[ad_1]
Brenn Kavanaugh's lynching can not let him go. Now Democrats want to remove the Conservative judge from the Supreme Court of the Court from a new allegation of sexual misconduct in The New York Times, so sneaky that even the newspaper does not seem to believe it.
This new smear is buried in the 11th paragraph of a story written by Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from the forthcoming book "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh".
They name their alleged witness to the incident alleged by Max Stier, a Washington lawyer and former classmate of Kavanaugh in Yale, described as a "recognized leader in the management of the federal government" but who also appears to be the same Max Stier who was at the time -The legal team of President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal in 1998, when he was working for the law firm Williams & Connolly.
Stier claims to have "seen Mr. Kavanaugh lowered the trousers at 8 pm. . . evening in a drunk dorm, where friends put her penis in the hand of a student "when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale.
The Times' story states that Stier "informed the senators and the FBI of this account, but he did not investigate and Mr. Stier refused to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who contacted Mr. Stier.) "
What Pogrebin and Kelly forgot to say in their book is that the alleged victim does not remember the incident and refuses to talk about it. This is a journalistic malpractice.
So no corroboration, no evidence, no victim and no witness (only hearsay), but the "official document" is perfect for defaming Kavanaugh again.
By the way, in the book, the authors name the woman free of charge, including the new family name she uses, even if she does not want to talk – and the woman's friends with whom the reporters spoke have said that she did not remember anything. Why shame? Because she refuses to save the agenda of journalists?
Times reporters claim that their new allegations relate to Kavanaugh's "echoes," until then unsubstantiated by 35-year-old claims by another Yale classmate, Deborah Ramirez.
Yet, Ramirez confessed to the New Yorker, who had revealed last year, that her memory was fuzzy because she had been drinking a lot during another night during which Kavanaugh would have "poked his penis in the face and forced him to touch him without his consent. . "
She was not even sure it was Kavanaugh when the magazine contacted her for the first time, but after "six days of careful assessment of her memories," she delivered her message.
Nothing ever proved that what Ramirez had said was true, and the Times reporters found no new corroboration of his story.
In fact, they quote another Yale classmate, Ken Appold, who said that none of the people that Ramirez claimed to be in the room at the time of the alleged incident do not remember it.
But that does not prevent the authors from insinuating a cover-up by the FBI. In their book, they state that "Ramirez's legal team provided the FBI with a list of at least 25 people who may have corroborating evidence."
The authors do not name these potential witnesses but complain that the FBI did not interview any of them. Did the journalists join one of these people? It is hard to believe that some of the 25, if not all, were hit by the media during Kavanaugh's scrum of destruction. Yet none of the direct witnesses of the Ramirez incident has been reported.
The Times' story is a farrago of underlying associations and word-to-word guilt, and it's probably safe to assume the same thing from the book, released Tuesday.
The newspaper says the newspaper does not support its own story, it's that it buried the bomb allegation halfway, on page 2 of the Sunday Review section with the trivial title: "Brett Kavaugh made the difference . She does not have.
There is no marker on the story in the news pages. He sits there, buried under piles of newspaper, like a small unexploded bomb that others can blow up.
Another proof that the newspaper did not take his own reports seriously was a tweet, later deleted, that he had used to promote the article on the @nytopinion official account, which gave an insipid light on the alleged incident: "A penis is imposed on your face at a drunken evening may seem like a safe amusement. . . "
If this is the idea of the "harmless pleasure" of the Times, she has a flaw in her moral compass.
The conclusion you can draw from all of this is that the Times did not support its own reporting.
Of course, this does not matter to unscrupulous Democrats, who bowed yesterday to press the red button for political gain.
Kamala Harris, Julian Castro and Elizabeth Warren were among the first to demand the dismissal of Kavanaugh.
Despite their shading, the story provides no credible new allegations against Kavanaugh, nor does it make any more credible allegations such as that of Ramirez credible. It's just more "maybe in remembrance" and "heard from someone a couple of weeks later" in a hyperbole that is aimed at one thing – trying to undermine a Supreme Court judge that they do not know. Do not like it.
It was a witch hunt at the time, it is now a witch hunt.
Stratagems and girls
What about the militarization of little girls? In case you do not notice it, the Climate Armageddon movement is feminine, fierce and barely pubescent.
Think of Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish scholar who went to the city to address the United Nations and lead the "climate change strike" on Friday to allow young people to return to school with the blessing of the New York City Department of Education.
You can also think of Alexandria Villasenor, 14, who leaves her parents' home in the Upper West every Friday for a climate strike on her own on a bench outside the UN.
Think of Isra Hirsi, 15, daughter of the team's representative, Ilhan Omar.
Come to think of it, even the squadron's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez squadron tries to mimic the teenage mood with its feminine voice and its increasing intonations, which most 29-year-olds have left behind. behind them for a long time.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has the same kind of feminine affection at the age of 52.
Maybe the idea that the world will end in 11 years if we keep using fossil fuels is so ridiculous that you have to pretend to be a child to believe it.
Candy vapes? Are you kidding me
Do not listen to vaping lobbyists. There is only one reason why candy-flavored vaping products are: hook children to nicotine.
Anyone who sat around the board table of Big Vape and imagined flavors of cotton candy and bubble gum deserves the same place in hell as the bear suppliers of marijuana.
[ad_2]
Source link