Posted on 09/24/2018 7:31:19 AM PDT by Red Badger
The New Yorker hit piece on Brett Kavanaugh published Sunday night accusing Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, without corroboration, of exposing himself to a female Yale classmate at a drunken dorm party in the 1980s was met with skepticism by the New York Times and ABC News. (UPDATE: CBS News, also. At end.)
Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez.
The Times reported, but buried, that it had spent a week investing the accusation by Deborah Ramirez but was unable to find an eyewitness and that Ramirez had recently told several of her classmates she wasnt sure it was Kavanaugh.
Judge Kavanaughs prospects were further clouded on Sunday when The New Yorker reported on a new allegation of sexual impropriety: A woman who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh said that, during a drunken dormitory party their freshman year, he exposed himself to her, thrust his penis into her face and caused her to touch it without her consent.
In a statement, Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegation from the woman, Deborah Ramirez, and called it a smear, plain and simple. The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.
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.
ABC News George Stephanopoulos repeatedly challenged Ronan Farrow, who co-authored the New Yorker article with Jane Mayer, in an interview Monday on Good Morning America. Farrow was forced to admit he had no eyewitnesses but he insisted that people who knew Kavanaugh at Yale said it was possible.
Farrow closed the interview by claiming accuser Ramirez insisted she wants to be fair to Brett Kavanaugh.
CBS News also challenged co-author Jane Mayer on the lack of eyewitnesses.
The stories have become outlandish, to the point of mockery.
Kinda like a well known dossier........................
I guess the bottom line is Ronan is still a pop-culture celeb and not a journalist. He hasn’t gotten a grip on this whole verifying sources thing.
Oh, I remeber, the mysterious never located Lucy Ramirez from the Rather fake memo.
Are they going to now say this womans claims are "Fake but Accurate"?
I know that Puritanism was not dominant in the 1980s but guys exposing themselves at mixed-company parties like she describes seems to be pretty risky behavior, especially for a student with high aspirations and in an on-campus setting. Guys let the little head do the thinking all the time, but I just wonder if this allegation passes the “smell test” for those who were in college in the mid-80s?
Farrow is now getting sloppy and producing no relevant facts to back up stories.
“Some brilliant FReeper posited on another thread that this is less about Kavanaugh than an operation by Friends of Harvey Weinstein to take Ronan Farrow down once and for
all”.
maybe they think they can take down Farrow and Kavanaugh
Slimes? Wow.
He attempting to be accepted back into the leftist fold after outing Weinstein.
It makes me mad and sad at the same time.....................
I figured that the media has exculpatory evidence but would not say so. Maybe I was wrong.
OR they know something is about to go down and they don’t want to be caught in the crossfire.................
Hell, anything is ‘possible’......................
Yes, its a shame. He was fooled by his own political preferences. Geniuses definitely have blind sports re emotion. He is getting chewed out on Twitter, deservedly so, and if Tiger Woods can come back, Ronan stands an excellence chance.
I think if he really wants to be credible, he apologizes for this wholly uncorroborated non-news. I feel I am one of the most unbiased FReepers on this subject because in my emotions I dont trust or like Kavanaugh from before I knew he even had a penis. So my political slant does not influence my thoughts on this confirmation process. I look at it as a question of fairness and legality and common sense (we dont go back to childhood to search for misdeeds; we expect evidence; we expect both sides of nominees to be given the same level of scrutiny, etc.).
A bridge too far even for these propaganda rags?
Doesn’t seem possible. Makes me wonder if overnight polling on these ludicrous claims is harming the Left by getting our side - and the middle - incensed over the unfairness of it all. Maybe they’re looking for a way down off the ladder.
I agree that for the upper NYC elite, putting little Ronan in his place is preferred to adding to the Kavanaugh circus.
Dilbert San Diego wrote: “Really, even liberal news outlets say this is BS??? Maybe the liberals have overreached on this one, overplayed their hand?”
Maybe the liberals have realized that this is like playing with nuclear weapons. Maybe they realize that uncollaborated allegations like this could also be used against their nominees.
Democrats and their once upon a time stories never end.
This is also all about discouraging future applicants. Who would want to but their family through that hell?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.