Left Impeachment Fury

PUBLISHED: 1:00 PM 16 Sep 2019
UPDATED: 5:41 PM 16 Sep 2019

Left Launches Coordinated Attack Against Kavanaugh, NYT ‘Omits’ Denial, Then Backtracks

Although the story was immediately shown to be a nothing burger, the left and many democrats carefully posted their scripted lines, calling into question the FBI investigation and the damage was done.

In a carefully plotted attack, Kavanaugh has been besmirched, yet again, using fake information provided by liberals, yet democrats are all screaming the same talking points. (Youtube screen shot)

Brett Kavanaugh was attacked this weekend, thanks to a ‘bombshell’ story about an incident that allegedly occurred during his freshman year in college.

However, the New York Times, in the report about the upcoming book, failed to disclose one aspect of the hit-piece… the fact that the alleged victim “denies any memory” of the supposed incident.

So, rather than actually investigate the incident, NYT apparently thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to promote a book that makes slanderous, unverified accusations about a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

Not only that, democrats and leftists appeared to have their lines ready, as the coordinated attack ensued. Senators and mouthpieces all parroted the same idea: that the FBI conducted a “sham” investigation.

First, the National Review outlined the outrageous and slanderous accusations against Kavanaugh:

(Warning: Graphic language)

The allegation, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly write in a New York Times story adapted from their forthcoming anti-Kavanaugh book, is this: “We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

Can someone explain the logistics of the allegation here? Was Kavanaugh allegedly walking around naked when his friends pushed him into the female student?

No, if I’m reading Pogrebin and Kelly right, the friends didn’t push Kavanaugh in the back. Rather, the “friends pushed his penis.”

What? How does that happen? Who are the friends? Who is the female student? Were there any witnesses besides Stier?

All that the authors write in the New York Times essay about corroborating the story is this: “Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. 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.)”

So they corroborated the fact that Stier made the allegation to the FBI, but the authors give no indication that they have corroborated any details of the alleged incident.

The book isn’t released until Tuesday, but Mollie Hemingway got a copy, and she writes on Twitter: “The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event.”

Omitting this fact from the New York Times story is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory.

If you take this confusing accusation in the essay at face value, it doesn’t even appear to be an allegation of assault against Kavanaugh.

If Kavanaugh’s “friends pushed his penis,” then isn’t it an allegation of wrongdoing against Kavanaugh’s “friends,” not Kavanaugh himself? Surely even a modern liberal Yalie who’s been to one of those weird non-sexual “naked parties” would recognize both the female student and Kavanaugh are both alleged victims in this alleged incident, barring an additional allegation that a college-aged Kavanaugh asked his “friends” to “push his penis.”

The new allegation is supposed to help lend credence to the on-the-record allegation that Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez made in 2018. Pogrebin and Kelly sum up Ramirez’s allegation: “She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.”

Pogrebin and Kelly downplay Ramirez’s own doubts about whether Kavanaugh did what she now alleges, choosing rather to lard up their New York Times story with details that are supposed to demonstrate how under-privileged Ramirez was: She had to sell ice cream during the summer in high school, bought a cheap car, and only had an above-ground swimming pool as a teenager (the horror).

None of these details corroborates her accusation against Kavanaugh. But the story is framed to make it seem like Kavanaugh was the type of privileged jerk who might expose himself in front of an under-privileged college classmate.

As I wrote last October, here’s why Ramirez’s allegation was dubious:

Deborah Ramirez is the Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s who now claims that Kavanaugh exposed himself as a college freshman at a party. Ramirez’s claim was already dubious because (1) named eyewitnesses deny the allegation and (2) Ramirez herself wasn’t sure in recent weeks if Kavanaugh had done what she now alleges. “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,” the New York Times reported. Ramirez was only willing to make the allegation, the New Yorker reported, after “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

Pogrebin and Kelly write that a couple of students say they had heard about the alleged incident in the days after it allegedly occurred, but the authors provide no indication there is any first-hand witness to corroborate the allegation.

We already knew before Kavanaugh was confirmed last October that the “corroborating” source for Ramirez’s claim, classmate Kenneth Appold, was not present when the alleged incident occurred, but Appold told the New Yorker he was “one-hundred-percent-sure” he heard about it from an eyewitness. Shortly before Kavanaugh was confirmed, the New Yorker reported that Appold’s supposed eyewitness “said that he had no memory of the incident.”

Maybe Pogrebin and Kelly’s book is stronger than their essay. But I’m skeptical. “In the end they turn up no smoking gun,” Hanna Rosin writes in her New York Times review of the book.

Next, Twitchy showed how carefully constructed the headlines were for leftists, and how they all made the same claims on social media:

Democrats and the press (to traffic in redundancy) are bleating loudly today about nothing new regarding the allegations we have all heard — and which have been disproven. Now we do not intend to suggest that there is coordination at play in all of this. That would be journalistically wrong. So instead we will do something the press avoids doing — we will show evidence.

We will open with one of our esteemed politicians.

Brett Kavanaugh should never have been confirmed to the Supreme Court. It was plain to me and many others at the time that the FBI ‘investigation’ into the serious, corroborated allegations of sexual assault by Justice Kavanaugh was a sham.

— Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) September 15, 2019

Did you catch her using quotes to call into question the work of the FBI? (We’ll revisit that in just a bit.) Pretty bad to be sure, but it seems that last word is something that more than anonymous randos are tossing around this day. There appears a rather common thread among this nation’s thought leaders.

Klobuchar rips “sham” investigation into Kavanaugh after latest allegations of sexual assault https://t.co/ICQyPaXMHL pic.twitter.com/9vTHMV9ZSc

— The Hill (@thehill) September 15, 2019

The investigation was an obvious sham at the time. Grassley’s lead investigator on the Judiciary Committee was Mike Davis who tweeted that he was “unfazed” and “determined” to “confirm Judge Kavanaugh” – in the midst of the investigation, when he was interviewing witnesses. pic.twitter.com/FkS5E7yBAA

— Adam Jentleson 🎈🐢 (@AJentleson) September 15, 2019

I wrote this last October for @HuffPost “So now we’ve gone from a sham hearing to a sham investigation where the White House is dictating to the FBI whom they can interview and whom they can’t.” https://t.co/roYUPI1NF6 #KavanaughLied

— Kurt Bardella (@kurtbardella) September 15, 2019

Vote out the Republicans who voted for Kavanaugh. Remember the “investigation” was a sham, totally rushed, limited in scope. Kavanaugh’s behavior during the hearing (his response to Klobuchar, his lies, his promise of retribution) was enough to disqualify him. #KavanaughLied

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) September 15, 2019

This story contains damning reporting that Justice Kavanaugh should be made to address — and demonstrates what an abject sham the FBI “Investigation” of the claims against him was in the fall of 2018. https://t.co/pJveokwPbE

— John Heilemann (@jheil) September 15, 2019

Remember that time the White House tweeted the FBI’s report on Kavanaugh at 2:30am on the day of his confirmation…

If this process wasn’t a complete sham, I don’t know what is.https://t.co/Q7ddKuk0w4

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) September 15, 2019

I sincerely wish that my piece on the quid pro quo between the Trump Administration and the Federalist Society would eventually be proven wrong.

The FBI investigation into Kavanaugh was a sham, as I predicted a year ago. We The People are losing America.https://t.co/wHYflq1dbD

— 𝙰𝙼𝙴𝚁𝙸𝙲𝙰𝙽 𝙳𝙸𝚂𝚂𝙴𝙽𝚃 🇺🇸 (@keith_pochick) September 15, 2019

The FBI investigation into him was a sham. It was not a comprehensive investigation. They totally ignored testaments from fellow classmates and didn’t interview both accused and accuser.

— Jack Wallen (@jlwallen) September 15, 2019

At the time of c#Kavanaugh’s confirmation, many of us said that the FBI investigation was a sham limited by Senate Republicans. Now we know that for a fact. “Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence.(1/2) https://t.co/UjHA9Jku9B

— Mimi Rocah (@Mimirocah1) September 15, 2019

The FBI DID NOT interview the 25 witnesses she gave them names for. Sham investigation.

— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) September 15, 2019

This seems serious! Repeating lies from one year ago does not make them more true. Nor does everyone on the same page repeating the same phrase, but this is the Left, after all.

But all of these influential minds dumping on the FBI calls back to another reality we all lived through not so long ago. Recall when these same minds used to say that it was a moral outrage when the President dared to question the integrity of the FBI?

There is no institution that Donald Trump’s minions won’t attack to protect their lying President. Going after the FBI to protect the President is reckless and unconscionable. pic.twitter.com/mlynjHFpj9

— Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) January 25, 2018

But going after the FBI because you do not like a judge is acceptable?!?! We need clarification on where that line of when it is/is not acceptable rests, Senator.

It’s bad enough Trump rejects the conclusions of the CIA, FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia… https://t.co/DE0JIqTbnc

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) December 24, 2016

Bad when Trump questions the FBI, but acceptable for you, correct Robert??

Ah well, if it were not for double-standards, and all…

This is no doubt, a hit job of the lowest and most base. Many people argue if democrats think they can drum up support for themselves by trashing a good man, they are deluded.

Update: The Times has now revised the article to include the truth about the victim’s denial, but they still have not pointed out that Stier was a long-time Clinton lawyer.