2019.09.14 NYT Kavanaugh Smear

From iGeek
Revision as of 21:29, 22 September 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
The New York Slimes: Kavanaugh again... Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco

Acting as a DNC's mouthpiece, the NYT published a hit-piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, who were promoting their book attacking Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for being a sexual harasser.[1] The shocking new allegation was about Brett having someone else put his penis in a girls hand during a party. This resulted in all the far lefties (Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, The Squad) demanding Brett's impeachment before any conviction or evidence. The bigger problem is this scoop had already been investigated (and discounted), the woman (victim) doesn't have any memory of it happening, there are no other witnesses who corroborate it (and many that came forward to defend Brett), assuming we can imagine how some other friend can even get your penis to put it in someone else's hand. But the problem is how did a story that all other newspapers had passed on as being non-credible, make it past the times editors, after having all the exculpatory evidence get omitted from the article, get tweeted about, and get repeated on NPR. Even the other left-wing media outlets called bullshit on the NYT and said this was a big embarrassment for real journalism, while the Times has been distracting, attacking, blaming Fox for blowing this up, and changing the topic, and doing anything but sincerely apologizing and firing those responsible.


  • Max Stier is the only person that seems to have seen this event where "“friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student”? Some of the media misreported it as "in the face". But how does this even happen mechanically. I'm usually pretty aware of where my penis is, and it's not where friends can do things with it. Either Kavanaugh did it himself, or was he so incapacitated that it was the person who grabbed him by the penis that was the sexual harasser? The logistics don't make sense.
  • This was a different time than Deborah Ramirez that was alleged... and was discounted as non-credible at the time, and she came forward as admitting it likely never happed. As was pointed out during the Ramirez investigation, “If such a thing had happened, it would have been the talk of the campus.” Yet no one else had heard of either of these events? Come on. Doing it once would label you permanently. Twice and nobody saw except one witness each, both sympathetic to Hillary? That defies the odds.
  • Stier was a Hillary Clinton Lawyer during the Whitewater scandal, and was Pro Hillary during the election. (Likely a #NeverTrumper). The media is quick to claim he works with both sides of the aisle... but they only say that for RINO's (Republican's in Name Only), they never say that about conservatives.
  • Mr. Stier declined to discuss it publicly (this was all here-say based on what investigators claim that he told them). And the FBI never never found anything corroborating on this absurdity.
  • Ignoring innocent until proven guilty, partisan hacks such as Elizabeth Warren[2] and Bernie Sanders[3], called for Kavanaugh to be Impeached based on rumors of a story, that someone said someone else might have seen happen, yet there was no complaints or evidence. I think that makes them more ripe for failure to defend the constitution and rule of law, than Kavanaugh.
  • NYT claimed they quickly corrected the minor editing error (and the writers through the editors under the bus): but they did not, and it was not a minor error. They repeated the claim in an NPR interview as well. [4]
  • Pogrebin claims this was all FoxNews twisting the story (by telling the truth) to make the NYT look bad, but all the other news outlets have done the same thing by admitting this was REALLY shoddy journalism (or propaganda). Of course she did that after bragging that her story had gone viral and was resulting in the far left demanding a Supreme Court Justices impeachment. [5]
  • NYT had tweeted about the event saying that, "Having a penis thrust in your face at drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun." to promote this article, when it was really about the discredited Ramirez story (she admitted she wasn't sure if it happened). [6] The SJW's were outraged about the claim "harmless fun", and the Times deleted the tweet without apology in the first pass (claiming it was "poorly phrased") and had to go back and apologize for the wording in the second pass. But they never apologized for the lies of omission and commission in the article that implies something that happened, to which the only witness says she's not sure because she was so hammered and there's gaps in her memory, and nobody else saw. (Seems like relevant facts to omit).
  • While the articles imply that witnesses were quiet on the incident (with Ramirez), the opposite is true. [7] Many witnesses came forward... to defend Brett and claimed the event never happened. But the articles/authors seem to imply the opposite.
Brett Kavanaugh
The left has a rich history of politicizing and undermining the autonomy of the Supreme Court. Democrats put litmus tests on their sides appointments, and accuse the other side of doing the same -- but the truth is the right does not have to: their side fight for Constitutional originalism which limits federal power, while the left fights for activists who will invent laws from the bench (thus they need to know what those laws might be). This started with Samuel Chase and impeachment from the court in 1803 over judicial overreach and bad behavior. But in modern times the left invented slow rolling the other sides appointments, or outright blocking them on specious grounds. Then they invented the concept of "Borking" which is inventing lame excuses to slander justices to get them to withdraw, and undermine what is clearly a Presidential power. Ted Kennedy had actually tried it on Bill Rehnquist, immediately before Bork, but it had failed -- but the success of Bork'ing Bork, got them to repeated the effort with Douglas Ginsburg (successfully), and Clearance Thomas (unsuccessfully), and they still harass Thomas as a sexual deviant or Uncle Tom to this day. The latest was over Brett Kavanaugh. The far left had pre-printed posters to hate on whichever of the dozen Justices that Trump picked -- not for actual flaws in their character, or over bad rulings/behavior, but because they don't like constitutionalists on the court, and they were trying to get the Republicans back over their anger at not getting Merick Garland. They even leaked press releases with "{Insert Justice's Name Here}" in place of the actual justices name by accident. This wasn't about who was picked, it was that the far left (and their media) wasn't getting to stack the Supreme Court with anti-Constitutional radicals and so they found a far left activist to invent an unprovable claim of sexual harassment (back in the 10th grade: 36 years ago), and turned the process into a #metoo witch hunt.



📚 References