) trying to monetize intense
public interest in a topic with whatever you have available, or (b) derailing
Kavanaugh’s nomination? Are either of those reasons conducive to good,
responsible journalism?
Here he is this morning defending the report. He has enough
home runs already as a reporter that one strikeout in a big spot won’t damage
his general reputation but Republicans will probably never
look at him the same way.
“This is a fairly high level of evidence for this kind of a case …This exceeds the evidentiary basis we’ve used in the past in several cases that were found to be very credible,” says @RonanFarrow of his reporting on the new allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. pic.twitter.com/Pl2hBOYaoL— New Day (@NewDay) September 24, 2018
++++++++++++++++
KAVANAUGH AND LAST-MINUTE ACCUSATIONS
Democrats pull out all the stops.
By Joseph Klein
September 24, 2018
Democrats are pulling out all the stops and enabling
salacious last-minute accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge
Brett Kavanaugh in order to sink his candidacy. Now that Christine Blasey
Ford has finally agreed to testify this Thursday at an open hearing of the
Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her charge that Judge Kavanaugh sexually
assaulted her at a long-ago high school party, these new charges have suddenly
emerged from left field.
On Sunday, a former classmate from Judge Kavanaugh's
time at Yale accused the Supreme Court nominee of exposing himself to her
at a party. The New Yorker has just published an article written
by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, based on information that was reportedly sent
to at least four Democratic senators. The article recounted a claim by Deborah
Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s, concerning “a dormitory party
gone awry.” As the article acknowledged, however, “her memories contained gaps
because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.” The article
goes on to say that in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, Ms.
Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident
with certainty.” It was only after “six days of carefully assessing her
memories and consulting with her attorney” that Ms. Ramirez was suddenly able
to pinpoint Judge Kavanaugh as having committed an unsavory act, even though
she admitted being “foggy” at the time. The New Yorker article also noted that
the magazine “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was
present at the party.”
Meanwhile, the ever-present Michael Avenatti, attorney of
porn star Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he had information
from anonymous sources that Judge Kavanaugh and his friend had
"targeted" women with drugs and alcohol at parties to
facilitate "gang rape."
Haters of Judge Kavanaugh are turning the process of Senate
confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee into something worse than a travesty.
His opponents in the Senate have transformed their “advise and consent”
function into a campaign of no-holds barred character assassination.
While Judge Kavanaugh weathers these latest accusations, which he adamantly denies, his real test will be on Thursday, assuming that Christine Blasey Ford will follow through on her agreement to testify at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her attorneys stalled for a week before making the announcement that Ms. Ford would testify despite certain “unresolved” issues. Among the issues Ms. Ford’s attorneys have raised was the refusal of the committee to subpoena one of the purported witnesses, Mark Judge, who Ms. Ford reportedly claims was involved in the alleged incident, as well as “who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys."
While Judge Kavanaugh weathers these latest accusations, which he adamantly denies, his real test will be on Thursday, assuming that Christine Blasey Ford will follow through on her agreement to testify at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her attorneys stalled for a week before making the announcement that Ms. Ford would testify despite certain “unresolved” issues. Among the issues Ms. Ford’s attorneys have raised was the refusal of the committee to subpoena one of the purported witnesses, Mark Judge, who Ms. Ford reportedly claims was involved in the alleged incident, as well as “who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys."
A week has already gone by since Ms. Ford went public with her story in an interview
with the Washington Post while Ms. Ford and her attorneys stalled for time.
They raised one procedural issue after another while claiming that the
committee majority was “bullying” Ms. Ford. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Charles Grassley (R-I) has bent over backwards to accommodate Ms. Ford’s
preferred scheduling for her appearance. He extended the deadline several times
for her to come to a decision on whether to testify at all. He had offered
various options for her to testify publicly or privately or to be interviewed
by committee staff in her home state of California, whichever setting would
make her more comfortable. However, in Senator Grassley’s e-mail thanking Ms.
Ford for finally agreeing to a time certain for her testimony, Senator Grassley
correctly reminded her attorneys that “the committee determines which witnesses
to call, how many witnesses to call, and what order to call them and who will
question them. These are nonnegotiable.”
While the negotiations with Ms. Ford’s attorneys for her
testimony were underway, Democrats were sitting on the latest allegations,
ready to pounce as soon as Ms. Ford’s accusation was about to be heard. Some
Democrats are already using the Ramirez episode to push anew for a fresh FBI
investigation and to postpone Thursday’s scheduled hearing.
Ideally, if the Democrats cannot apply enough pressure to
force a withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination through their relentless
campaign of character assassination, they want to push any Senate votes until
after the midterm elections at the earliest. Then they will claim that the
newly elected senators should be involved in the confirmation decision. In the
meantime, Judge Kavanaugh’s adversaries in the Senate, the mainstream media and
progressive circles continue to bludgeon Judge Kavanaugh in the court of public
opinion. All of their stratagems are an obvious attempt to buy time in order to
persuade any wavering senators that Judge Kavanaugh is too tainted by sexual
assault charges – whether proven or not - to sit on the Supreme Court.
Proof does not matter to those wanting to bring Judge
Kavanaugh down at any cost. Regarding Ms. Ford’s accusation, they know that the
proof so far is non-existent, aside from Ms. Ford’s own assertions contained in
her confidential letter given to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member
of the Judiciary Committee, last July, and in her Washington Post interview.
While a redacted version of Ms. Ford’s letter has
been published, Senator Feinstein has refused to date to give even Senator
Grassley a copy of the completely unredacted version. The FBI has already
conducted 6 background checks, no federal crime is alleged, and there is no
forensic evidence to investigate after 30 years at a site that Ms. Ford cannot
even identify.
What we do know so far tends to undercut the credibility of
Ms. Ford’s accusation. Ms. Ford cannot corroborate her decades-old charge of
sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. Whatever corroboration Ms. Ford was
hoping for from “witnesses” she claimed were at the alleged party is
non-existent. The individuals she reportedly named in her unredacted confidential
letter given to Senator Feinstein have either denied being at such a party or
do not recollect what Ms. Ford has alleged. Moreover, by her own admission to
the Washington Post, Ms. Ford “said she does not remember some key details of
the incident.” She does not remember, for example, where it happened, how the
party came together in the first place, or how she got home after the alleged
incident. She believes the alleged incident occurred during the summer of 1982,
but reportedly could not be more precise on the day or even the month of the
party.
Afraid that Ms. Ford’s sexual assault allegation could be
readily challenged and anxious to establish some sort of pattern of sexual
misconduct beyond this single alleged incident, the Kavanaugh haters have latched
onto Ms. Ramirez’s story.
The New York Times published an op-ed column last week by a psychiatrist, Richard A.
Friedman, who cited neurological science to conclude that Ms.
Ford’s claim that she has “a vivid memory of an attack that took place when she
was 15” is “credible.” The reason, he wrote, is that “memories formed under the
influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a sexual
assault — are indelible in the way that memories of a routine day are not.” The
only problem with Dr. Friedman’s thesis is that Ms. Ford has apparently
forgotten such key details surrounding the alleged sexual assault as when and
where it happened and how she got home. Moreover, when Ms. Ford finally told
someone about the incident in any detail some 30 years later in 2012, during a
couples therapy session with her husband, she did not name Judge Kavanaugh
specifically, according to the therapist’s notes that Ms. Ford had provided to
the Washington Post in connection with her interview. The Washington Post
reported that the therapist’s notes it reviewed “do not mention Kavanaugh’s
name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist
boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members
of society in Washington.’”
Ms. Ramirez’s story is even less credible. It took an
attorney and six days of very belated reflection to help revive her memory of an
incident she claimed happened while she herself was very drunk.
Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), one of Judge Kavanaugh’s
fiercest critics who told men to “shut up” regarding Ms. Ford’s allegations,
said she doubts Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility because of “how he approaches his
cases.” Aside from mischaracterizing the constitutional textualist reasoning
underlying Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions, she is saying that she does not believe
Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of the sexual misconduct allegations lodged against
him because of the opinions he wrote that she does not like. Such circular
“reasoning” would be amusing if it were not so emblematic of what one writer called “Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome." Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is also suffering from the same syndrome. She said
Thursday regarding Ms. Ford: "I believe her because she is telling the
truth and you know it by her story."
