New Yorker makes empty allegations re Kavanaugh

Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer wrote a piece of crap for The New Yorker magazine in which they detailed a new set of unconfirmed allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and offering not one slice of evidence or corroboration to the claim.

The rag faced tough questions Monday about its report and throughout the day TV interviewers asked Ronan and Mayer actual questions about the piece on the story's disclosure that the new accuser, Deborah Ramirez, acknowledged holes in her memory and in her head of a dorm party she claimed happened in Kavanaugh's freshman year at Yale.

The so-called "reporters" also faced questions over their lack of eye-witness reports to support Ramirez's drunken recollection that Kavanaugh "thrust his penis in her face and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away." The piece cited a classmate of Ramirez's who claimed he heard about the incident shortly after it occurred and several others who attested to her character.

But they saw squat! Those are not witnesses.

On ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, Farrow said, "We wouldn't have run this if we didn't have a careful basis of people who had heard at the time and found her credible."

But credible is an overused word in the Kavanaugh situation. It generally requires the source have both subjective and objective components to be credible. Traditionally, modern credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, both of which have the subjective and objective components. Based on what we know of Ramirez's story, as well as Ford's, we only know of one component and that is the subjective. In terms of trustworthiness, we cannot know this, especially with the lack of evidence or even corroboration of their claims.

And isn't if strange how Kavanaugh only went after future activist Democrats connected to George Soros?

Even host George Stephanopoulos [a former Bill Clinton advisor and apologist who defended the former president against myriad claims of sexual misconduct] said, "But by your own admission, no eye witnesses of the incident."

Farrow admitted that it was true but added that Ramirez considered her account carefully before going on the record [and possibly considered what a book deal might be worth if she went forward]. "This is not the behavior of someone who is fabricating something," Farrow said, without a clue as to the irony such a statement makes, coming from someone who pretends to be a journalist. What a lazy piece of verbal garbage.

The National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke wrote that he "was struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of 'journalism' in a major outlet."

If you can't see what's really going on, i.e., the stalling tactics Democrats are using to keep a conservative justice off the Supreme Court, then you might be a liberal.


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page.



Tweet