Patterico's Pontifications

9/16/2019

What the NYT (Initially) Forgot to Mention About Their (Not) New Kavanaugh Allegation

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:34 am



Robby Soave at Reason:

Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh faces another accusation of sexual misconduct. Details of the previously unreported incident appeared in The New York Times on Sunday. The article is adapted from a forthcoming book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, by Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.

The essay concerns an allegation by Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, who previously told The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow that “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,” she recalled Kavanaugh drunkenly exposing himself to her at a dorm room party 35 years ago.

To bolster this account, Pogrebin and Kelly have produced an additional, similar accusation. During the Kavanaugh hearings, Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service and an attorney with a history of defending the Clintons, allegedly told the FBI that at Yale he saw Kavanaugh “with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student,” according to the Times. In its original form, the article continued:

Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Mr. Kavanaugh did not speak to us because we could not agree on terms for an interview. But he has denied Dr. Ford’s and Ms. Ramirez’s allegations, and declined to answer our questions about Mr. Stier’s account.

The Times story was later amended to add a rather important missing detail: “the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.”

Whoops!!

Soave’s post relies to some degree on a book co-written by Mollie Hemingway, a shameless Trumpist hack who might accidentally tell the truth if the truth happened to coincide with the Trump agenda (as it does here), but who is not a reliable source for anything that is not otherwise obvious or well documented elsewhere. In short: if it is true and it doesn’t benefit Donald Trump, you’re not going to hear it from Mollie. Period. That said, although I disavow any part of Soave’s post that relies on Trumpy McTrumpingway, the initial omission by the NYT of the detail that Soave identifies is utterly hacky and shameless.

There are very few people or institutions you can trust in these hyperpartisan times. Keep a watchful and skeptical eye.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

174 Responses to “What the NYT (Initially) Forgot to Mention About Their (Not) New Kavanaugh Allegation”

  1. Regarding Hemingway – one sided reporting. Yeah where can we go get the other side patterico? I can’t find anti-Trump reporting anywhere! Its like the entire MSM is in his pocket. thank god for national review and the Bulwark!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  2. BTW, was my sarcasm too subtle?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  3. She’s correct here, but I prefer people who tell the truth regardless of whether it benefits their “side.”

    YMMV. I think YMDV, actually.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  4. Patterico, I know your feelings on these matters. But I did read MH’s book. It was horrifying beyond belief, and I carefully watched the references. I had nightmares.

    You might say I have a…prejudiced view on false accusations. Maybe so. But this topic (protecting oneself from false accusations for political gain) is one that we should all be able to agree upon.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  5. “In short: if it is true and it doesn’t benefit Donald Trump, you’re not going to hear it from Mollie. Period.”

    I’ll start being concerned when Mollie gets a gig at the DOJ signing off on FISA warrants.

    Munroe (732181)

  6. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler was interviewed this morning shrtly afetr 10am on WNYC (the NPR affilaite in New York City) and asked whether his committee would interview the 25 witnessess.

    Hhe was stumped.

    He pasued for along time.

    Then he said that maybe they could. But they wanted to ask the FBI why it ? didn’t interview them and if they got instructions from Senate MAjority Leader Mitch McConnell not to do so,.

    (As everyone familiar with this knows, the FBI only did interviews it as requested to do. The FVI just can’t interview people for the purposes of background check on its own. I don’t remember for sure if anyone had proposed they be iterviewed. Deborah ramirez herslef was, if I remember right)

    Nadler’s interviewer persisted, saying that the FBI now wouldn’t interview them bu Badler wasn’t going too say that they would. The inerviewer actually maybe believes this stuff could be true and potentially verifiable. Nadler must highly suspect it is all a dirty trick.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  7. The FBI spent a whole week investigating this.

    Munroe (732181)

  8. Mollie Hemingway, a shameless Trumpist hack

    There are LOTS of shameless hacks in the media these days. Most aren’t Trump supporters. Whatever you may say about Mollie, what can you say about the entire NY Times for letting this unverifiable and unlikely story (frat boys touching another man’s penis? Really?) see the light of day. They really had to be in the line for Extra Kool-Aid to run this.

    It’s not just that you can’t trust institutions, as if they just get some things wrong due to bias, it’s that they are conspiring to lie to you.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  9. If Nadler doesn’t believe it ….

    Kevin M (19357e)

  10. What don’t these people understand about “this is how you get more Trump”?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. Conservatives purchasing the nyt is in poor taste.

    mg (8cbc69)

  12. Oh yeah. Thanks for reminding me Trump Humpers. Trump never lies. Never ever ever. Cross his heart and hope to die.

    Gryph (08c844)

  13. Nadler didn’t say he didn’t believe it, but his reaction to the question indicates he doesn’t. He wouldn’t have bene taen aback by the idea of the House Judiciary Committee maybe checking out the Ramirez allegation.

    He’s just trying to stay in line with his aprty, or say, keep the party together, Hes;s trying to argue the FBI, or the Republicans in general, were engaged in a whitewash of Brett Kavanaugh.

    The Democrat won’t try to do anything until they get atotally biased jury. Like 60% of the senate.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  14. Thank the Lord we have steadfast reporters like Hemingway around to push back against the constant dismal tide of the lying media, Democrats, NeverTrump and their ankle-biting allies…

    https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Screen-Shot-2019-09-16-at-7.39.47-AM.png

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. Trump lies, but he doesn’t get away with his lies, and he doesn’t have a whole army of people trying to help him push lies. The only time you sometimes can see something like that os when the lies origginae from outside.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  16. The times almost always lies, or blow up stories, like avenatti.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  17. Maybe it was Kavanaugh who peed on that bed in Moscow.

    Munroe (732181)

  18. He had the goods last time, i was surprised he metaphorically screwed his clients, not literally as i suspected,

    Narciso (7658f4)

  19. The interesting thing about the accusdations against Brett Kavanaugh is that none of them are prosecutable, and they also are not all that damaging to his character. (I think the real reason for that is to scare people away by threatening worse, and so not get any chellanges)

    In the new one it’s not even of his own volition even, except maybe that he’s supposed to be too drunk to resist or object.

    One thing that tends to mark them as false, is that the multiple accusatons of sexual misconsuct agains Brett Kavanaugh are not exactly the same. While if somebody really did things like that, they’d tend to do the same thing over and over again. ad not a whole variety of totally different things. Even accusations that sound superficially the same, are different in important respects.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  20. Thats not the point, its the same goal since they went after clarence thomas in 1991, and mayer and abramson made their careers on this.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  21. She’s correct here, but I prefer people who tell the truth regardless of whether it benefits their “side.”

    In TrumpWorld, “Truth isn’t truth.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  22. “There I was… on the floor in the middle of a Manhattan orgy when a penis was thrust in my face. What could I do? I had to suck it.”

    — Dean Baquet, Editor in Chief NYT

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  23. And, after all, no one investigated these stories!

    Oh, wait: https://twitter.com/GrassleyPress/status/1173364465791901701

    Kevin M (19357e)

  24. It’s simpler than that. It’s how they make their living. It’s their bread and butter.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Miranda Devo=ine writes on page 11 of today’s New York Post

    https://nypost.com/2019/09/15/devine-latest-brett-kavanaugh-smear-doesnt-hold-up

    A surefire “tell” that the newspaper doesn’t back its own story is that it buried the bombshell allegation halfway down, on page 2 of the Sunday Review section with the anodyne headline: “Brett Kavanaugh Fit in. She Did Not.”

    There is no tracer to the story in the news pages. It just sits there, buried under piles of newsprint, like an unexploded little bomb for others to detonate.

    Further evidence that this newspaper didn’t take its own reporting seriously was a tweet, later deleted, that it used to promote the story on the official @nytopinion account, which tastelessly made light of the alleged incident: “Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun…”

    If that’s the Times’ idea of “harmless fun,” it has ascrew loose in its moral compass.

    The conclusion you can draw from all this is that the Times didn’t back its own reporting.

    I think I can explain the “harmless fun” thing:

    One fact everybody agrees upon is that there was no complaint, or any contemporary record at all, of the alleeged incident. It is in part desgned to make Kavanaugh look like a libertine.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  26. I bet you that prospective SC nominees are taking a hard look at their past indiscretions. We all have some, I think. I remember when “young & stupid” was a defense; apparently no longer.

    Two can play this game and Judiciary Committee members might also consider their past.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  27. Colonel Haiku @10:

    What don’t these people understand about “this is how you get more Trump”?

    The answer they would give to that id that 2020 is going to be a base election, in which each party turns out its base. But nk may be right: People are making their living from this kind of thing. (if I understand him correctly)

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  28. It’s the usual naked parade of ridiculousness from these unserious idiots.

    Nothing substantiates, they just feel in their guts it must be true.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. Wrong and deceptive, but they are “Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.”
    Accurate and not deceptive and she is a “shameless Trumpist hack…”

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  30. Is it now a consensus that all the media and all the politicians lie?

    DRJ (15874d)

  31. Major broadcast media ran with this story last night and this morning, even after the omission was published.

    This should indicate that we have major rot riddling the people we are supposed to trust to report the truth.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. If so, DCSCA will be pleased.

    DRJ (15874d)

  33. And then we have nazgul toobin, crawling from under his rock.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  34. 30:
    Like people knowing that there must be gold in that there mine. In the hidden chambers no one can find, buried deep in some hole they haven’t dug, spending their waking hours drawing “what if” maps, digging into it on weekends.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  35. Senator Grassley’s Press office combined tweets yesterday:

    @NYTimes did not contacted Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would’ve reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted:

    1. @senjudiciary staff proactively contacted Ms. Ramirez’ lawyers soon after the New Yorker story broke.

    2. Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez’ lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement.

    3. Nonetheless, our investigators spoke to and reviewed material from several Yale classmates of Ms. Ramirez and Justice Kavanaugh in order to assess the claim. You can read the committee’s 414-page investigative summary here: http://bit.ly/30nwLKG

    4. The committee’s review found no verifiable evidence to support the claims. The @nytimes’ own reporting at the time noted that it couldn’t find anyone with firsthand knowledge & that Ms. Ramirez told friends she couldn’t be sure Kavanaugh was involved:

    https://nyti.ms/2puvYrc [Screenncap of:

    The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.]

    5. Ultimately, Ms. Ramirez’ team agreed only to contact the FBI with the claims. She was reportedly interviewed by the FBI during its supplemental background investigation.
    More on those background investigations here:

    {Link to a YouTube video of Joe Biden in 1991 explaining how what the FBI does when doing a background investigation. For one thing, it never evaluates the truthfulness or not of what ot gets but passes along summaries of interviews]

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  36. Just guessing here but when the Ramirez story fell apart and Kavanaugh didn’t roll over but instead actually got angry about being smeared purely for politics (many say his anger is what finally woke up Republican Senators to the crime which was going down), maybe, just maybe the Dems thought bringing up one more obviously baseless accusation would be a net negative. Turns out that the Avanetti and Ramirez clown cars were enough for the people to start speaking up and swaying the minds of their Senators and Representative.

    I still think that if Blasey-Ford had been the only accuser, as ridiculous as she was and even with her primary ‘witness’ saying she did not know wtf B-F was talking about, that Kavanaugh’s survival was about 50-50. That’s how polluted the CW is these days.

