The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush

The Democrat media in action.

NINE TIMES THE MEDIA PUSHED MISINFORMATION ABOUT KAVANAUGH

Establishment media outlets repeatedly bungled their coverage of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, spreading misinformation as a result.

Here are nine instances in which media outlets pushed misinformation about Kavanaugh.

1. “Devil’s Triangle”
Multiple media outlets accused Kavanaugh of lying about the term “devil’s triangle” in his high school yearbook, which Democrats claimed was a reference to a group sex act. When asked by Democratic Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Kavanaugh said that “devil’s triangle” was a drinking game played with quarters and three cups. The Huffington Post called Kavanaugh’s explanation a “lie.” Seven witnesses — including the classmate credited in the yearbook for inventing the game — have corroborated Kavanaugh’s account of “devil’s triangle.” Politico on Thursday published a video that cited the website Urban Dictionary to suggest Kavanaugh was lying. Politico later deleted the video and issued an apology for its “outdated information.”

2. Media outlets claim Kavanaugh described birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs”
Multiple media outlets claimed Kavanaugh described some forms of birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs.” HuffPost’s article, “Brett Kavanaugh Refers To Birth Control As ‘Abortion-Inducing Drugs’ At Confirmation Hearing,” has been shared 110,000 times. The Cut (a New York Magazine website) titled its article: “Brett Kavanaugh Calls Birth Control ‘Abortion Inducing Drugs.'” In fact, Kavanaugh was citing the defendant’s description while explaining his dissent in the case, which went against the plaintiff. PolitiFact rated “false” Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris’s claim echoing the misleading reporting.

3. New Yorker’s first-hand source knocks down its second-hand source on second accuser
The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow have faced criticism over their sourcing in reporting on the second allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Deborah Ramirez accused him of drunkenly displaying his penis in her face at a party. Neither she nor the New Yorker included any other attendee at the party who could corroborate her story. The New York Times later reported that Ramirez herself had told classmates she wasn’t sure if Kavanaugh was the one who had exposed himself. The only corroborating witness in the story was a former Yale classmate who told the New Yorker that he remembered hearing about Kavanaugh’s exposure from a party attendee. The classmate, who remained anonymous in that story, said he was “100 percent sure” that he had been told of Kavanaugh exposing himself to Ramirez, he told the New Yorker. Mayer repeatedly touted the unnamed source — later revealed to be current Princeton Theological Seminary professor Kenneth Appold — in defending the story’s accuracy. When the New Yorker got in contact with the attendee Appold said told him about the incident, that person had no recollection of the event ever occurring. “No one made Farrow hitch his wagon to these deeply embarrassing and wildly irresponsible Kavanaugh hit jobs,” the Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams wrote in a column. “No one forced Farrow to treat Appold as a serious and credible source. This is all of Farrow’s own choosing.”

4. NYMag spreads Avenatti’s gang rape claim, not it falling apart
New York Magazine spread Michael Avenatti’s claim to have “significant evidence” that Kavanaugh was involved in drugging and gang-raping girls during high school. The magazine published a series of articles on the topic including, “New Accuser Says Kavanaugh Was Present When She Was Gang-Raped in High School,” “Michael Avenatti Implicates Kavanaugh in Pattern of Teenage Sexual Assault” and “Julie Swetnick’s Allegations Likely to Finish Off Brett Kavanaugh.” Avenatti has yet to produce any evidence, and Democrats have distanced themselves from Avenatti’s claim. Avenatti’s client, Julie Swetnick, contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with NBC News, which could not find any corroborating witnesses or evidence to support her claim. Swetnick was also revealed to have made dubious claims in a 1994 lawsuit, reportedly had a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend and was sued for sexual harassment. But those facts undermining Swetnick and Avenatti’s credibility have yet to make it into NYMag’s coverage. When Avenatti produced an anonymous second “witness” — who produced no evidence — NYMag covered it, without mentioning Swetnick’s credibility issues. The magazine did not return an email seeking comment.

