Over the weekend the New York Times, the alleged "paper of record" for America, ran an excerpt from a new book about Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In the excerpt, Kavanaugh is accused of sexual misconduct similar to allegations made by Deborah Ramirez during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
The latest and newest allegation was completely made up and the woman who was supposedly "the victim" said she has no recollection of any situation involving Kavanaugh. This lie was pushed by Max Stier, a former Clinton lawyer who battled Kavanaugh during the Whitewater scandal in the 1990s.
The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event. Seems, I don’t know, significant.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 15, 2019
NYT Reporters’ essay about a supposed second Yale incident omitted their own book reporting that completely undercuts it: alleged victim denies any memory of it. Journalistically indefensible, though gullible additional reporters are spreading it of course.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 15, 2019
And for the record, the Ramirez allegations also had zero evidence or credibility. From a 400-page report published by the Senate Judiciary Committee in November 2018 (bolding is mine):
In a September 23, 2018, story published in the New Yorker, Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale at the same time as Justice Kavanaugh, alleged that he “exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.” Almost immediately after its publication, the New York Times posted a story that said its staff had interviewed several dozen people but could find no one to corroborate Ramirez’s account or anyone with firsthand knowledge of the alleged event. The Times also reported that Ramirez, in effort to refresh her recollection, “contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself." Hours after the New Yorker published the story, the Committee contacted Ramirez’s attorney. According to the article, Ramirez had investigated her claims and the Committee asked for any evidence—including statements from witnesses—that she had gathered to support her allegations.
Through her attorney, she refused each of the Committee’s seven requests for such material. The Committee also asked her to either speak to Committee investigators or to provide a written statement directly to the Committee, to which she also refused. Ultimately, her attorneys agreed only to contact the FBI to demand that she be included in the supplemental background investigation. The FBI reportedly interviewed Ramirez on Sunday, September 30, 2018. Despite the refusal of Ramirez’s legal team to assist the Committee in its investigation, Committee investigators attempted to investigate her claims to the greatest extent possible, and interviewed seven witnesses regarding the allegation. They included Justice Kavanaugh’s former roommate at Yale, James Roche, several of his college classmates, and classmates and friends associated with Ramirez. Committee investigators also reviewed documents submitted by several former Yale classmates. The Committee also reviewed public statements from three other Yale classmates but found them immaterial because the speakers had no knowledge of the event. Finally, Committee investigators interviewed Justice Kavanaugh in a transcribed phone call on September 25. He unequivocally denied that the alleged incident ever took place.
Committee investigators found no verifiable evidence to support Ramirez’s allegations.
After being exposed by The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway for failing to include that the "victim" refused to be interviewed for the book (because it didn't happen), the NYT issued the following statement and tried to explain on Twitter.
Editors’ Note: Sept. 15, 2019
An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. 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.
We would like to address the questions we’re seeing related to a book excerpt in today’s Sunday Review section.
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019
The book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, is a well-reported and newsworthy account that reveals new details and sheds new light on a matter of significant national interest.
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019
The excerpt of the book was published in the Sunday Review, a section that includes both news analysis and opinion pieces. The section frequently runs excerpts of books produced by Times reporters.
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019
The new revelations contained in the piece were uncovered during the reporting process for the book, which is why this information did not appear in The Times before the excerpt.
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019
The new revelations contained in the piece were uncovered during the reporting process for the book, which is why this information did not appear in The Times before the excerpt.
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019
Oh, and then there's this. After issuing the "correction," the NYT continues to push the lie in a separate article.
You know how NYT added editor's note saying Brett Kavanaugh alleged victim is said not to recall new alleged incident from 35 years ago? Times again leaves that out of new piece, this one about Dem calls for impeachment. https://t.co/Oo7fFW1AsG pic.twitter.com/HOxSycIMsR
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 16, 2019
Here's the bottom line and the answer is no:
Question: Would this NYT editor’s note have been published if @MZHemingway had not gotten ahold of a copy of the book and found the passage indicating that the alleged victim doesn’t recall the incident? I doubt it. pic.twitter.com/rYuweLS1Uz
— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 16, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member