Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh gives his opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Michael Reynolds/Pool Image via AP)
The latest smear perpetrated against Justice Brett Kavanaugh has finally begun to die down. As I shared over the past few days, the original piece in The New York Times was unverifiable trash, rehashing old, uncredible allegations and introducing a new one that was so laughable that even the alleged victim doesn’t remember it happening. Worse though, the Times also buried a bombshell revelation (first reported in Mollie Hemingway’s book last summer) that Christine Blasey Ford’s “witness” didn’t recall the incident, didn’t find it believable, and had been pressured to lie.
The wheels have come completely off this cart but that isn’t going to stop other outlets from continuing to smear feces on themselves and claim it’s moisturizer.
Per The Federalist, The Altantic is the latest to publish an article of based on excerprts of “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” a book so badly researched and biased that it’s actually enjoyable to read for it’s sheer comedic value.
Guess who caught the New York Times’ Kavanaugh authors in another huge error? This time in the Atlantic. “Witnesses Defended Kavanaugh. NYT Authors Falsely Claimed Silence” https://t.co/keStoBFRuD
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 17, 2019
A new Atlantic-published, adapted excerpt of the book attempts to resurrect Pogrebin and Kelly’s anti-Kavanaugh smears but once again has a major error. “We Spent 10 Months Investigating Kavanaugh. Here’s What We Found” was published in the Atlantic.
Their reporting must not have been thorough. In a section explaining why they believe the accusers despite the lack of any evidence, they write that their emotional reaction to the claims was that the claims rang true. But they get major facts wrong:
Using Martha’s common-sense test, the claims of Deborah Ramirez, while not proven by witnesses, also ring true to us. Ramirez, who was a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s, said he drunkenly thrust his penis at her during a party in their freshman-year dormitory, Lawrance Hall. The people who allegedly witnessed the event—Kavanaugh’s friends Kevin Genda, David Todd, and David White—have kept mum about it. Kavanaugh has denied it. If such an incident had occurred, Kavanaugh said, it would have been the “talk of campus.”
It is not true that the alleged witnesses kept mum. This is another major error by The New York Times reporters.
Notice in the excerpt above, you get the same ridiculous “ring true” standard that has no basis in fact or any semblance of journalistic process. Things don’t “ring true.” They either are true or they aren’t and if you can’t prove them to be so, they shouldn’t be spread as supposition.
Further, the writers of this new smear-laden book are lying. The people in question did not keep “mum about it.” Several of them questioned the accusations veracity and sided with Kavanaugh, providing their support for the idea that he wouldn’t have done something like that. Other’s outright denied witnessing anything at all.
So why would the Times “reporters” who wrote this book leave that out and then publish an article in The Atlantic also omitting yet more exculpatory evidence in Kavanaugh’s favor? I think we all know the answers to that.
Not shoddy reporting. Purposeful smear job.
— RCarls (@RCarls1) September 17, 2019
Exactly. This isn’t omission by error. It’s purposefully smearing Brett Kavanaugh by leaving out key facts and witness testimony in his favor. This new anti-Kavanaugh book continues to be shown for the piece of trash that it is. It’s no surprise it came from two distinguished reporters at The New York Times. What’s that say about that publication?
Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.
I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.