The NY Times: another day, another Kavanaugh smear
You gotta say this about the NY Times: they keep trying. If one lie [*see NOTE below] doesn’t work, they come up with another similar lie and hope that the second lie makes the first lie seem more true. Or is it the first lie making the second lie seem more true?
Two lies do not a truth make, however, even if the lies “echo” each other, like the one about supposed party-animal Kananaugh and Deborah Ramirez back at Yale and the one about supposed party-animal Kananaugh and some other female back at Yale.
I’m not wasting time writing about the details. Just read the link I already gave. Or read this. Or read both. (I dealt with the initial Kavanaugh/Ramirez charges connected with lie #1 when they were first leveled, in case you’re interested.)
In the unlikely event that a person had previously retained any lingering doubts that not only has the Times lost all claim to political objectivity but also to rudimentary journalistic standards of any kind other than “get the right!”, the publication of this story should remove such doubts.
So, why did the Times do this? Is it just part of their post-Mueller-Report grieving process? Perhaps. But the Times editors and writers also realize quite well that if they repeat a lie often enough, many people believe it. If you were to take a poll right now of how many Democrats or Democrat-leaners believe Kavanaugh to be guilty of at least one sexual assault and perhaps several, I bet you’d have a large percentage of that group.
These stories about Kavanaugh also serve notice on all future nominees of Trump’s to the Supreme Court (or any Trump nominee to anything, for that matter), especially anyone who might be nominated to SCOTUS to replace any of the liberal judges, that he or she will be the target of relentless defamatory assault.
Oh, and one more thing: most of the 2020 Democratic candidates are eagerly jumping on the bandwagon of “Kavanaugh needs to be impeached because of these allegations!,” much to their own continuing disgrace.
[* NOTE: I’m well aware that there were not just two false sexual allegations made against Kavanaugh. There were many. But the two that “echo” each other the most are the Ramirez allegations and the recent ones, both concerning parties at Yale and what for want of a better word I’ll call exhibitionism. Those are the allegations this particular post calls lie #1 and lie #2.]
If people want Kavanaugh impeached, shouldn’t they also want Harris impeached. How long were she and Willie together? How much taxpayer money did she get for doing nothing?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/democratic-candidates-call-for-brett-kavanaugh-impeachment-after-latest-sexual-assault-allegations
According to the Vanity Fair wing of the DNC steno pool, six Democratic candidates want Kavanaugh impeached.
Quite the choice crowd who pay your per diem, Manju.
The Big Lie works, at least to a point.
Here’s a tweet from Jeffrey Toobin, another Harvard Law grad from a totally tuned-in media family. He is now a big legal analyst for CNN and the “New Yorker.” He put his elite shoulder to the Big Lie wheel:
@JeffreyToobin
22h22 hours ago
Forty percent of the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct. #SCOTUS
https://twitter.com/JeffreyToobin/status/1173331982689996802
This is how you get more Trump.
huxley:
“Credibly accused,” eh? Toobin should know better than to use that stupid and purposely misleading phrase (see also this). But Toobin is just a hack.
But Toobin is just a hack.
neo: Agreed.
But he was editor of the Harvard Law Review and received a Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law (sound familiar?). He is now one of the most prominent legal pundits in the country.
How does this happen? Fool or knave or both?
1. Neo makes excellent points. Rush made one today. This smear just shows how desperate the Dems are. They know they can’t beat Trump with their current slate of candidates so they have to cook up stuff to *maybe* get women all fired up to vote for the Dem. War on women.
2. Neo is correct. My insane leftwing SF brother posts on a leftwing blog. He also tweets. When the latest lie was published by the NYT, he re-tweeted a post he wrote about a month ago. His theory? The Dems can get Kavanaugh on perjury if only they can get ahold of the tapes of the moot court board. In his insane theory, we will learn that “Devil’s Triangle” has a sexual meaning and Kavanaugh was lying about that and other things.
Now understand that just like Brett Kavanaugh, my brother went to a Jesuit high school. He knows how boys in high school act and talk.
So, yes the insane Dem base (redundant, I know) totally believes CBF and thinks Brett lied repeatedly, under oath, to the committee and federal investigators. Hence, impeachment.
3. Trump is right. Kavanaugh should sue the NYT and Max Stier. This “story” has to satisfy the “reckless disregard of the truth” standard. The alleged victim says she doesn’t recall this. She told the NYT “reporters” this multiple times. Stier hates the GOP. He was on the Clinton team during the impeachment. Kavanaugh was on the other side. Stier’s wife was nominated for a federal judgeship but her nomination expired.
The incident didn’t happen. Stier has no credibility. But the NYT ran the smear and didn’t disclose these material facts. That’s libel even of a public figure.
These people must be destroyed or this never stops.
And when Brett wins his lawsuit, he makes a gift of the new proceeds to Georgetown Prep and the Catholic girls high schools in the DC area.
huxley:
Ideology is how it happened. As to “fool or knave” it’s both, I believe. I think Toobin convinces himself that what he’s saying makes sense, but what drives him to think that is his ideology and dedication to the cause.
Unless the victims of these made up charges sue, they’ll never stop, and–given the leftward bent of our legal system–the objective may not even be to achieve an often unlikely win, as much as it is to informally “punish” those who have thrown out this garbage, by forcing them to have to pay out large legal fees, and to have to make all of the preparations for court appearances, and to take the time to defend themselves in court–see the playbook of Special Counsel Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.
I saw a TV clip of China Joe talking about the division in America and how he – a shill for the Chinese and Iranians – will bring us together.
Not going to happen. This is war. This latest attack on Kavanaugh is part of the war. The Dems must be totally defeated at the Electoral College and in the House. My biggest fear is cheating at the ballot box in swing states.
We can’t agree with these people about anything: health care, race relations, CAGW, abortion etc.
Interesting. Supreme Court Justice sues at law, appeal rises through the courts to the SCOTUS, all the Justices recuse because they are either a party to the suit or work with a party to the suit, and . . . ?
The NYT is now a criminal enterprise. Defamation felons.
A.G. Sulzberger – Vegan Thug, and his major-domo Dean B, are two vicious capos.
Utter scum.
Max Stier maybe has made two critical mistakes. He assumes Kavanaugh won’t sue him. His other mistake is that he’s not a woman. Suing CBF creates the whole “war on women” problem even though she is a liar.
Max would be destroyed during discovery and at trial. Totally exposed as a partisan hack seeking revenge.
And, oh, would I love to see the comments (via discovery) of the book and NYT editors on this clearly libelous story.
And in answer to adferr, I think then the Court of Appeals opinion would stand. There is no absolute right to review by SCOTUS.
Help out Cornhead, filling in the SC vote procedure on whether certiorari is granted? Wouldn’t the proximate interests even in that decision be called into question as of justice?
There is no absolute right to cert. It is a matter of discretion. Only a tiny percentage of all federal cases that even apply for cert are heard.
If the case was decided under existing precedent, there is no need for SCOTUS review. My cursory review of the facts and law leads me to conclude that Kavanaugh can win even under existing law.
Of course, the Left will scream that this is a political case. Yes, it is but they started it and they aren’t immune from civil lawsuits simply because they are partisan hacks.
Hillary used this to great advantage. She set up her private server, destroyed evidence and mishandled classified info because she knew she would never be prosecuted. Banana Republic stuff. And she was right with Jim Comey in charge.
This has got to stop. Whether Kavanaugh has the stomach to go through with this is another matter.
From the NY Post, “So no corroboration, no evidence, no victim and no witness (only hearsay of one), but the “paper of record” is perfectly fine with defaming Kavanaugh all over again.
By the way, in the book, the authors gratuitously name the woman, including a new surname she uses, even though she doesn’t want to talk — and the woman’s friends the reporters did speak to say she doesn’t remember anything. Why shame her? Because she refuses to back up the reporters’ agenda?”
Thanks Cornhead. It’s just an interesting dealio. And I certainly don’t know, no, I absolutely don’t know of any precedent for such a situation.
Retired federal judge Lyle E. Strom taught a trial practice class at Creighton. Great judge. Great guy. His daughter was in my class. I tried two cases in front of him.
He told students that every trial is a contest in credibility. Given the fact that he tried or heard probably 1,000 cases he knows what he is talking about.
So the credibility contest would be Stier v. Kavanaugh. I think Kavanaugh wins that going away. Kavanaugh’s risk is that he might lose. And he has to fight with these loons for another four years. He’s got a lifetime job.
The next Trump nominee better be a saint. The Dems will stop at nothing to destroy a person.
His theory? The Dems can get Kavanaugh on perjury if only they can get ahold of the tapes of the moot court board.
Cornhead: Last week Rush Limbaugh argued that Nadler’s impeachment effort (yes, he’s still pushing) is to make enough noise to get an Obama judge somewhere to force release of Trump’s tax returns. And then, maybe, Democrats can find somethinng better to hang an impeachment on.
I think these smears are also squid ink to obscure the upcoming counter-investigations of the DOJ/FBI on RussiaGate.
According to Legal Insurrection, “Letters of support for Ford poured out in September 2018. These came from former high school classmates, colleagues at Stanford University, and her neighbors in Palo Alto.
One letter started, “As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family…,” but none of her blood relatives signed it. Her husband’s family signed the letter.”
China Joe knew about this spying on the Trump campaign. When is he going to be asked that question.
Very good piece at Commentary on this — two points that jumped out:
–Stier is a member in good standing with the technocratic elite, appearing on Aspen Ideas Festival panels and, as a lawyer, representing the interests of Hillary Clinton during her husband’s own impeachment scandal. And yet he refuses to speak publicly about his allegation (Pogrebin could not get a single source on the record to corroborate his claim). Grassley’s chief counsel for the confirmation hearings said, “To the best of his knowledge, Grassley’s office has no record of Stier reaching out with his allegation.”
–In her review of Pogrebin’s and Kelly’s book, which will appear in next Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, NPR’s Hanna Rosin notes, “In the end, they turn up no smoking gun, no secret confession, no friend who comes forth to say Kavanaugh was lying all this time.”
Since I read the Molly Hemingway book, I may well buy The Education of Brett Kavanaugh so I can savage it in an AMZN review. And then sell the book on AMZN. Net cost, $3.00.
As noted above, Stier has a huge grudge against Kavanaugh and the GOP. Kavanaugh worked for Starr during the Bill Clinton impeachment and Stier was on the other side. And his wife’s nomination to the federal bench never got a hearing. Bias.
It looks like Stier’s wife is now hearing divorces and criminal cases in DC instead of being a federal judge. Yeah, he’s mad.
The next Trump nominee better be a saint. The Dems will stop at nothing to destroy a person.
Chuckles. They got someone almost as clean as a hound’s tooth last time. And what happens? A man he shared an apartment with for a period of four months in 1983 appeared out of the woodwork to issue animadversions of very dubious veracity about him. At least that man one can verify crossed paths with him. The world spent weeks processing the claims of a woman who could not provide one piece of evidence she ever met him.
What’s amazing about all this is that partisan Democrats swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. The next time I hear a Democrat (or my obnoxious Paulbot shirt-tail) say, “Geez, it’s really imprudent to pay much attention to this sort of thing” will be the first. The asininity goes all the way down.
Cornhead on September 16, 2019 at 3:43 pm: “The next Trump nominee better be a saint. The Dems will stop at nothing to destroy a person.”
If s/he *is* a saint, they’ll make something up. No big deal.
If s/he is *not* a saint, they’ll make something up, or blow up a decades-old, insignificant incident into a major hoo-hah.
It is what they *do*.
Vox, the Great Explainer, is on hand to soothe its fevered readers that even though the victim doesn’t remember and the Times failed to inform readers of that inconvenient fact, the Kavanaugh impeachment is still on.
The editors’ note does not suggest that the incident didn’t happen. It just indicates that the person said to have been victimized may not remember it — something that isn’t necessarily all that surprising given that the context was a “drunken dorm party.” And it’s not as though the allegation is completely devoid of corroboration. The story notes that Times reporters corroborated Stier’s story “with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier,” though it doesn’t provide details beyond that.
But the addition of the note, coming a day after the story was published and fueled new calls for Kavanaugh’s impeachment, raised questions about what other pertinent details may not have been included in the Times’s piece, and provided grist for conservatives to dismiss the entire thing.
The bottom line is that Kavanaugh now faces (at least) three separate sexual misconduct allegations. Each of them is corroborated to some extent, but during his confirmation hearing Kavanaugh issued blanket denials. And in addition to detailing the new allegation, the Times reporters who spent months digging into the Kavanaugh allegations also note they found two previous allegations made against him to be credible.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20868259/brett-kavanaugh-allegation-new-york-times-controversy-explained
The bottom line is that Kavanaugh now faces (at least) three separate sexual misconduct allegations. Each of them is corroborated to some extent,
Again, Blasey couldn’t come up with one piece of evidence that she’d ever met Kavanaugh or Judge. With partisan Democrats, you can never figure out if they’re idiots or liars.
The author of this is one Aaron Rupar. He would appear to be one of Ben Rhodes’ 27-year-olds-who-know-nothing. Except that he’s 35.
With partisan Democrats, you can never figure out if they’re idiots or liars.
Art Deco: I lean towards liars, but some are idiots. So far the 21st century might be summed up as “Fools or Knaves?”
One monkey don’t stop the show
One monkey don’t stop the show
One monkey don’t stop the show
So get on board
–Gillian Welch, “One Monkey”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=quvoI4bGXp4
“These stories about Kavanaugh also serve notice on all future nominees of Trump’s to the Supreme Court (or any Trump nominee to anything, for that matter), especially anyone who might be nominated to SCOTUS to replace any of the liberal judges, that he or she will be the target of relentless defamatory assault.”
This, Neo, this, I feel is exactly why they have done it and why they are continuing to do it. They want to send a message that you do not belong unless we say so; and if you do get in we will make your life and your family’s lives miserable.
They started with the “high-tech lynching” of Thomas and haven’t let up.
There is also another aspect in that some people will say even if these stories cannot be proven; wouldn’t it be better to just pass this guy and try someone else. Thereby, giving those on the left a “heckler’s veto” on everyone they don’t like.
Aside from all of the other problems with the NYT story, I am having a problem with this…
“…friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student…”
What does that really mean? Were his friends holding his penis? Does this make any sense at all? Does Brett Kavanaugh have any personal volition in this story?
I apologize if I have offended anyone by bringing up the distasteful details of this allegation, but haven’t seen anyone else do so. My point is that even the details of the accusation are not credible. Yet, the NYT considered this “newsworthy”.
Roy:
I had the same question, was the girl a willing receiver holding her hands up waiting to receive it? How does someone go about pushing someone’s sausage into someone else’s hands anyway? I can’t even picture it.
Ok, dicuss this 5 ways from Sunday, but it is simple, Although I know many of you have words to count the number of angels that hover on the head of a pin. How exhasting that must be.
Goodnight, sleep well, and be of good cheer.
NY Times Left Out Of Their Story The Threats To Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser
Leland Keyser found some of Christine Blasey Ford’s other friends weren’t happy she wasn’t supporting Ford and according to Keyser, they leveled some pretty disgusting threats at her. It was in the NYT reporters’ new book but not their story that ran a couple of days ago.
“I was told behind the scenes that certain things could spread about me if I didn’t comply.”
—Christine Blasey Ford’s friend Leland Keyser (who now says she doubts Ford’s story on Kavanaugh)
Here’s a small sampling of the machinations by Ford’s friends.https://t.co/FQxVc7Td0p pic.twitter.com/TBJsHypdYj
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) September 16, 2019
It’s really sad, and very telling, they also wanted to shame her due to addiction/sobriety issues, and cruelly weaponize it to force her to play along…
Breathtaking hypocrisy
— Eric AllredHenriquez (@epallred) September 16, 2019
OlderandWheezier on September 16, 2019 at 4:43 pm said:
…
One letter started, “As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family…,” but none of her blood relatives signed it. Her husband’s family signed the letter.”
* * *
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/09/12/blasey_fords_father_supported_kavanaugh_486005.html
Ann on September 16, 2019 at 4:55 pm said:
–Stier is a member in good standing with the technocratic elite,
huxley on September 16, 2019 at 2:32 pm said:
But Toobin …was editor of the Harvard Law Review and received a Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law (sound familiar?). He is now one of the most prominent legal pundits in the country.
Art Deco on September 16, 2019 at 8:15 pm said:
The author of this is one Aaron Rupar. He would appear to be one of Ben Rhodes’ 27-year-olds-who-know-nothing. Except that he’s 35.
* * *
What was it George Packer said about the false meritocracy he was trying so hard to get his kids into?
NOTE: Rhodes made the comment in 2016 (when he was 38 and didn’t know all that much himself). The Dems under Obama had been duping reporters since 2009. So Rupar was 26 when they started. QED.
https://thefederalist.com/2016/05/09/ben-rhodes-reveals-how-obama-duped-america-into-the-dangerous-iran-deal/
Stories like this make me lean a little to the side of Ahmari rather than French.
My perception is that the two of them differ mostly on timing (French lets far more attacks pass than Ahmari says he would) and tone (which is a matter of taste and style, not substance).
I think conservatives & the GOP can be more aggressive in countering the Left’s machinations without “becoming the thing you hate” — because you can respond to their attacks without stooping to lies, defamation, ad hominem defenses, and all the other unethical and immoral tactics they use — which is what David French has done in the past, as he admits himself.
My 2 cents: it’s good to be civil, when you are in normal adversarial relationships (for certain values of normal & adversarial, of course).
The Democrats and the Left are not engaging in normal relationships with the GOP and the Right, but in all out war.
Being too civil in war gets you killed.
“Be polite. Be professional. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.”
The descendants of the people that asked, “Have you no shame?”, have no shame.
Steve, back in McCarthy’s day, normal people were ashamed of what was perceived as unfair over-reach and reaction, because the media spun everything that way, and McCarthy did jump the shark (or go a bridge too far, f you prefer).
The Communist Left was just trying to keep him from outing their moles in the government.