Posted on 09/16/2019 8:10:33 PM PDT by bitt
The New York Times had a significant story to tell about Brett Kavanaugh. It’s this: In a new book, the Times reporters produced new evidence that profoundly undermined the central claims against Kavanaugh. Leland Keyser — Christine Blasey Ford’s friend and the person Ford herself testified was also at the party where Ford claimed Kavanaugh assaulted her — has stated on the record that she doesn’t have “any confidence” in Ford’s story.
Not only does she not recall the specific party at issue, she doesn’t recall “any others like it.” Moreover, Keyser maintains this recollection in spite of a determined effort by old friends to get her to change her testimony — a pressure campaign that Keyser admirably resisted.
But that’s not the story the New York Times chose to tell. Instead, this weekend it ran an extended piece that breathlessly asserts that there exists a new claim against Kavanaugh. The original story reported that a man named Max Stier alleged that “friends” pushed Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female student. Hours later — only after Democrats issued furious denunciations of Kavanaugh — did the Times add a rather significant editor’s note. The female student “declined to be interviewed,” and her “friends say that she does not recall the incident.”
In other words, “Never mind.” But even that editor’s note is incomplete. It turns out that Max Stier served as one of Bill Clinton’s lawyers during the Starr investigation, a fact that’s at least relevant to the existence of partisan bias.
The New York Times’s disgraceful weekend performance is a reminder that the media performed abysmally during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. Ronan Farrow had accumulated an enormous amount of capital reporting thoroughly researched and well-corroborated claims of sexual abuse that helped launch the #MeToo movement. ..
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Well I don’t like to brag, but . . .
The campaign of intimidation.
For as long as the Democrat Thug Party isn’t pushed back, it will continue to bully.
If the story was accurate, Brett Kavanaugh should be freelancing as a porn actor.
Explain to me what constitutes malice. The NYT is nothing other than a propaganda wing of the Democrat Party with crossword puzzles mixed in. And malice is exactly the premise for publishing lies such as these.
First, I said that there isn't a Constitutional check on lying. Libel and slander are more than just lying. Second, on your points, then there should have been a qualifier in the First Amendment if that was the Founders' intent. Or, there should have been scores of such cases from the early period of the nation. But there isn't, and there aren't. Indeed, Jefferson's quotes on how much he detests the press' lies, compounded by the fact that he never sued anyone on libel grounds, support the assertion that libel and slander, while detestable, aren't banned forms of speech. Now, to be sure, there are such cases but the bar is high.
Ginzberg is about to check out, they need to try to level the field or its a Trump win that will last for a century
A successful impeachment of Kavanaugh would presage a civil war in the same fashion as an impeachment of Trump.
They know RBG is close to wheezing her last breath and that Trump will name her successor.
This is a warning to any potential nominee:
“We will destroy you. We will make up BS. We will find classmates from 40 years ago who will lie about you. We will crank up the Dem sleaze machine into full operation and will do and say anything to hurt you and the ones you love. And, we will have the full resources of the MSM to churn our sleaze on TV, radio and internet 24/7. We have a vast army of trolls to infiltrate every forum and smear you in ways you can’t even imagine.
So, take a hint. If you value your honor, your reputation, or your loved ones, don’t even think about answering the phone when Trump calls. This is what we do to those who dare defy us.
See what we did to Kavanaugh? You will get 10,000 times worse if you think you can replace our beloved saint RBG.”
What we need for SCOTUS nominee is a very conservative Black woman I would like to see these BASTARDS destroy her!!! ALL off their true colors coming out for ALL to see!!!
Do this when you get home
STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
Judge Kavanaugh and I are roughly the same age. I was in college about the same time he was (but I wasn't at Yale ... so maybe Yale was "different".)
But ...
Some dude dropping trou at a party and displaying his dick is so improbable as to be almost certainly excluded. Plenty of depravity happened but that's beyond the pale for early-mid 1980s. Then, some other dude grabbing his pecker???
NO.
Did.
Not.
Happen.
This is a completely fabricated story by a bunch of perverts.
Hence these new charges.
I'm guessing that their fallback plan is that if they can't stop Trump from replacing Ginsburg with a conservative, they will try to remove a conservative that can be replaced with a liberal when the Democrat beats Trump in 2020.
I don't think Trump will lose, but the Democrats would be negligent in their wickedness if they didn't try to set the table that way, just in case something unexpected happens.
Short of that, they are laying the foundation for rejecting a future nominee like Amy Coney Barrett. She's not a sexual predator -- are they going to use their manufactured charges against Kavanaugh as a litmus test to question future candidates?
Maybe Democrats will use this to ask future Trump nominees if they have any concerns working with Kavanaugh after everything "we've learned" about him, and make it a disqualifier if they say they believe him over his accusers.
They will set up strawman arguments about how the nominee doesn't support "women's rights" because they don't believe the charges against Kavanaugh, are willing to work alongside Kavanaugh, or worst-case, refuse to condemn Kavanaugh's "known behaviors."
The Kavanaugh charges will be the blunt weapon that Democrats will use to disqualify any conservative woman that President Trump nominates. Democrats just needed to refresh the charges for public consumption before they can start, now that Ginsburg's end appears imminent.
-PJ
... yet again another hi-tech lynching ...
re: “This is a warning to any potential nominee:”
Yep. They are promising to release their dogs of ‘whar’ ...
It’s pretty obvious by now that if the Democrats (God forbid) ever get back in control of both Houses and POTUS they are gonna engineer another accusation and use that as an excuse to impeach Kavanaugh.
My recollection is that to prove defamation a public figure has to show actual malice on the part of the defendant. So, the NYT or the press generally does not get a free pass to lie. Instead, the victim of the defamation has a more difficult time proving that the press knew the statement was a lie and published it for the purpose of defaming.
It is ALL (from the beginning to now) an agenda to put an asterisk on Bret’s name, as a way to pre-judge any SCOTUS decision he might make on a case about abortion, and to smear any such decision he does make as prejudiced by his “bad” past.
Destroy his character to defame his decisions - which in their view they have done with Thomas.
Smith v. Minor, 1 N.J.L. 19 (1790)
Austin v. Hanchet, 1794 Conn. App. LEXIS 66 (1794)
Fowler v. Collins, 1795 Conn. App. LEXIS 51 (1795)
Whittlesey v. Dickerson, 1795 Conn. App. LEXIS 101 (1795)
Respublica v. Cobbet, 3 Yeates 93 (1800)
United States v. Cooper, 25 F. Cas. 631 (1800)
Hersh v. Ringwalt, 3 Yeates 508 (1803)
Hook v. Turnbull, 10 Va. 85 (1806)
COOK v. BARKLEY, 2 N.J.L. 156 (1807)
I could go on and on and on. There are more than 28500 cases involving defamation in just one database.
Your assertion is patently absurd. The First Amendment doesn’t protect defamation even today, EXCEPT to give extra-constitutional protection when the defamation is about a person that the press has converted into “public figure” or when said defamation is about a “public official.”
The nation’s defamation laws worked fine prior to NY Times v. Sullivan and the standard prior was workable and appropriate.
Shameful media.
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.