Christine Blasey Ford listens to her attorney Michael Bromwich as she testifies to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018. (Saul Loeb/Pool Photo via AP)
As you’ve probably heard over the weekend, The New York Times covered itself in glory and released excerpts from a supposed well-researched book focused on destroying Brett Kavanaugh. The “revelations” have led to major Democrats rushing to social media to proclaim the current Supreme Court Justice should be impeached. On what grounds? There are none, but they just know it should be done.
The problem is that this hit piece is a dumpster fire of terrible journalism and partisan garbage.
First, The New York Times put this tweet out, embarrassing themselves and later having to delete it.
the countdown to deletion begins pic.twitter.com/2el9eiwUg8
— your pal andy (@andylevy) September 14, 2019
But the issues go beyond badly worded tweets for the media and Democrats pushing this.
The main “witness” of this new allegation is a man named Max Stier. The hit piece itself offers no background about who Stier is, and once you find out, it’s obvious why.
“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. Mr. Stier notified senators and the F.B.I. but the F.B.I. did not investigate” https://t.co/0ZjuPwIMlO
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) September 15, 2019
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. 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; the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.
So who is Stier? He just happens to be Bill Clinton’s former lawyer, who defended him from accusations of sexual misconduct in the Paula Jones case.
Is that the same Max Stier who was one of Clinton’s defense attorneys? Yes, yes it is. https://t.co/JAM4rdDViy
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 15, 2019
The idea that Stier is a reliable, unbiased source is laughable. Yet, the media are running with his accusation without even disclosing who he is. It’s extremely relevant that he has direct ties to the Clintons and that he’s ensconced in Democratic party politics. This would be like Trump’s personal lawyer coming out and saying he saw Joe Biden sexually assault someone. Anyone think the media wouldn’t question his motive and story? Of course they would.
Mollie Hemingway, who wrote a best selling book on the Kavanaugh attacks, takes this apart in a new piece at The Federalist.
The reporters, who describe Democrats in glowing terms and Republicans otherwise, say that Stier is a “respected thought leader” in the defense of the federal bureaucracy. They don’t mention his history of working for the Clintons.
Remember when Kavanaugh said the allegations against him were revenge on behalf of the Clintons? This was likely the allegation he was citing. It was actually known about at the time by Kavanaugh and the Congressional committee investigating. In the end, it was not pursued.
But if that’s all there was, perhaps you could brush it aside. Being partisan doesn’t necessarily mean you’re lying right?
Well, it actually gets much, much worse for the Times.
As for the victim? They say she “has refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it.”
To repeat: Several of her friends said she does not recall it.
So to summarize, the only new claim in the new book is that a Democratic attorney told two senators that he saw an incident where a third party allegedly did something to Kavanaugh and the young woman. In their book, the authors are upset that this claim didn’t lead to a massive FBI investigation, although they don’t explain why they think it should have.
Pogebrin and Kelly left the victim’s denial out of their New York Times story. It is unclear why the reporters and editors allowed the story to be published without this salient fact that they conceded, albeit briefly, in their own book.
The supposed victim herself hasn’t gone on record to confirm this happened. Her friends say she doesn’t even recall the incident. In short, what we have here is a highly partisan actor in Stier making a claim which holds up to no scrutiny at all.
Despite all that, The New York Times published a piece from a biased, unreliable book which left out key details, including who Stier was and the position of the actual alleged victim, who appears to have not been a victim at all.
Let’s get a hand clap for journalism.
BOMBSHELL: New York Times corrects Kavanaugh smear to note alleged victim does not recall any such incident. pic.twitter.com/yigeOyOCzo
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 16, 2019
Let the clean up begin.
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.