Ms. Ford’s supporters are exploiting the “Me Too” movement
to declare Judge Kavanaugh guilty simply because Ms. Ford is a woman who has
made what they call, without any corroborating evidence to date, a “credible”
charge. The same would presumably be the case for Ms. Ramirez. They argue that
since the Senate Judiciary Committee is not a criminal judicial trial, but
rather a legislative hearing for confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, the
normal burden of proof shouldered by the accuser should not apply. Judge
Kavanaugh should have to prove that he is not guilty, they are in effect
insisting. This is another case of Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the normal burden
on the prosecution in a criminal case - to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt - is not applicable regarding the charge against Judge
Kavanaugh since he is not a defendant in a criminal trial. However, that should
not flip the burden of proof onto Judge Kavanaugh altogether. Judge Kavanaugh
is being subjected to charges of a criminal nature that could not only deprive
him of a seat on the Supreme Court for which he is otherwise eminently
qualified. Ms. Ford’s unsubstantiated accusation can completely destroy Judge
Kavanaugh’s life by causing irreparable damage to his reputation for integrity
and good character and to his career, which he has built up during decades of
public service. His family’s lives have been completely upended. Placing the
burden on Judge Kavanaugh to prove that he was not involved in an
uncorroborated incident from years ago, about which even his accuser does not
recall key details, turns the fundamental constitutional principle of due
process upside down. Ms. Ford should have the burden to prove her accusations by
at least a preponderance of all the evidence presented.
This charade must come to an end. No more extensions for Ms.
Ford to come forward and testify. If Ms. Ford does not follow through with her
agreement to testify in an open Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this
Thursday and do so upon the conditions set by the committee, she should go home
while the committee proceeds to an immediate vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s
nomination. If Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh do testify, the senators deciding
on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as well as the American public following
the testimony must remember one cardinal rule. In a nation guided by fairness
and law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, many of Judge
Kavanaugh’s haters have thrown that rule aside.
If Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled as a result of the
smears and character assassination, President Trump should immediately nominate
someone on his short list such as Amy Coney Barrett and the Senate Republican
majority should then push through the new nominee’s confirmation as soon as
possible. Delay is not an option.
Joseph Klein
is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global
Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal
Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.
++++++++++++++++++++
Critics condemn New Yorker over
uncorroborated Kavanaugh story: 'Lazy at best, slimy at worst'
By Brian Flood
September 24, 2018
The New Yorker's sketchy report that Supreme Court nominee
Brett Kavanaugh may have exposed himself to a college classmate decades ago has
media critics asking if the prestigious magazine cares more about getting a
story or getting it right.
The article, headlined “Senate Democrats Investigate a New
Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from the Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years,” was
co-bylined by Pulitzer Prize winner Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. It details a
claim by Debbie Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh sexually harassed her during a Yale
University party.
Yet, beneath the story's explosive thesis lie substantive
seeds of doubt and a complete lack of corroboration that prompted howling from
a chorus of media critics.
It's worth noting that Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer could not confirm "with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party." It's also worth noting that this disclaimer was buried to the *10th paragraph* of the Deborah Ramirez report. Lazy at best, slimy at worst.— Joseph A. Wulfsohn (@JosephWulfsohn) September 24, 2018
I often like Ronan Farrow’s work, but this New Yorker piece is not good journalism. Starting with this: pic.twitter.com/lkMlCV5Hii— Jedediah Bila (@JedediahBila) September 24, 2018
Timeline:— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) September 24, 2018
•She didn't know who it was for 35 years
•Kavanaugh was nominated
•She met with Dem lawyer for 6 days to "assess her memories"
•Accused Kavanaugh
•She still isn't even sure it was him
•All the witnesses deny it
•Kavanaugh denies it
•Other outlets passed on story
"After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney..." I mean come on. https://t.co/zhnJadFjjW— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 24, 2018
“It's worth noting that Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer could
not confirm ‘with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.’
It's also worth noting that this disclaimer was buried to the ‘10th paragraph’
of the Deborah Ramirez report. Lazy at best, slimy at worst,” Mediaite
columnist Joseph Wulfsohn wrote.
National Review editor Charles C.W. Cooke penned a column
calling the piece “grossly irresponsible,” which slams The New Yorker for publishing the
story.
“I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible
piece of ‘journalism’ in a major outlet,” Cooke wrote.“There is no scaffolding
beneath this story."
Jedediah Bila wrote that she is typically a fan of
Farrow but his latest report is “not good
journalism.”
“New Yorker piece doesn’t even confirm that Kavanaugh was at
the party, contains an admission of memory gaps by Ramirez due to intoxication,
and has numerous people on the record disputing her claim. Once again, I’m
awaiting facts: evidence, corroboration, possible testimony,” Bila wrote.
