The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud

[ludin]

I know they pulled an offensive tweet that described the actions of Kavanaugh "harmless fun" but if they pulled the actual story it's odd WSJ and BI just picked it up earlier today.

yep it was a tweet but then there is this.

Mollie Hemingway: New Accusation Against Kavanaugh Is Denied By Alleged Victim | Video | RealClearPolitics

I just finished the book, and they also have an essay where they claim that there was another allegation. Left out of the essay is that the claim that is made is actually denied by the alleged victim. They put that in their book, but they didn't put that in their essay, which is causing some people to question their journalistic ethics."

"The part they left out is that this woman, apparently, has told her friends that she doesn't even remember it... It is a third-hand, fourth-hand account of an incident that, even if it happened as described, it sounds like it was Kavanaugh's friends who were the wrongdoers.

 

[smallvoice]

Cowardly response.

Keep running, then. Or do you need the last word to tell yourself you "won"?

He won. Just keep posting....

 

[smallvoice]

I personally think what we'll see is more stories planted by right wing backroom players that look legitimate and are designed to blow up in the media once opened and make the major news outlets look like fools. Part of the trump 'you can only believe me' idea of thinking.

Now THERE'S some good paranoia....or have you been hitting the bong again?

 

[smallvoice]

I can't help it! My name is Eva Braun.

Oh... and I slurp!

Ooooooh, THAT'S kinky!

 

[SkyFox76]

How do you know the F.B.I. didn't interview the people who are currently in the News and written about in a book due to be released for sale on Tuesday?

Got any proof they were never interviewed by the F.B.I.?

Roseann

At the time there was a list of several people given by the Attorney of Ramirez. Those people said they weren't contacted. So it's pretty simple on if they were or weren't. If you call the FBI and say my name is Max Stier and I was a witness to something that happened at a party that deals with Kavanaugh, there are two outcomes. The FBI makes contact with Stier and interviews him, or they don't. If they did, then Max Stier can be shown he's a liar end of story. If they didn't then the question is why not?

 

[smallvoice]

Still nothing on Fox News. Not even a peep from Breitbarf.

If there's nothing to it, any rational journalist won't waste time on it. That appears to be the case here.

 

[smallvoice]

Yes, people who read the NYT should defend the nation from imbeciles. I agree.

What will they use to "defend the Nation"? Are they replacing the US military? Will they actually pick up arms to do this defending?

 

[SkyFox76]

yep it was a tweet but then there is this.

Mollie Hemingway: New Accusation Against Kavanaugh Is Denied By Alleged Victim | Video | RealClearPolitics

I just finished the book, and they also have an essay where they claim that there was another allegation. Left out of the essay is that the claim that is made is actually denied by the alleged victim. They put that in their book, but they didn't put that in their essay, which is causing some people to question their journalistic ethics."

"The part they left out is that this woman, apparently, has told her friends that she doesn't even remember it... It is a third-hand, fourth-hand account of an incident that, even if it happened as described, it sounds like it was Kavanaugh's friends who were the wrongdoers.

While I'm not saying whether the story is true or false a person not recalling something others witnessed doesn't make them less of a victim does it? I'd be curious why he had his dick out for them to even put it anywhere though. I can't say that ever happened at any parties I've been to, ever.

 

[smallvoice]

There's lots of Trumpy circle jerk going on in this thread. Panic mode.

Why did the FBI not investigate and who gave the order not to do so?

Nah, we are just having fun at Dims' expense.

 

[Barnacle]

There's lots of Trumpy circle jerk going on in this thread. Panic mode.
Why did the FBI not investigate and who gave the order not to do so?

Who says the FBI did not investigate ... ?