5. NBC’s “fourth allegation” crumbles
NBC faced scrutiny after reporting the Senate was pursuing an investigation on a “fourth allegation” of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The allegation in question was an anonymous letter allegedly from a woman who claimed to have heard that Kavanaugh pushed his girlfriend “up against the wall very aggressively and sexually” as they left a bar in 1998. The letter cited no evidence and provided the names of zero witnesses and was among multiple claims about which Senate Judiciary Committee investigators asked Kavanaugh as part their due diligence. NBC entitled its original story: “Senate probing new allegation of misconduct against Kavanaugh.” Kavanaugh’s 1998 girlfriend, now a federal judge, wrote a signed letter to the judiciary committee the same day as the NBC story. She disputed that Kavanaugh ever treated her the way the letter described. “To the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend who was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd,” Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in the letter, which was first obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. NBC has not yet updated its story to note Freidrich’s signed statement challenging the anonymous, evidence-free letter as of publication.

6. “Fifth accuser” recants
Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, in the course of doing their due diligence, also asked Kavanaugh about a Rhode Island man’s claim that Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assaulted his friend on a boat in 1985. Like NBC’s “fourth allegation,” the man presented no evidence for his claim. Senate investigators noted several tweets from the man’s Twitter account, allowing reporters to identify him on Twitter as “Jeffrey Catalan.” The man recanted his accusation and said he “made a mistake.” CNN and The Hill’s initial coverage reported on the allegation without noting that the man leveling it had recanted. The New York Daily News hasn’t updated its story treating the recanted allegation more seriously. “Brett Kavanaugh questioned about alleged sexual assault on Rhode Island boat in 1985,” is how the paper titled its coverage. The paper has not covered the man’s retraction as of publication.

7. NBC’s perjury prayer
NBC published an article Monday night that challenged Kavanaugh’s testimony under oath that he hadn’t heard of former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez’s accusation against him before a Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker. Ramirez accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly exposing himself to her at a party during college, though she herself was reportedly unsure if Kavanaugh was indeed the alleged flasher. NBC cited text messages showing members of Kavanaugh’s team working to prepare a response to the unproven allegation before The New Yorker published its article. NBC presented the texts as evidence that Kavanaugh misled the public in his testimony. But the article, which has since been updated, was misleading for two reasons. First, the network’s original story left out part of Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony in which he said he had heard Ramirez was “calling around to classmates” to ask if they remembered the details of her allegation. (To date, none of the attendees from the alleged party have yet corroborated Ramirez’s account.) “They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that — that she was doing that,” Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 25. Second, NBC’s portrayal of Kavanaugh’s comments — that he swore to have heard nothing of the story before it was published on Sept. 23 — clashed with the fact that Kavanaugh was quoted in that same Sept. 23 New Yorker article.

8. Kavanaugh’s excessive drinking
Kavanaugh conceded in his sworn testimony that he sometimes drank too much alcohol during high school. “I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today,” Kavanaugh said. “I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many,” Kavanaugh said. But media outlets at times represented his testimony to indicate that Kavanaugh testified that he hadn’t drank excessively, even though he confirmed that he did. TheNYT corrected a story that claimed Kavanaugh “said he did not drink to excess.” HuffPost, which did not return a request for comment, claimed “former Kavanaugh acquaintances” have “publicly refuted his claims that he did not drink excessively, one of several lies he may have told during his Senate testimony last week.” Another HuffPost article claimed that during Kavanaugh’s testimony, “he lied under oath — a lot — especially about his excessive drinking.” Those articles left out Kavanaugh’s admission that he did indeed drink excessively in high school.

9. Brian Karem’s scoop that wasn’t
CNN contributor Brian Karem claimed in the local paper he runs, The Montgomery Sentinel, that investigators in Montgomery County, Maryland, were probing another “allegation” against Kavanaugh. Local police denied any such investigation.

Bonus: The New York Times issued an apology after a writer who previously stated her opposition to Kavanaugh reported that Kavanaugh once was accused of throwing ice across a college bar.

