The Brett Kavanaugh lynch mob can’t let it go. Now Democrats want to impeach the conservative Supreme Court justice over a new sexual-misconduct allegation in The New York Times so shady, even the newspaper doesn’t seem to believe in it.
This fresh smear is buried in the 11th paragraph of a story written by Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their upcoming book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh.”
They name their alleged witness to the alleged incident as Max Stier, a Washington lawyer and former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s, described as a “respected thought leader on federal government management,” but who also appears to be the same Max Stier who was on then-President Bill Clinton’s legal team during the Lewinsky scandal in 1998, when he worked at the law firm Williams & Connolly.
Stier allegedly claims that he “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a . . . drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student” when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale.
The Times story claims Stier “notified senators and the FBI about this account but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)”
What Pogrebin and Kelly left out of their story, yet reported in their book, is that the alleged victim doesn’t remember the incident and refuses to talk about it. That’s journalistic malpractice.
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?
The Times reporters claim their fresh allegation about Kavanaugh “echoes” previously uncorroborated 35-year-old claims by another Yale classmate, Deborah Ramirez.
Yet Ramirez admitted to The New Yorker, which broke the story last year, that her memory was hazy because she had been drinking heavily during another dorm party at which Kavanaugh allegedly “thrust his penis in her face and caused her to touch it without her consent.”
She wasn’t even certain it was Kavanaugh when first contacted by the magazine but, after “six days of carefully assessing her memories,” lo and behold, she delivered.
There was never any evidence that what Ramirez said was true, and the Times reporters have not found any new corroboration of her story.
In fact, they quote another Yale classmate, Ken Appold, as saying that none of the people Ramirez claimed were in the room at the time of the alleged incident had any recollection of it.
But that doesn’t stop the authors from insinuating an FBI coverup. In their book, they claim “Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence.”
The authors don’t name these potential witnesses but complain that the FBI failed to interview any of them. Did the reporters reach any of these people? It’s hard to believe that some, if not all, of the 25 were reached by the media in the scrum to destroy Kavanaugh. Yet there’s been not one direct witness to the Ramirez incident who has come forward.
The Times’ story is a farrago of innuendo and guilt by word association, and it’s probably safe to assume the same of the book, which is published Tuesday.
A surefire “tell” that the newspaper doesn’t back its own story is that it buried the bombshell allegation halfway down, on Page 2 of the Sunday Review section with the anodyne headline: “Brett Kavaugh Fit in. She Did Not.”
There is no tracer to the story in the news pages. It just sits there, buried under piles of newsprint, like an unexploded little bomb for others to detonate.
Further evidence the newspaper didn’t take its own reporting seriously was a tweet, later deleted, that it used to promote the story on the official @nytopinion account, which tastelessly made light of the alleged incident: “Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun . . .”
If that’s the Times’ idea of “harmless fun,” it has a screw loose in its moral compass.
The conclusion you can draw from all this is that the Times didn’t back its own reporting.
Of course, that doesn’t matter to unscrupulous Democrats, who fell over themselves yesterday to press the red button for political advantage.
Kamala Harris, Julián Castro and Elizabeth Warren were first out of the blocks calling for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.
Despite their umbrage, the story provided no new credible allegation against Kavanaugh, nor did it make former allegations, such as Ramirez’s, any more credible. It’s just more “may remember” and “heard it from someone two weeks later” wrapped up in hyperbole aimed at one thing — trying to undermine a Supreme Court justice they don’t like.
It was a witch hunt then, it’s a witch hunt now.
Ploys and girls
What is with the weaponization of little girls? In case you haven’t noticed, the face of the Climate Armageddon movement is female, fierce and barely pubescent.
Think Greta Thunberg, the diminutive 16-year-old Swedish savant who has sailed into town to address the United Nations and lead this Friday’s “climate strike” for youngsters to skip school with the blessing of the New York City Department of Education.
Or think 14-year-old Alexandria Villasenor, who has been leaving her parents’ Upper West side abode each Friday for her own person climate strike on a bench outside the UN.
Think 15-year-old Isra Hirsi, the daughter of Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Come to think of it, even Squadder Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tries to emulate the teenage vibe with her girly voice and rising intonations, something most 29-year-olds have left behind long ago.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has the same sort of girly affectation at the ripe old age of 52.
Maybe the idea that the world is going to end in 11 years if we don’t stop using fossil fuels is so ridiculous that you have to pretend to be a child to believe it.
Candy vapes? You must be kid-ding
Don’t listen to the vaping lobbyists. There’s only one reason for candy-flavored vaping products — and that is to hook children on nicotine.
Whoever sat around the board room table of Big Vape and dreamed up cotton-candy and bubble-gum flavors deserves the same place in hell as the purveyors of marijuana gummy bears.