Sen. Grassley Press
@GrassleyPress
Follow Follow @GrassleyPress

.@NYTimes did not contacted Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would've reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted:

1. @senjudiciary staff proactively contacted Ms. Ramirez' lawyers soon after the New Yorker story broke.
...
2. Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez' lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement.
...
3. Nonetheless, our investigators spoke to and reviewed material from several Yale classmates of Ms. Ramirez and Justice Kavanaugh in order to assess the claim. You can read the committee’s 414-page investigative summary here:
...
4. The committee's review found no verifiable evidence to support the claims. The @nytimes' own reporting at the time noted that it couldn't find anyone with firsthand knowledge & that Ms. Ramirez told friends she couldn’t be sure Kavanaugh was involved:
...
5. Ultimately, Ms. Ramirez’ team agreed only to contact the FBI with the claims. She was reportedly interviewed by the FBI during its supplemental background investigation.
More on those background investigations here:
...
3:52 PM - 15 Sep 2019

Sen. Grassley Press on Twitter: ".@NYTimes did not contacted Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would've reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted:

1. @senjudiciary staff proactively contacted Ms. Ramirez' lawyers soon after the New Yorker story broke.
https://t.co/c8dHQZf4T2"

 

[Mr Person]

Still nothing on Fox News. Not even a peep from Breitbarf.

Let us note that while this does not make this any more likely to be true, the rapidity it was jumped on belles their immediate trust in the first their-lean source they find.

 

[Barnacle]

At the time there was a list of several people given by the Attorney of Ramirez. Those people said they weren't contacted. So it's pretty simple on if they were or weren't. If you call the FBI and say my name is Max Stier and I was a witness to something that happened at a party that deals with Kavanaugh, there are two outcomes. The FBI makes contact with Stier and interviews him, or they don't. If they did, then Max Stier can be shown he's a liar end of story. If they didn't then the question is why not?

According to Senator Grassley's Press Office, there was no list given ... see post #85.

 

[Aberration]

I find it ironic how so many people came here to comment support the NYT without having read the article. It’s a horrible article no matter the topic and anyone supporting it should be ashamed. If you had even a shred of integrity.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Who says the FBI did not investigate ... ?


Sen. Grassley Press
@GrassleyPress
Follow Follow @GrassleyPress

.@NYTimes did not contacted Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would've reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted:

1. @senjudiciary staff proactively contacted Ms. Ramirez' lawyers soon after the New Yorker story broke.
...
2. Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez' lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement.
...
3. Nonetheless, our investigators spoke to and reviewed material from several Yale classmates of Ms. Ramirez and Justice Kavanaugh in order to assess the claim. You can read the committee’s 414-page investigative summary here:
...
4. The committee's review found no verifiable evidence to support the claims. The @nytimes' own reporting at the time noted that it couldn't find anyone with firsthand knowledge & that Ms. Ramirez told friends she couldn’t be sure Kavanaugh was involved:
...
5. Ultimately, Ms. Ramirez’ team agreed only to contact the FBI with the claims. She was reportedly interviewed by the FBI during its supplemental background investigation.
More on those background investigations here:
...
3:52 PM - 15 Sep 2019

Sen. Grassley Press on Twitter: ".@NYTimes did not contacted Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would've reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted:

1. @senjudiciary staff proactively contacted Ms. Ramirez' lawyers soon after the New Yorker story broke.
https://t.co/c8dHQZf4T2"

Grassley must be investigated!!!!!!

By the FBI!!!!!

At least 5 times!!!!

:2mad:

:donkeyfla

 

[SkyFox76]

According to Senator Grassley's Press Office, there was no list given ... see post #85.

Okay great. Can we also count that there is record of the FBI contacting Stier? And same question. If he can prove he called and wanted to speak to someone, can the FBI give proof he was talked to or not? If the answer is no, then why?

 

[Luckyone]

NY Times Allegation that Kavanaugh Exposed Himself at Yale Is a Dud | National Review

Holy Moley! The NY Times, once again, gets busted for fabricating and publishing fake news.

Well, I don't need incontrovertible proof of Kavanaugh's guilt. There are enough corroborated stories about his wild and drunken ways when he was young and then his response at his hearing for confirmation convinced me totally that this man was not only capable of it but guilty of what he was accused of.