The FBI investigation found no corroborating evidence for either Christine Blasey Ford or Deborah Ramirez’s allegations against Kavanaugh, according to a report released by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/05/media-coverage-brett-kavanaugh-misinformation/
 
The Democrat media in action.

NINE TIMES THE MEDIA PUSHED MISINFORMATION ABOUT KAVANAUGH

Establishment media outlets repeatedly bungled their coverage of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, spreading misinformation as a result.

Here are nine instances in which media outlets pushed misinformation about Kavanaugh.

1. “Devil’s Triangle”
Multiple media outlets accused Kavanaugh of lying about the term “devil’s triangle” in his high school yearbook, which Democrats claimed was a reference to a group sex act. When asked by Democratic Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Kavanaugh said that “devil’s triangle” was a drinking game played with quarters and three cups. The Huffington Post called Kavanaugh’s explanation a “lie.” Seven witnesses — including the classmate credited in the yearbook for inventing the game — have corroborated Kavanaugh’s account of “devil’s triangle.” Politico on Thursday published a video that cited the website Urban Dictionary to suggest Kavanaugh was lying. Politico later deleted the video and issued an apology for its “outdated information.”

2. Media outlets claim Kavanaugh described birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs”
Multiple media outlets claimed Kavanaugh described some forms of birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs.” HuffPost’s article, “Brett Kavanaugh Refers To Birth Control As ‘Abortion-Inducing Drugs’ At Confirmation Hearing,” has been shared 110,000 times. The Cut (a New York Magazine website) titled its article: “Brett Kavanaugh Calls Birth Control ‘Abortion Inducing Drugs.'” In fact, Kavanaugh was citing the defendant’s description while explaining his dissent in the case, which went against the plaintiff. PolitiFact rated “false” Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris’s claim echoing the misleading reporting.

3. New Yorker’s first-hand source knocks down its second-hand source on second accuser
The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow have faced criticism over their sourcing in reporting on the second allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Deborah Ramirez accused him of drunkenly displaying his penis in her face at a party. Neither she nor the New Yorker included any other attendee at the party who could corroborate her story. The New York Times later reported that Ramirez herself had told classmates she wasn’t sure if Kavanaugh was the one who had exposed himself. The only corroborating witness in the story was a former Yale classmate who told the New Yorker that he remembered hearing about Kavanaugh’s exposure from a party attendee. The classmate, who remained anonymous in that story, said he was “100 percent sure” that he had been told of Kavanaugh exposing himself to Ramirez, he told the New Yorker. Mayer repeatedly touted the unnamed source — later revealed to be current Princeton Theological Seminary professor Kenneth Appold — in defending the story’s accuracy. When the New Yorker got in contact with the attendee Appold said told him about the incident, that person had no recollection of the event ever occurring. “No one made Farrow hitch his wagon to these deeply embarrassing and wildly irresponsible Kavanaugh hit jobs,” the Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams wrote in a column. “No one forced Farrow to treat Appold as a serious and credible source. This is all of Farrow’s own choosing.”

4. NYMag spreads Avenatti’s gang rape claim, not it falling apart
New York Magazine spread Michael Avenatti’s claim to have “significant evidence” that Kavanaugh was involved in drugging and gang-raping girls during high school. The magazine published a series of articles on the topic including, “New Accuser Says Kavanaugh Was Present When She Was Gang-Raped in High School,” “Michael Avenatti Implicates Kavanaugh in Pattern of Teenage Sexual Assault” and “Julie Swetnick’s Allegations Likely to Finish Off Brett Kavanaugh.” Avenatti has yet to produce any evidence, and Democrats have distanced themselves from Avenatti’s claim. Avenatti’s client, Julie Swetnick, contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with NBC News, which could not find any corroborating witnesses or evidence to support her claim. Swetnick was also revealed to have made dubious claims in a 1994 lawsuit, reportedly had a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend and was sued for sexual harassment. But those facts undermining Swetnick and Avenatti’s credibility have yet to make it into NYMag’s coverage. When Avenatti produced an anonymous second “witness” — who produced no evidence — NYMag covered it, without mentioning Swetnick’s credibility issues. The magazine did not return an email seeking comment.

