[ad_1]
the New York Times wants to revive Judge Brett Kavanaugh's place on the bench, and he is willing to give up his credibility to do so.
The newspaper dropped a report during the weekend detailing what is not new charges against Kavanaugh, although the fact that he presents them as "news" may be the least misleading thing to the report.
The journalists, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, are back in a new book about Deborah Ramirez's supposed meeting with Kavanaugh. Ramirez, remember, accused Yale's rookie of having stuck his penis in the face, forcing her to "crush and inadvertently touch her". But no one at this supposed event has remembered it. Also, remember that during the Kavanaugh hearings, Ramirez tried to encourage people to remember his version of the events so they could save his story.
The story of the other accuser – an unidentified woman who remembers neither the incident nor accuses her herself – was told by another classmate, Max Stier. This allegation would have been conveyed to the Senate Senators at the confirmation of Mr. Kavanaugh, but they did not find it credible enough to act, as Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network said. Remarks. And the Washington Post apparently had the story a year ago, but refused to print it because he could not confirm anything.
Essentially, two old uncreditable charges have been repackaged to sell books. They are not the bomb the Times wants them to be. As before, neither has been crediblely corroborated and therefore, none is credible.
The whole thing is totally dishonest and irresponsible, especially since the Times conveniently omitted two important details in his report. First, Stier, Yale's classmate who allegedly attended Kavanaugh's meeting with the second unidentified woman, is a longtime Democratic consultant who was part of Bill Clinton's defense team during of the federal inquiry into his case with Monica Lewinsky. But the Times Journalists have chosen to describe Stier as the head of a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC, and a "respected opinion leader," what it could be, to our knowledge . But the fact that they felt the need to hide its true meaning as a political agent shows that they knew they were hiding something. This is the proof, as we say in the law, of the mens rea.
More importantly, the Times failed to mention that the very allegation that he detailed was refuted by Yale's wife of whom Kavanaugh would have been a victim. That's right: the girl Stier said was a victim of sexual harassment does not remember the incident at all and has always denied that it even happened, according to her friends. In their book, Pogrebin and Kelly mention "calmly" that, according to Mollie Hemingway, which got a copy before its release Tuesday. But the Times history has completely neglected it. It was only after Hemingway and others had shamed Twitter all day Sunday. TimesThe editors finally decided to add a note from the editor explaining this essential fact that undermines the rest of the story.
"An earlier version of this article, adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include any element of the book's narrative regarding the statement of a Yale classmate that the friends of Brett Kavanaugh had put his penis in the hands of an inebriated student. part of dormitory ", the correction bed. "The book reports that the student refused to be interviewed and her friends say that she does not remember the incident. This information has been added to the article. "(Underline added.)
So why not Times include this information from the start? Because the story would have been too boring to print – a simple reworking of what we already knew. Again, this seems to be a proof of mens rea. All this was apparently just an attempt to sell books and perhaps to revive a story long denied before the election year.
the New York Timesand everyone who has taken the anti-Kavanaugh train without waiting for corroboration wants to be right. They want the last word; the I told you; the ability to point out those who defended Kavanaugh and say: Look what you did. But this would force them to keep the context, to lay unfounded accusations and to abandon integrity.
Naturally, they jumped on the occasion.
[ad_2]
Source link