I don't want to hear about "prove it" because there are countless of people that have never been "found" guilty in a court of law that are guilty as hell.

If you Trump supporters cannot see it, then all I can say is that you are hypocrites. I don't know how many times or how many people you have accused (and found guilty) of something that has never been "proven" that they were guilty. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, is all I can say.

 

[trixare4kids]

Well, I don't need incontrovertible proof of Kavanaugh's guilt. There are enough corroborated stories about his wild and drunken ways when he was young and then his response at his hearing for confirmation convinced me totally that this man was not only capable of it but guilty of what he was accused of.

I don't want to hear about "prove it" because there are countless of people that have never been "found" guilty in a court of law that are guilty as hell.

If you Trump supporters cannot see it, then all I can say is that you are hypocrites. I don't know how many times or how many people you have accused (and found guilty) of something that has never been "proven" that they were guilty. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, is all I can say.

Thanks for your :twocents:

 

[trouble13]

There's lots of Trumpy circle jerk going on in this thread. Panic mode.

Why did the FBI not investigate and who gave the order not to do so?

How does the times know if the fbi investigated it or not? Do they have a statement from the fbi confirming the claim or is this speculation by the paper?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Fledermaus]

Well, I don't need incontrovertible proof of Kavanaugh's guilt. There are enough corroborated stories about his wild and drunken ways when he was young and then his response at his hearing for confirmation convinced me totally that this man was not only capable of it but guilty of what he was accused of.

I don't want to hear about "prove it" because there are countless of people that have never been "found" guilty in a court of law that are guilty as hell.

If you Trump supporters cannot see it, then all I can say is that you are hypocrites. I don't know how many times or how many people you have accused (and found guilty) of something that has never been "proven" that they were guilty. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, is all I can say.

Wow... Someone got drunk in their junior years...

Stop the ****ing presses.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Okay great. Can we also count that there is record of the FBI contacting Stier? And same question. If he can prove he called and wanted to speak to someone, can the FBI give proof he was talked to or not? If the answer is no, then why?

Why???

1) Trump is Putin's man-puppet
2) Trump is also Mega-Hitler Super Rapist
3) Trump wanted Evil Drunken Penis Flasher as SC judge
4) The FBI = Orange Hitler's SS

:donkeyfla

 

[trouble13]

At the time there was a list of several people given by the Attorney of Ramirez. Those people said they weren't contacted. So it's pretty simple on if they were or weren't. If you call the FBI and say my name is Max Stier and I was a witness to something that happened at a party that deals with Kavanaugh, there are two outcomes. The FBI makes contact with Stier and interviews him, or they don't. If they did, then Max Stier can be shown he's a liar end of story. If they didn't then the question is why not?

If they contacted the alledged victim and she does not know what he is talking about that may of been enough to end the investigation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

While I'm not saying whether the story is true or false a person not recalling something others witnessed doesn't make them less of a victim does it? I'd be curious why he had his dick out for them to even put it anywhere though. I can't say that ever happened at any parties I've been to, ever.

The partys you went to sucked. Its not a party if somebody does not end up naked

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Thanks for your :twocents:

You overpaid, it wasnt worth that much

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Jay59]

Well, I don't need incontrovertible proof of Bill Clinton's guilt. There are enough corroborated stories about his wild ways when he was young and then his response at his hearing for confirmation convinced me totally that this man was not only capable of it but guilty of what he was accused of.

I don't want to hear about "prove it" because there are countless of people that have never been "found" guilty in a court of law that are guilty as hell.

If you anti-Trumpers cannot see it, then all I can say is that you are hypocrites. I don't know how many times or how many people you have accused (and found guilty) of something that has never been "proven" that they were guilty. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, is all I can say.

It reads better this way.

 

[SkyFox76]

If they contacted the alledged victim and she does not know what he is talking about that may of been enough to end the investigation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it should work? Yeah this guy says he witnessed people putting Kavs dick in her hand/face, but hey she doesn't remember, so it's all good! :shrug: