Save Your Sympathy for People Who Deserve It
Trump Trounces Nikki Haley by Over 40 Points in Michigan
Taxation Without Reason
Haley Heads for Another Loss
Michigan Takes a U-Turn Back to the Rust Belt
What the Democrats Want to Give America
Joy Reid's Tacky TikTok Talk
The State of Black Progress
Migrant Surge Brings Killers and Criminal Gangs
Texas and Florida Say the First Amendment Must Be Sacrificed to Save It
Xi Van Fleet, a Sage for Turning Around a Troubled America
A Continuing Resolution That Might Resolve Something
GOP’s Right to Reject Funding of Perpetual War
Senate Bill Violates First Amendment Before Violating Second Amendment
Biden Wins in Michigan, but What Do All Those 'Uncommitted' Votes Mean?
OPINION

New York Times Smears Kavanaugh All Over Again

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File, Pool

On Sept. 15, The New York Times ran a long Sunday Review article by its reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly in which they promoted their new book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation."

Advertisement

The book could be titled "Bitter Tears for Leftists." You knew it was going to happen. Just as they cannot concede that Donald Trump won the presidency, they refuse to accept Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

There are men of honor on the left. Former Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jay Rockefeller were at odds with conservatives their entire careers. But neither stooped, nor would they ever stoop, to something like this, working with people such as these.

These are not just liberal activists. They are leftist agitators who specialize in the art of character assassination. They are radicals for whom truth means nothing. Only results matter.

And they work at The New York Times.

The article was a sob story touting Deborah Ramirez, whose accusation was originally championed by The New Yorker's Jane Mayer, who smeared Clarence Thomas back in 1991. It was titled "Brett Kavanaugh Fit in With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not."

The Times opinion section signaled its malignant intentions when it put out this bizarre tweet: "Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn't belong at Yale in the first place." It was deleted within minutes, and The Times confessed it was "poorly phrased."

Advertisement

Find your target. Toss a hand grenade. Watch it explode and blow him to pieces. Then claim it was "poorly aimed."

This exercise is happening with the press, including The New York Times, with such regularity it is no longer shocking.

The Times reporters hoped to restore Ramirez's shattered credibility by uncorking a new allegation that sounded very much like hers. They had found someone who claims to have witnessed Kavanaugh expose himself at a second alcohol-soaked party at Yale.

It didn't matter whether there was no more proof than the first discredited allegation. Just as the networks did before, they leaped into action on Sunday night and Monday morning, touting a new allegation of sexual assault against the newest Supreme Court justice. Five Democratic presidential candidates immediately jumped on Twitter to insist Kavanaugh should be impeached.

Except it isn't evidence. This is recycled garbage.

Follow the wording: "We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez's allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student."

This is not an allegation. They didn't write that Stier "states he saw" or "alleges he saw" the indecent exposure. Stier "saw" it. What proof did Stier offer that would make this unchallenged fact?

Advertisement

They didn't say they talked to Stier but that they "corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier," two anonymous sources who say that he says he saw.

That's it. That's enough for the left to insist a good man be destroyed -- again. So why didn't Stier come forward himself? Stier is the CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, which strives to appear nonpartisan ... although he gave $1,000 to Barack Obama for president, according to OpenSecrets.

Speaking of agendas, nowhere did The Times note that Stier was a lawyer at Williams & Connolly in the 1990s and defended then-President Clinton during Ken Starr's independent counsel investigation. Kavanaugh was on Starr's staff at the time.

And then, as if this ridiculous charade couldn't get any worse, it was pointed out that Pogrebin and Kelly's article omitted a crucial finding that appears in their book. It turns out Stier's storied victim ... never said she's a victim! So The Times had to run a correction that said: "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."

Even that correction is slippery. "(D)oes not recall the incident" keeps the accusation alive. How about the student "has no idea what the hell they're talking about"?

Advertisement

They can't even excerpt their own book correctly? Who thought this junk was ready for publication in a newspaper -- or a book?

Conservatives on Twitter were blunt. Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, said, "If a high-school freshman did this on a school paper, he'd get an F."

Fox News' Brit Hume summed it up perfectly: "This smear was disgusting the first time around. This attempt to revive it is beyond disgusting and speaks to the dishonesty of leading organs of the mainstream media. They are corrupt."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos