Brett Kavanaugh being smeared again

There they go again. Democrats are ready to declare Brett Kavanaugh guilt over one more unproven allegation. We have a judicial doctrine in this country; innocent until proven guilty. The Left have decided to dispense with it yet again.

Instead, it’s all about politics. Listen in to this episode which is slightly-more-than 10 minutes or less.

Mentioned links:

Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not. [The NY Times article that started it all.]

Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris call for impeachment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh after new misconduct allegation

NYT updates Kavanaugh ‘bombshell’ to note accuser doesn’t recall alleged assault

Alleged Victim In New York Times Kavanaugh Story Denies Any Recollection Of Incident

Senate Judiciary Committee’s Final Report: “No Evidence” to Support Sexual Assault Allegations Against Kavanaugh

CBS reveals ‘the real bombshell’ in Kavanaugh saga that unravels the biggest allegations — and it involves accusations of witness tampering by Ford allies

Morning Joe Rips New York Times, Democratic Candidates Over Kavanaugh Story

Witnesses Defended Kavanaugh. NYT Authors Falsely Claimed They Were Silent

Episode 230: Thoughts on the Brett Kavanaugh Hearings [The “Consider This” episode]

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

It’s not often that we get the smearing of a judge, a huge blunder by the NY Times, and Democratic presidential candidates really stepping in it all in just one story, but man oh man we have it here. Let’s start from the very beginning; a very good place to start.

Two NY Times reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, spent 10 months researching a book on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. They summarized the book in an article in the Times on September 14th. In it, they make what appears to be an additional sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh from a new accuser, Harmon Joyce, which sound similar to what a previous accuser, Deborah Ramirez, said she experienced. The article goes through Ramirez’s story and states that this new accusation “echoes” her allegations. The suggestion is that there is now a pattern and that the whole Kavanaugh investigation needs to be reopened.

It’s not hard to see the assumptions here. The authors start out by saying that they found Christine Blasey-Ford’s accusations credible, and it seems like they started from that point. I found them credible-sounding, but without any other evidence, and especially with others that were supposedly there (and some allegedly in the room) saying it didn’t happen or they don’t remember, that’s nearly self-refuting, or at least casts severe suspicion on the story. Pogrebin and Kelly, in this article, use that account as a foundation to concentrate on the story of Deborah Ramirez.

I’m not going to detail the allegation (I try to keep a PG rating), so you’ll have to read the article linked to in the show notes. But here’s the thing; everything in the article that is used to prove the allegation is hearsay. None of the people cited in the article about the Ramirez incident were there. And I will also note that this is all old news, because the original article about Ramirez in The New Yorker already made this known back during the Kavanaugh confirmation. Now I will note that the FBI, when doing its own investigation during the confirmation, did so under rules that were set for them by Senate Republicans. I will admit that this does not look good; it made the investigation look very partisan. The article also notes that the FBI did not interview a list of witnesses given to them by the attorneys for Ramirez. I don’t know why they didn’t interview any of them. Maybe it was because Ramirez herself kept waffling as to whether it was actually Kavanaugh who assaulted her, as reported in The New Yorker. And maybe that 1-week deadline was gracious given that the Democrats waited for 6 weeks before even bringing up any of these allegations. Let’s not forget that the FBI conducted a month-long investigation into Kavanaugh after the urgency of a confirmation hearing was over, and they still found nothing. In the article, the lack of Ramirez interviewees is only cited for the investigation during the hearing. One would suspect that the authors did interview those possible witnesses, and yet we find nothing new in this article summarizing their book. Call the mid-hearing investigation “partisan”, but nothing new has been brought to the table regarding the allegations of Ramirez after a year, including a larger FBI investigation and these authors taking a crack at it. Nothing new at all.

Having rehashed all that, the authors appear to be making a case for a pattern of behavior regarding this new allegation.

What is this fresh new allegation?

A classmate, Max Stier, says he saw an incident where a similar assault happened. Again sparing the details of the assault, Mr. Stier notified Senators and the FBI about this, but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. So then, it looks like we have actual corroboration, but the FBI didn’t follow it up. What sort of dereliction of duty is this?

Well, for there to be corroborating evidence, there must be something first; the original evidence. Our authors avoided that completely. The only thing they corroborated was that he talked to the FBI. What they didn’t have was the original evidence.

That’s right; it wasn’t there. Well, not at first. It wasn’t until later, when they got called on it, that they added this rather remarkable correction.

Editors’ Note: Sept. 15, 2019

An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh [redacted for a PG rating] at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

Oh, that original evidence! And the fact that this Mr. Stier happened to be a lawyer that defended both Bill and Hillary Clinton was completely missing from the article. Kavanaugh served on the Whitewater investigation where Stier was defending Bill. The authors smacked Senate Republicans for partisanship, but called Max Stier just a guy who “runs a nonprofit organization in Washington”. Yeah, that’s all he is. Way to bury the inconvenient truths.

So the phrase “Believe all women!” has been rewritten to say “Believe all women, or at least the male, Democratic partisan even when the woman denies it.”

And following this article, those paragons of non-partisanship, those people who consider the facts before coming to a conclusion – I refer of course to the Democratic presidential candidates – rushed right out to tell the country to wait until all the information was out before coming to a conclusion. HA, who am I kidding? Certainly not you.

They came out swinging to get Kavanaugh to resign or get him impeached. This particular line from Beto O’Rourke was particularly egregious.

[Beto – The American people deserved better, and given the fact that it appears as though Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath, which is a crime, I think he has disqualified himself for service on the Supreme Court. He should step down or he should be impeached.]

Why should Kavanaugh be removed from the court? Because of the “fact” that it “appears” that he lied under oath. Sorry, no. First of all, appearing to lie under oath is not a crime. Second, where is the evidence that he lied under oath? Apparently, Democrats are using the same standard for Kavanaugh now as they used a year ago at his confirmation hearing; allegations equals guilt. Well, if you’re a Republican. The other candidates were also competing in this event of Olympic Conclusion Jumping, but if they’d waited just 24 hours, more facts would come to light and they wouldn’t have looked so foolish.

Filed under: JudiciaryMediaPartisanship