Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

As regular readers know, I extensively covered the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.  To find all of those articles, merely enter “kavanaugh” in the SMM home page search bar.  I began my final article in that series:

The Brett Kavanaugh story seems to be almost zombie-like.  It will be some time before it’s mostly over, but it seems likely to never die.  As I’m sure regular readers will recall, during Justice Kavanaugh’s Judiciary Committee hearing, more and more ostensibly noble and psychologically devastated victims who must be believed complained that a younger–30 years younger–Kavanaugh raped them—repeatedly–pretty much any and everywhere.  Being raped by Brett Kavanaugh was turning into a burgeoning cottage industry—except for one small detail: a complete lack of corroborating evidence, and most of the accusations were false.

I should note not a single accusation against Kavanaugh was ever proved.  I ended that article:

In the Kavanaugh affair Democrats proved they are people completely devoid of honor and integrity, unlike their target, Justice Kavanaugh.  ‘Justice Kavanaugh.’  That has a nice ring, doesn’t it?  Now that they have the House, they promise to make their vile cruelty toward Brett Kavanaugh seem like a church social by comparison.

Truly, we live in interesting times.

The Kavanaugh story continues to be interesting, as Fox News reports:

Top 2020 Democratic contenders Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, and Julian Castro announced on Sunday that Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh “must be impeached,” after a new, uncorroborated and disputed allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh surfaced in a weekend New York Times piece.

The revitalized, longshot push to get Kavanaugh removed from the high court comes as Democrats’ apparent effort to impeach President Trump has largely stalled. Trump, for his part, suggested Sunday that Kavanaugh should sue for defamation.

And from where did this “new” allegation come?  From a former newspaper,The New York Times:

The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly [Timesreporters], adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO 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.

Upholding its tradition of ethical journalism, The NYT didn’t bother to mention Stier was a Clinton attorney.  They also failed to mention this:

What Hemingway is referring to is the fact that the supposed victim refused to speak with them, and several of her friends told them she has no memory of any such event.  This didn’t stop them from tweeting this:

And this:

Deborah Ramirez, readers may recall, was a woman whose testimony against Kavanaugh was not only uncorroborated, but was constantly shifting.  She was entirely non-credible, which led to this rare apology:

Notice the NYT didn’t apologize to Kavanaugh for falsely smearing him, just for the language it used.  There was no first hand–even second hand–corroboration of any of these allegations in The NYT’s story.  By that same standard of journalistic ethics, I have it on good authority from anonymous sources that heard about it from other anonymous sources who say someone they know remembered something about it, that the editors and reporters of The New York Times regularly bugger farm animals.  True, none of the animals would speak to me about it, and their friends claim they have no memory of the rapes, but if that standard of journalism is good enough for The NYT, it’s good enough for me. It’s also more than good enough for the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates:

And fake Hispanic Beto, and geriatric Commie Bernie also jumped on that particular bandwagon, but I’ll spare you that, gentle readers.  Here’s a bit about Ms. Ramirez that might be helpful in considering her reliability:

Ramirez had called classmates at Yale seeking corroboration for her story, and even told some of her classmates that she could not remember the culprit in the alleged episode — before changing her mind and publicly blaming Kavanaugh ‘after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,’ the New Yorker reported last year in a widely derided piece.

Perhaps Ms. Ramirez had a defective hard drive?

The Senate Judiciary Committee, then led by Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote in an executive summary of its investigation that it contacted Ramirez’s counsel ‘seven times seeking evidence to support claims made in the New Yorker,’ but that ‘Ms. Ramirez produced nothing in response and refused a Committee request for an interview.’

One might reasonably think this so because Ms. Ramirez was advised by her attorneys to say nothing to avoid perjury charges.  The FBI, at the time, also interviewed at least 10 people trying to follow up on Ramirez’s allegations, but apparently found nothing. Considering she couldn’t remember who was involved, or any real memory of events, that’s hardly surprising. President Trump was unimpressed:

And there is this about the saintly Kristine Blasey Ford:

Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, was quoted in a new book as saying that Ford was motivated to come forward in part by a desire to tag Kavanaugh’s reputation with an ‘asterisk’ before he could start ruling on abortion-related cases.

In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,’ Katz said. ‘He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.

It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.

I’m sure seeking justice was her only real motive.  Consider this from Powerline:

The new claim of sexual misconduct by Bret Kavanaugh at Yale many decades ago comes from a book by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. Pogrebin and Kelly also wrote the New York Times story presenting this claim.

In their book, Pogrebin and Kelly acknowledge that the alleged victim of the alleged misconduct has no recollection of it. In their original Times article, the two omitted this fact.

In their book, Pogrebin and Kelly, focus on the allegation that started the Kavanaugh controversy — Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that he raped her during a high school party. According to Mollie Hemmingway, who obtained an advanced copy of the book, Pogrebin and Kelly offer no evidence in support of the rape allegation, but say their ‘gut reaction’ was that the allegation ‘rang true.’

Terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome will do that to you.  The NYT and its reporters have long ago voluntarily abandoned any claim to objectivity, having adopted the “if true,” “anonymous sources say,” and now the “gut reaction” standards of verification.

If we’re going to adjudge allegations of ancient misconduct based on someone’s gut, I’m more inclined to go with the gut of Leland Keyser, a lifelong friend of Christine Blasey Ford. Blasey Ford claims that Keyser was with her at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly committed rape. Keyser told Pogrebin and Kelly that she does not believeBlasey Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh:

We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. ‘I don’t have any confidence in the story.’

Mollie Hemingway, a reporter who actually adheres to standards of proof and fact:

The authors also acknowledge what had previously been reported in ‘Justice on Trial’ [by Hemmingway and Carrie Severino] about the efforts of mutual friends to get her to change her testimony to be more supportive of Blasey Ford. The reporters say that some of Blasey Ford’s friends ‘had grown frustrated with Keyser. Her comments about the alleged Kavanaugh incident had been too limited, some of them felt, and did not help their friend’s case. Surely, given what a close friend Keyser had been, she could say more to substantiate Ford’s testimony and general veracity, even if she could not corroborate Ford’s more specific memories.’

In other words, she could make stuff up, and she’d better if she knew what’s good for her:

A group text was formed in which friends such as Cheryl Amitay and Lulu Gonella discussed how to get her to say something more helpful to the cause. An unnamed man on the text suggested that they defame her as an addict.Keyser has been in recovery for some time, as her friends know and as has previously been reported.

Amitay answered, ‘Leland is a major stumbling block.’ While asserting she didn’t want her to make anything up out of whole cloth, she offered ideas for things that could sound supportive of Ford’s story, such as that she’d been in similar situations with Blasey Ford that summer.

“I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply,” Keyser told the reporters, a stunning admission of the pressure to which she was subjected to by Blasey Ford’s allies.

(Emphasis added)

With friends like these, Keyser doesn’t need enemies.

What we see here, gentle readers, is certainly the continuing coup attempt, driven by terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome, but more, a crude and ugly attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court, and anyone President Trump, or any non-Democrat/Socialist/Communist President might ever nominate to the High Court.  It’s also a major part of the current D/S/C anti-Trump and anyone in any way connected to him election strategy.

Of course, in order to impeach Justice Kavanaugh, D/S/Cs would set the precedent that one could be impeached for 35 year old, unproven conduct alleged by the non-credible, having nothing whatever to do with one’s conduct in office. Why, one might even call that sort of thing unconstitutional, but what’s a trifle like the Constitution compared to the attainment of ultimate D/S/C power?

Let us apply the current D/S/C standards retroactively to “the Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy, who serial drunken sexual abuse of women, and his murder of Mary Joe Kopechne should have ejected him from the Senate (let us ignore his attempt to betray his country to the Soviets). Actually, it should have prevented his election in the first place.  But that’s different, because it’s OK when D/S/Cs do it—Like Joe Biden’s prodigious groping of women and little girls—and also because shut up and Trump.

Perhaps the best part of the most recent utterly false accusation is the two reporters pushing the story, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, are now saying they did include the fact that the supposed victim refused to talk with them and apparently has no memory of the incident, but their editors removed it prior to publication!  Neither Pogrebin, Kelly, the NYT editors, or anyone working there has any credibility, so this does nothing but put icing on the cake of one of the most egregious instances of journalistic malpractice in recent history.

Justice Kavanaugh is not going to be impeached, nor is he going to be removed from the Supreme Court.  Not now.  But if D/S/C/s ever again cheat their way to a majority in both houses, and seize the presidency, no one will be safe, because the Constitution and the rule of law will quickly be swept away.

The never-ending Kavanaugh affair is merely one more clear indication that in the pursuit of power, the D/S/Cs and their media propaganda arm have abandoned any standard of decency, ethics and reason, just as they have long ago abandoned American constitutionalism.