@brianstelter How in the world is THAT the key graf? Not the graf where she *still* isn't sure it was Kavanaugh that did that to her? Not the graf where the 6 people, incl her college best friend, she said would confirm her story do the opposite? pic.twitter.com/NFq6t088MS— Karol Markowicz (@karol) September 24, 2018
The story has been criticized for admitting a lawyer spent
six days assessing Ramirez’s memory, failing to confirm Kavanaugh actually
attended the party, burying the fact that the New Yorker couldn’t confirm the
story with witnesses and relies on decades-old hearsay.
“Ronan Farrow, Jane Mayer and the New Yorker ran with a
story where the accuser still, today, right now, can not say that the person
she is accusing actually is the one who did what she is alleging. IS THAT
NUTS,” New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz wrote in
a series of tweets mocking the story.
“The New Yorker piece is a terrible piece of journalism and
it really seems like Farrow and Mayer know it,” Markowicz wrote.
“I can't remember the last time I was this angry about something in politics.
This is disgusting.”
“I have no words for how sickened I am by how the left and
the establishment media are weaponizing non-credible sexual assault claims to
destroy a human being,” Daily Caller media editor Amber Athey tweeted.
Syndicated radio host Dana Loesch questioned if Farrow --
who helped launch the #MeToo movement with his reporting on disgraced Hollywood
mogul Harvey Weinstein – was
given a byline to add credibility to the report. Erick
Erickson echoed Loesch, saying the piece doesn’t live up to Farrow’s pristine
reputation.
“All of these New Yorker stories about Kavanaugh seem as if
they're Mayer stories that Farrow was added to for credibility. Because they're
not up to his standard sourcing. Hell, they're not really even
sourced,” Erickson wrote.
Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron
York sarcastically
noted that the latest allegation “has it all.”
“Accuser was drunk. ’Significant gaps' in her memory,
recovered recently with help of lawyer. Memories fuzzy all 'round. Some say
never happened. Accuser 'never described incident until Brett's SCOTUS
nomination,’” York wrote.
While many of the piece’s critics are conservative pundits,
several mainstream media members have also questioned the report. “CBS This
Morning” co-host Gayle King asked Mayer if she was ok knowing that Ramirez
admitted that she had gaps in her memory from the night in question.
Where did the corroborating witness get the information from? -@JDickerson— Norah O'Donnell🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) September 24, 2018
“He remembers it from–he was in the same dorm .. and he remembers it clearly” -@JaneMayerNYer
But did he see it? -@JDickerson
“No. As I’ve said, he heard it from someone who was there.” -@JaneMayerNYer pic.twitter.com/h9dxDiPJeX
The New Yorker should have scrapped this story at this moment just like the Washington Post, New York Times, and NBC all did. pic.twitter.com/sfsBLhky58— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) September 24, 2018
“The story is very transparent about what she does and
doesn’t remember,” Mayer insisted.
The CBS morning show further pressed Mayer, and Fox News
contributor Stephen Miller called
the exchange “embarrassing” after co-host Norah O’Donnell tweeted a clip.
The New York Times wasn’t as comfortable as Mayer, Farrow
and The New Yorker -- admitting it couldn't find anyone with firsthand
knowledge of the claim.
“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the
past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with
firsthand knowledge," the Times wrote in a story that followed the New Yorker report.
"Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they
recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr.
Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”
“So it was too shaky for the New York Times, but The New
Yorker went with it. Very telling,” Fox News’ Britt Hume wrote.
Pundit Steve Cortes wrote that the “sham” story “couldn't even
meet the low standards” of the Times.
Despite all the criticism the story has received, Farrow and
Mayer spent Monday morning defending their work with a variety of media
appearances.
_____________________
Ramirez: I Think it was
Kavanaugh Who Waved His Penis in My Face
John R. Houk
© September 24, 2018
___________________
Yes, Let’s See The Emails
That Led To Deborah Ramirez’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh
___________________
KAVANAUGH AND LAST-MINUTE
ACCUSATIONS
Critics condemn New Yorker
over uncorroborated Kavanaugh story: 'Lazy at best, slimy at worst'
This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network,
LLC. All rights reserved.
[Blog Editor: In full
disclosure I did not seek permission from Fox. That portion of this post will
be removed upon request.]
No comments:
Post a Comment