5. NBC’s “fourth allegation” crumbles
NBC faced scrutiny after reporting the Senate was pursuing an investigation on a “fourth allegation” of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The allegation in question was an anonymous letter allegedly from a woman who claimed to have heard that Kavanaugh pushed his girlfriend “up against the wall very aggressively and sexually” as they left a bar in 1998. The letter cited no evidence and provided the names of zero witnesses and was among multiple claims about which Senate Judiciary Committee investigators asked Kavanaugh as part their due diligence. NBC entitled its original story: “Senate probing new allegation of misconduct against Kavanaugh.” Kavanaugh’s 1998 girlfriend, now a federal judge, wrote a signed letter to the judiciary committee the same day as the NBC story. She disputed that Kavanaugh ever treated her the way the letter described. “To the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend who was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd,” Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in the letter, which was first obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. NBC has not yet updated its story to note Freidrich’s signed statement challenging the anonymous, evidence-free letter as of publication.

6. “Fifth accuser” recants
Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, in the course of doing their due diligence, also asked Kavanaugh about a Rhode Island man’s claim that Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assaulted his friend on a boat in 1985. Like NBC’s “fourth allegation,” the man presented no evidence for his claim. Senate investigators noted several tweets from the man’s Twitter account, allowing reporters to identify him on Twitter as “Jeffrey Catalan.” The man recanted his accusation and said he “made a mistake.” CNN and The Hill’s initial coverage reported on the allegation without noting that the man leveling it had recanted. The New York Daily News hasn’t updated its story treating the recanted allegation more seriously. “Brett Kavanaugh questioned about alleged sexual assault on Rhode Island boat in 1985,” is how the paper titled its coverage. The paper has not covered the man’s retraction as of publication.

7. NBC’s perjury prayer
NBC published an article Monday night that challenged Kavanaugh’s testimony under oath that he hadn’t heard of former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez’s accusation against him before a Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker. Ramirez accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly exposing himself to her at a party during college, though she herself was reportedly unsure if Kavanaugh was indeed the alleged flasher. NBC cited text messages showing members of Kavanaugh’s team working to prepare a response to the unproven allegation before The New Yorker published its article. NBC presented the texts as evidence that Kavanaugh misled the public in his testimony. But the article, which has since been updated, was misleading for two reasons. First, the network’s original story left out part of Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony in which he said he had heard Ramirez was “calling around to classmates” to ask if they remembered the details of her allegation. (To date, none of the attendees from the alleged party have yet corroborated Ramirez’s account.) “They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that — that she was doing that,” Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 25. Second, NBC’s portrayal of Kavanaugh’s comments — that he swore to have heard nothing of the story before it was published on Sept. 23 — clashed with the fact that Kavanaugh was quoted in that same Sept. 23 New Yorker article.

8. Kavanaugh’s excessive drinking
Kavanaugh conceded in his sworn testimony that he sometimes drank too much alcohol during high school. “I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today,” Kavanaugh said. “I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many,” Kavanaugh said. But media outlets at times represented his testimony to indicate that Kavanaugh testified that he hadn’t drank excessively, even though he confirmed that he did. TheNYT corrected a story that claimed Kavanaugh “said he did not drink to excess.” HuffPost, which did not return a request for comment, claimed “former Kavanaugh acquaintances” have “publicly refuted his claims that he did not drink excessively, one of several lies he may have told during his Senate testimony last week.” Another HuffPost article claimed that during Kavanaugh’s testimony, “he lied under oath — a lot — especially about his excessive drinking.” Those articles left out Kavanaugh’s admission that he did indeed drink excessively in high school.

9. Brian Karem’s scoop that wasn’t
CNN contributor Brian Karem claimed in the local paper he runs, The Montgomery Sentinel, that investigators in Montgomery County, Maryland, were probing another “allegation” against Kavanaugh. Local police denied any such investigation.

Bonus: The New York Times issued an apology after a writer who previously stated her opposition to Kavanaugh reported that Kavanaugh once was accused of throwing ice across a college bar.

The FBI investigation found no corroborating evidence for either Christine Blasey Ford or Deborah Ramirez’s allegations against Kavanaugh, according to a report released by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/05/media-coverage-brett-kavanaugh-misinformation/
The left can't win on ideas. They are morally bankrupt.
 
Is Michael Avenatti secretly a Russian agent trying to help the Republicans? :)

MSNBC's Chuck Todd: Michael Avenatti Is Probably the Best Thing to Happen to Brett Kavanaugh
 
MSNBC's Chuck Todd: Michael Avenatti Is Probably the Best Thing to Happen to Brett Kavanaugh

I was actually thinking that. Flake too. Had they brought the vote to the floor last week, I'm not so sure Kavanaugh would have got the votes. Guess we'll never know... but I have a feeling Collins would have been a no vote, Flake a maybe, Manchin a no. Karma's a bitch.
 
Is Michael Avenatti secretly a Russian agent trying to help the Republicans? :)

MSNBC's Chuck Todd: Michael Avenatti Is Probably the Best Thing to Happen to Brett Kavanaugh
Now they figure it out, but in real time they couldn't get enough of Avenatti and his I went to 10 gang bangs slut. One thing you can always count on is for leftists to go a bridge too far. They just can't help themselves, being the party of intellectuals and all.
 
Senator Grassley released a timeline of the sexual assault investigation against Judge Kavanaugh.

Senator Grassley released the document on Friday following the FBI’s released its investigation to the Senate where it found no evidence to support Christine Ford’s claims of sexual abuse 36 years ago. The FBI was not able to find a single witness to confirm Ford’s high school assault charges but found several alleged witnesses who disputed the allegations.

 
One Ford Narrative Too Many
By Victor Davis Hanson

In the end, the Christine Blasey Ford accusations collapsed. With them went the last effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

After thousands of hours of internal Senate and FBI investigations of Kavanaugh, as well as public discussions, open questioning, and media sensationalism, Ford remained unable to identify a single witness who might substantiate any of her narratives of an alleged sexual assault of nearly four decades past.

To substantiate her claim, the country was asked to jettison the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the need for corroborating testimony, witnesses, and physical evidence, the inadmissibility of hearsay, the need for reasonable statutes of limitations, considerations of motive, and the right of the accused to conduct vigorous cross-examination. That leap proved too much, especially when located in a larger progressive landscape of street theater antics, including Senate disruptions, walkouts, and sandbagging senators in hallways and elevators.

At the end of all things, Ford remained scarcely knowledgeable about the location and time of the assault than she was months earlier in her original anonymous complaint. Nor could she yet describe how she arrived at or left the party that may or may not have taken place in 1982. That Ford retained a crystal-clear account of having consumed just one beer and that Kavanaugh played the Hollywood role of a cruel, smirking, drunken, and privileged preppy groper were sensational accusations but not supportable.

After two weeks of the televised melodrama, the country rejected the therapeutic mindset and preferred what was logic and rational—without dismissing the chance that Ford somewhere at some time had experienced some sort of severe trauma.

In Ford’s case, that meant that being empathetic or even sincere did not translate into being credible. Logos (word) and ergon (deed) have never been synonymous. The country was finally asked to believe that because Ford told others of the assault 30 years later, that admission was de facto proof that the event really happened—and happened just as Ford described. But since when was sharing a story proof that the story therein was believable?

Serial Fibs and Fables
The Democrats’ strategy to derail Kavanagh encouraged the appearance of serial accusers—on the theory that the quantity of accusations could do what the quality of any individual testimony could not. Activists had little idea that the opposite usually occurs when such serial testimonials lack substantiation: like falling dominos one knocks down the next all the way back to the beginning. And so the wreckage of serial fibs and fables from all sorts also helped to undermine Ford’s credibility.

When the Deborah Ramirez yarn and the Julie Swetnick fantasy collapsed, along with those of accusers four, five, six, etc. (that inter alia had included charges of rape while out to sea off Rhode Island, a tag-team sexual assault with Mark Judge in the backseat of a car, and throwing ice), Ford’s narrative appeared even less credible. Instead it became just one of many fictions; the first accuser became different from the rest only in the sense of being the first rather than the only one credible.

But Ford’s problem was not just that her memory was inexact and often nonexistent about the details necessary to substantiate her quite serious charges aimed at destroying not just a nomination but the totality of an individual and his family, 36 years after an alleged teenaged encounter. Instead, the rub was that Christine Blasey Ford inadvertently became the best witness—against Christine Blasey Ford.

She had claimed that she was afraid of flying, but by her own admissions she was a frequent flyer.

She claimed the event took place in the early 1980s but also the mid-’80s—but also summer of 1982. Thus, her reported age at the time of the incident was equally fluid as a middle teen or late teen.

She swore that she had no idea that Senate investigators were willing to fly to California to interview her to accommodate her aerophobia—an offer splashed over the media for days.

Her halting answers to questions about her legal assistance funding, her past experiences with lie detector tests, the existence of any tapes or videos of her lie detector interview, and the content, accessibility, and nature of her therapist notes were either self-contradictory, illogical, or incomplete.

An ex-boyfriend turned up to question her narratives in a sworn affidavit alleging that she was demonstrably neither aerophobic nor claustrophobic—and perhaps far from being a novice in matters of taking lie-detector tests. Instead, he suggested that she had used her psychotherapy skills to coach her doppelganger friend how to massage such a test—a Zelig-like best friend who unfortunately also turned up at the hearings, and may well have hosted Ford before the Senate circus, and also allegedly may have tried to pressure one of Ford’s friends to massage her earlier condemnatory denials.

Reporters had noted Ford’s two-front-door remedy for anxiety was not necessarily a result of post-Kavanaugh stress syndrome as much a far earlier mercantile gambit to cash in on the Silicon Valley rent boom, where an extra room with a separate roadside entry meant a lucrative attached rental.

That the same ex-boyfriend claimed that an unfaithful Ford had also ripped him off for $600 in credit card bills (presumably a demonstrable accusation given banking records) did not help her case that she was a babe in the financial woods without a clue about her growing and lucrative GoFundMe account, or who in fact had paid her legal and prep bills and how—facts at odds with Ford’s adolescent demeanor of supposedly lost innocence.

So Many Stories
Senate prosecutor Rachel Mitchell might have proven in court more a depositioner than an inquisitor in her seemingly circular questioning, but in retrospect she proved a brilliant interrogator nonetheless in getting Ford to testify to a host of things that simply could not all be true—and would come back to haunt Ford in Mitchell’s damning summary of Ford’s likely untruths.

And why exactly were there so many contradictions as outlined in Mitchell’s written summation?

Christine Ford in July may have had no idea that her original anonymous accusation would ever become sensationalized publicly, much less put her into a position of trying to reconcile a number of irreconcilable narratives.

Instead, Ford had initially thought a single anonymous but poisonous letter would do the trick far better than had previous weeks of grandstanding Democratic baiting, demonstrations, and walkouts. A last-minute drive-by and anonymous charge of sexual assault would panic Republicans with the mere whiff of #MeTooism, shock and cower a goody-two-shoes, family-man Kavanaugh, and thus force a beleaguered, pre-midterm-anxious President Trump to withdraw the nomination—all without the disclosure of Ford’s name and thus without any further need to substantiate her narratives.

As a side note, in this context, I am confused by the bipartisan outrage solely directed at Senator Dianne Feinstein’s or her staff’s lowdown leaking of Ford’s name. Of course, it was unethical and so typical of the twilight years of the senior senator from California. But, then again, so is authoring an anonymous hit piece without any corroborating evidence but with misleading written assertions (such as how Ford sought “medical treatment” for the assault—without disclosing she meant marriage counseling 36 years after the fact.) It seems far less noble to charge Kavanaugh with sexual assault anonymously than to have come forward at the outset and demonstrate the charge transparently. The cloak of anonymity does even more damage to the idea of jurisprudence than does the unethical removal of it by a would-be enabler.

Yet the radical change of events that followed the disclosure of Ford’s name did lead to discovery of lots of Ford narratives with still more to come.

There was the narrative in Ford’s original letter to U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), which wound up in Feinstein’s hands.

There was the therapist-notes narrative (released in part to the press but strangely not to the committee).

There was the Washington Post interview narrative.

And there was the Senate committee testimony narrative.

By the time of the last narrative, Ford had given one too many.

Sincere, Empathetic . . . But Not Credible
Taken as a whole, Ford’s problem was not just that she couldn’t remember key details, but that she remembered all sorts of different things depending on when and to whom she related the latest narrative. More incriminatingly, her narratives seemed to change key facts about the number and sex of apparent partygoers and the vague date and general area of the assault in ways that might enhance her latest iteration of the story.

What destroys credibility is not just a lack of memory, but more so the presence of too many memories that are selective, self-serving, and mutually contradictory.

Thus far the consensus has been that Ford was sincere and empathetic, but not credible. But more and more, it appears that she was all at once not credible, quite insincere, and perhaps completely unfeeling, at least in saying so many things that were not only unprovable, but demonstrably false and sometimes quite hurtful to her friends—and all apparently for the progressive end of stopping a qualified right-leaning jurist by destroying his character and reputation.

Ford had insisted on privacy concerning her own health problems, but gratuitously questioned the veracity (and by extension selfishness) of her friend Leland Keyser’s testimony by suggesting to the world that Keyser was suffering certain with “health challenges” (specifically, “Leland has significant health challenges, and I am happy that she is focusing on herself”), that might explain their differing memories. In other words, we were presented with something like “my friend perjures herself when she contradicts me but does so because she has medical problems and focuses on her treatment for them rather than on the ‘truth’ about me.”

Finally, the new progressive Democratic Party was especially dense in all this. Senate Democrats kept clamoring for more testimonials to buttress Ford’s charges, but at each juncture of a new witness offering relevant knowledge, the very opposite effect followed of further eroding her veracity. And in a brave new world without evidence, in which “sincerity” and “empathy” mutate into “believability,” and “her truth” is synonymous with “the truth,” why would the counter-testimonies of a boyfriend or best friend be any less believable than Ford’s, much less required evidence of their own? Why call for a supplemental, one-week FBI investigation (months after Feinstein had prevented just that) when all knew that after a week a once-praised FBI would summarily be damned for not finding Kavanaugh guilty of something?

In the end, Ford was perhaps fortunate that the entire circus ceased when it did. Had investigators probed any more deeply the recent accusations of her once long-term boyfriend, the strange but multifaceted role of her lifelong but apparently conniving friend Monica McClean in the Kavanaugh allegations, the passages of the therapist tapes, the exact circumstances surrounding the lie-detector test, the long odyssey of Ford’s original accusation through Feinstein’s staff to Democratic committee members and the media, and the sources of Ford’s judicial support, there might well have been more incompatibility with the ever growing number of Ford’s narratives.

In the end, we were left only with the Stalinist mantra “to accuse is to be believed”—but, of course, not even the current accusers in the future would be exempt from the very nightmare they now would create for others.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/07/one-ford-narrative-too-many/
 
Now they figure it out, but in real time they couldn't get enough of Avenatti and his I went to 10 gang bangs slut. One thing you can always count on is for leftists to go a bridge too far. They just can't help themselves, being the party of intellectuals and all.

Look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, keeps talking about all the freebies she wants to give away being a Socialist but, cannot explain how she intends for paying for all her social programs? I guess she believes, monies grow on trees? Wants to abolish the electoral votes because somehow, they are connected to slavery? Never understood that one nor, understood her! Heaven help us if she ever gets elected!
 
It does look that way. Any senator who falls for it is putting their personal stamp of approval on the use of character assassination for politics without a shred of evidence. Leftists are evil.

Speaking of assassination, somebody tried to assassinate Trump, Mattis, and the CNO with ricin but you probably haven't heard about that because Kavanaugh was accused of throwing ice at someone 33 years ago.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/pentagon-ricin-mail/index.html

direct
 
Back
Top