    Go on liberal social media and right now people all over are convinced he’s a frat boy rapist who got away with it. There are even intelligent commenters here who say they don’t care about evidence, he did it. smh

    Lastly, if we’ve all been fooled and all these accusations are true….if someone actually grabbed BK’s unit and was able to push it into someone’s face, he must be hung like a horse.

    harkin (58d012)

  37. 32. DRJ (15874d) — 9/16/2019 @ 9:29 am

    32.Is it now a consensus that all the media and all the politicians lie?

    I don’t agree, and those that lie, don’t lie in the same way.

    It’s not that simple.

    The Democratic Party is the party of slander, while the Republicans mostly don’t lie about individuals. THe Republicans invent talking points, while the Democrats are into BIG BIG les about sissues, like the whole climate change irrationality.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  38. “Is it now a consensus that all the media and all the politicians lie?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 9/16/2019 @ 9:29 am

    By “now” you mean which millennia?

    Munroe (4dce03)

  39. Jayson Blair must be outraged… getting fired from the NYT for lying.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  40. Yesterday on Meet the Press Chuck Todd seemed to complain about the fact hat Trump was tweeting about Brett Kavanaugh (tha;s all the description he gave) and not more important matters,

    Trump goes on the offense like that when he thinks he’s got a good case.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  41. Is it now a consensus that all the media and all the politicians lie?

    Yes. As I’ve said before, Trump is not an outlier.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  42. As of right now, today, only John McCain and The Weekly Standard are telling the truth.

    Munroe (4dce03)

  43. OT: Trump will be holding a rally in my town Monday. And darn it all, I did not get tickets. I see they’ve let the schools out so that there can be lots of protesters.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  44. As of right now, today, only John McCain and The Weekly Standard are telling the truth.

    I still trust Huntley and Brinkley.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  45. Jason Blair invented quotes and interviews. These people ahve not done that. It;s more Mike McAlary and the accusations that someone really wasn’t raped. He really did have police sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_McAlary

    McAlary’s most controversial story, for the Daily News in 1994, was about a woman who said she had been raped while walking home with groceries through Prospect Park, in Brooklyn. Unnamed police sources told McAlary that she made up the story, because she wanted to promote a rally about violence against lesbians. McAlary’s police sources said there were inconsistencies in her story, and a lack of physical evidence. The police department later discovered DNA evidence, but no arrests were made at the time. </blockquote.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/nyregion/apology-police-prospect-park-rape.html

    That's the thing. There's an organized conspiracy to spread these lies. And make people more partisan. The reporters or book writers aren’t making it up. They’re being used.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  46. Is it now a consensus that all the media and all the politicians lie?

    The New Yorkers more than most.

    nk (dbc370)

  47. I thought children were beibg let out of school on Friday, for a anti-climatechange rally.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  48. It’s like they know something must be done and are frantically flailing about. The know everything to this point has failed, so they wrap the turd in mink, throw it out there and hope for the best.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. And yeaargh dean, removes all doubt

    Narciso (7658f4)

  50. “Mollie Hemingway, a shameless Trumpist hack who might accidentally tell the truth if the truth happened to coincide with the Trump agenda (as it does here), but who is not a reliable source for anything that is not otherwise obvious or well documented elsewhere. In short: if it is true and it doesn’t benefit Donald Trump, you’re not going to hear it from Mollie. Period.”

    Still parsing this….lol.

    harkin (58d012)

  51. And aheldon whitehouse joins the party.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  52. Mollie Hemmingway can speak the truth on Trump. You just have to go back a few years:

    On Trump:

    [H]e’s a demagogue with no real solutions for anything at all. He’s a narcissist who takes no responsibility for the negative consequences of his ill-conceived and incoherent verbal spews. He flip-flops incessantly. He is not honest when called to account for previous things he’s said. He insults individuals and groups of people gratuitously. His ideas always involve an expansion in the size and scope of government. And his blow-ups seem perfectly timed to help people in the party he’s not running in.

    On Trump Fans:

    A Twitter user who goes by the name Political Math said of these people, and please excuse his French, “The world makes a lot of sense when you realize that the #1 priority of Trump supporters is to tell you to go [expletive deleted] yourself.” He added, “And I don’t mean this as a slur: Trump supporters are really just *more* sick of bull[deleted] out of DC than they care about Trump.”…

    I get wanting to send a message…

    But don’t pretend that Trump has ideas, much less ideas that are good. Yes, he fights! Oh how he fights. And after years of Republican candidates sputtering and cowering in the face of stupid progressive questioning, that is an enjoyable thing to see. Although, it must be said that for someone who fights he sure does whine a hell of a lot. Just in the time I’ve written this, I’ve seen him whine about a half dozen different people. Trump’s support is based on his toughness. So why do he and his supporters cry like little babies anytime someone critiques him even slightly? I don’t get it.

    https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/10/when-it-comes-to-donald-trump-i-hate-everyone/

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  53. It’s simpler than that. It’s how they make their living. It’s their bread and butter.

    nk (dbc370) — 9/16/2019 @ 9:11 am

    Thank God for their bottom line that there are indeed any number of suckers born every minute.

    Dana (f561f0)

  54. Although, it must be said that for someone who fights he sure does whine a hell of a lot. Just in the time I’ve written this, I’ve seen him whine about a half dozen different people. Trump’s support is based on his toughness. So why do he and his supporters cry like little babies anytime someone critiques him even slightly? I don’t get it.

    They certainly do.

    nk (dbc370)

  55. Progs are like the replicators from stargate

    Narciso (7658f4)

  56. When you’re right, you’re right…

    https://twitter.com/BuckSexton/status/1173582114865995776

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  57. Progs never concede: always looking for the privileged white male to be bashed. Except Alger Hiss: he was framed.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  58. #37- Grassley’s actions and Democrat/MSM reaction just show why dinosaurs like Grassley need to change or retire. Grassley thought that by giving Blowsey-Fake every benefit of the doubt, giving the D’s everything they wanted, acting as a completely neutral and objective chairman, and doing everything possible to confirm the accusations with the FBI, he would get some credit from the MSM/Democrats.

    And Grassley got ZERO credit. And the D’s and MSM continue to smear Kavanaugh and rewrite history, and claim the hearing was biased and we need a Kavanaugh impeachment “inquiry” to find THE REAL TRUTH. The CONSTANT R bending over backwards to appease the D’s gets us nowhere. Even Trump did it with the Mueller investigation. Telling everyone to cooperate, handing over all the documents, etc. Did he get any credit for it? HAHAHAHA

    rcocean (1a839e)

  59. By the way, when the last time the D’s had a good word for Flakey-Flake, that “Principled” never-trumper? Did they even send him a Christmas Card?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  60. “Democracy Dies in Nefarious Activity”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  61. RBG must be in rapid decline for another in a long line of Hail Marys l…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  62. Put an asterisk next to the names of every single one of the Democrat candidates who have aligned themselves with this excrement.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  63. The Times is like a serial killer… “stop me before I kill again”… https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1173558036272680960

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  64. 62. rcocean (1a839e) — 9/16/2019 @ 11:00 am

    Grassley thought that by giving Blowsey-Fake every benefit of the doubt, giving the D’s everything they wanted, acting as a completely neutral and objective chairman, and doing everything possible to confirm the accusations with the FBI, he would get some credit from the MSM/Democrats.

    I don’t think Grassley necessarily thought so.

    He may have thought his constituents in Iowa would. Maybe he and others thought Democrats had some shame. They indeed had some They almost all avoided the accusations associated with Michael Avenatti.

    It is good also to take the approach that you expect the oppsition to be honorable even of you have less than full cofnfidence that it will be.

    And how else is he supposed to act anyway?

    And Grassley got ZERO credit. And the D’s and MSM continue to smear Kavanaugh and rewrite history, and claim the hearing was biased and we need a Kavanaugh impeachment “inquiry” to find THE REAL TRUTH. The CONSTANT R bending over backwards to appease the D’s gets us nowhere. Even Trump did it with the Mueller investigation. Telling everyone to cooperate, handing over all the documents, etc. Did he get any credit for it? HAHAHAHA

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  65. I actually didn’t find the article in yesterday’s New York Times until I read 25.Miranda Devine’s column in today’s New York Post.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  66. And Grassley got ZERO credit.

    Because they’re still at it.

    But, because he was proper, and fair, he does avoid getting accused himself of bias. Instead, he gets ignored.

    They’re attacking Mitch McConnell and the FBI.

    They don’t want media outlets to interview him.

    And the D’s and MSM continue to smear Kavanaugh and rewrite history, and claim the hearing was biased and we need a Kavanaugh impeachment “inquiry” to find THE REAL TRUTH.

    This is almost like a controversy over religion.

    The CONSTANT R bending over backwards to appease the D’s gets us nowhere. Even Trump did it with the Mueller investigation. Telling everyone to cooperate, handing over all the documents, etc. Did he get any credit for it? HAHAHAHA

    I think it helped him.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  67. Schitsling… rinse… repeat.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  68. What with all this drunken penis-touching, I’m glad to see that the New York Times shares my high opinion of Yale.

    Ingot9455 (46f6e9)

  69. @34. ??

    It’s just Karma with that dude. He is who he is. And it’ll dog him. He has a ‘history’ of questionable character, revealed, quilled and calendared by his own hand, which, though viewed from afar as immature, has nothing to do w/his legal qualifications for the gig. He could collect stamps, wear imported silk knickers, eat peas with his knife and still be a closet drunk, too: [“I like beer!!”] One day, some day… in time, the mustard will hit the fan and it’ll ‘catch-up’w/him. It did w/John Tower; Dick Nixon, too.

    Besides, given the recent hell of those hearings, no woman in her right –or left– mind would cop to recalling a Kavanaugh ‘her-wanging’ now. Brett who?? There are no winners in this. But it sells books.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. The fattaht Brett Kavanaugh was known to drink while in high school, and may still drink some doesn’t make him an alcoholic. he said he never had any alcoholic blackout and there;s no reason not believe him.

    Someone has to be pretty far gone to start having this amnesia.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  71. I’d like to see a reliable list of Mollie Hemingway’s lies, of there is one. But keep in mind that there is a difference between merely expressing a favorable opinion of Trump and what you believe he’s accomplished, and deliberately making false factual statements..

    NYLawyer (6ff037)

  72. They don’t want media outlets to interview him.

    As I understand it, Kavanaugh is refusing to be interviewed. Or at least, not responding to requests to be interviewed.

    Which is undoubtedly correct, both as a pragmatic matter (what exactly would he gain by being interviewed?) and as keeping with the general traditions of SC Justices.

    There are even intelligent commenters here who say they don’t care about evidence, he did it. smh

    If that refers to me…I did not say he did it. I said he acted exactly the way a guilty man would have acted. You think he was indignant and outraged over being falsely accused. I think that indignation/outrage was an act. (Things like tone of voice and emotional intensity are different, and emerge over different points, between false and real anger.)

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  73. Actually, this statement is arguably factually false:

    “[Hemingway] . . . might accidentally tell the truth if the truth happened to coincide with the Trump agenda (as it does here), but . . . is not a reliable source for anything that is not otherwise obvious or well documented elsewhere.”

    There would have to be a fairly well-documented list of her lies for that claim to be true. It’s one thing to only convey facts when they are favorable to Trump, but quite another to make false statements to promote or defend him. She may a “reliable” Trump supporter, but it doesn’t mean she’s not generally reliable about other things.

    NYLawyer (6ff037)

  74. I think that indignation/outrage was an act.

    I think what you saw was a long-time professional judge letting his anger loose rather than masking it behind a long-practiced judicial game face.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  75. “Actually, this statement is arguably factually false:”

    I felt the same way but held back because of past experience. I re-wrote my response (above) maybe five times before giving up and just saying I was parsing it. It is a very bizarre statement and seemed to come more from emotion than common sense.

    harkin (8f010c)

  76. #76 If that refers to me…I did not say he did it. I said he acted exactly the way a guilty man would have acted. You think he was indignant and outraged over being falsely accused. I think that indignation/outrage was an act. (Things like tone of voice and emotional intensity are different, and emerge over different points, between false and real anger.)

    I watched both his and Dr. Ford’s testimony in real time, so that I don’t get prejudiced by the media cafeteria food fight.

    Kavanaugh did struggled to keep his composure and did exceedingling well in his passioned defense. We cannot fault him for that as this was a despicable attack on him personally. I believe him. Here was a man, who spent his entire professional career building an impeccable reputation, with NOT ONE iota of malfeasance professionally nor privately.

    Dr. Ford’s accusations doesn’t even deserve to be associated with the word “credible”. Far from it, and to be honest, I’m pissed because it makes it hard for true victims to come forward with their stories.

    Frankly, I’m surprised Kavanaugh kept it together and I find any criticism over his “voice” or “emotional intensity’ extremely unpersuasive.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  77. If that refers to me…I did not say he did it. I said he acted exactly the way a guilty man would have acted.“

    Yes you did. You said he acted the way a guilty man would act. I myself think different people act in different ways but I felt his anger was entirely understandable given that people were attempting to destroy him regardless the void where evidence should be.

    He may have done it, he may not. But I’m happy to be on the side that judges him and this dumpster fire of due process by evidence and not because of demeanor.

    harkin (8f010c)

  78. “It is a very bizarre statement and seemed to come more from emotion than common sense.”

    Yeah, Mollie Hemingway isn’t exactly Alex Jones or Rachel Maddow (or Joe Biden).

    NYLawyer (6ff037)

  79. 80… he doesn’t care for Hemmingway, he’s made that plain for quite a while.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  80. I don’t know if Tapper – with his demonstrable perfidy – is still considered an even-handed guy or not.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. so it turns out this piece was trash was published by an imprint of bertelsman, yes the same people that gave Obamas 60 million dollars,

    narciso (d1f714)

  82. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate

    Senator Grassely has spoke from the Floor of the Senate and states the Senate was NOT notified of the new account.

    Another lie. Something a simple phone call would have verified

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  83. Whembly at 81 – you say it much better than I ever could. Well done.

    harkin (8f010c)

  84. “80… he doesn’t care for Hemmingway, he’s made that plain for quite a while.”

    There’s a difference between not caring for someone and falsely accusing them of being a habitual liar.

    NYLawyer (6ff037)

  85. Kavanaugh did struggled to keep his composure and did exceedingling well in his passioned defense. We cannot fault him for that as this was a despicable attack on him personally. I believe him. Here was a man, who spent his entire professional career building an impeccable reputation, with NOT ONE iota of malfeasance professionally nor privately

    As I said, I think that anger was faked. He was putting on a show.

    As I also said yesterday, there were other questions involving his finances that suggest he was rather peccable, so to speak. That the Democrats opted for the sex instead of the money simply demonstrates their lack of intelligence.

    But I’m happy to be on the side that judges him and this dumpster fire of due process by evidence and not because of demeanor.

    Another serious mistake on your part. The real question wad not whether he assaulted girls as a teenager, but whether he is fit to be Justice of the Supreme Court. Demeanor is one of the key things in a judge. I think he failed on that. You saw a man outraged at false charges. I saw a hack upset that his prized promotion was in danger of slipping away.

    Kishnevi (2ec088)

  86. As I said, I think that anger was faked. He was putting on a show.

    You have to already believe he is guilty to say that, so this isn’t probative.

    You saw a man outraged at false charges. I saw a hack upset that his prized promotion was in danger of slipping away.

    And again, so what? You started off thinking him a hack, and were unsurprised to see a hack.

    This is the kind of thing I’d expect from people who think Trump never lies, and continually “see” the truth in his statements.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  87. Kudos to Jan Crawford for exposing the lies of omission by the NYT, and confirming that this was a hit job. Also, noted in the news clip, all four people Blasey Ford said were at the party in 1982, have now said no such party occurred. Moreover, the Republican chair of the Senate judiciary and the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary both said they would not support any impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.

    Dana (fdf131)

  88. Well, I once got called into the principal’s office and was accused of showing pornography.

    What?! “Where did you get this movie?” the principal demanded to know. Um, from the school library. It’s a King Arthur movie. I followed the curriculum guide and put it in my lesson plans. Do you not know the board-approved curriculum guide, did you not read my lesson plans? How many other English teachers have checked out this video and not been accused of showing pornography?

    It was so ridiculous. A male teacher follows the curriculum guide, checks out a video from the school library, shows it to his students, and he’s a pornographer? While every female teacher who follows the same curriculum guide, checks out the same video from the school library, shows it to her students, is not a pornographer?

    The public education system in this country has been horribly corrupted.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  89. I have no reason why people constantly go over this over and over again. Blowsey-Fake couldn’t say or prove:

    1) when she was assaulted
    2) where she was assaulted
    3) how she got home from being assaulted.
    4) who was at the party when she got assaulted.
    5) why she didn’t tell her mother or father or other girls at the HS.

    She had NO EVIDENCE. Just her word. She couldn’t even give a good reason for waiting 35 years to bring this up.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  90. 94. King Arthur movie? Wouldn’t have happened to be “Excalibur,” would it? I remember a few racy scenes in that one, but it’s my second-favorite King Arthur movie, second only to “Month Python and the Holy Grail.”

    Gryph (08c844)

  91. I think it was liam neesons debut wasnt it, but the point is to teach people what to think, not how to think.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  92. How many other English teachers have checked out this video and not been accused of showing pornography?

    Dollars to donuts you had the bad luck of one student with a prudish parent who complained.

    In 1975. my mother had to sign a permission slip to allow me to read the assignments in my 12th grade English class, which included Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale, Sons and Lovers, and For Whom the Bell Tolls (which includes at least one scene of explicit sex).

    Kishnevi (2ec088)

  93. the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary both said they would not support any impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh

    I think Nadler’s stated reason is that they are too busy trying to impeach Trump.

    Kishnevi (2ec088)

  94. 96: Excalibur is the best: the scene where he pulls the sword from the stone, and his frantic adoptive father, missing the significance, tells him “you must put it back!”

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  95. Federal judges serve for life “during good behavior”. No federal judge has ever been impeached for conduct from before he was a judge. That’s one.

    The lying before the Senate Judiciary Committee BS has a long history of merger and bar in the law. The Senate’s decision to confirm him is a legally irrebuttable (down, Mayor Pete!) presumption that he told the truth and that there’s nothing to be done about it now. That’s two.

    It’s obvious to just about everybody, even his most vociferous opponents, that it’s all horsesh!t and politics (BIRM). That’s three.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. I’d like to see a reliable list of Mollie Hemingway’s lies, of there is one. But keep in mind that there is a difference between merely expressing a favorable opinion of Trump and what you believe he’s accomplished, and deliberately making false factual statements..

    You can start with this.

    “80… he doesn’t care for Hemmingway, he’s made that plain for quite a while.”

    There’s a difference between not caring for someone and falsely accusing them of being a habitual liar.

    Yeah? There’s also a difference between saying you’d like to see the evidence of something and falsely suggesting that I said something false.

    So many differences in this world…

    Patterico (115b1f)

  97. Actually, this statement is arguably factually false:

    “[Hemingway] . . . might accidentally tell the truth if the truth happened to coincide with the Trump agenda (as it does here), but . . . is not a reliable source for anything that is not otherwise obvious or well documented elsewhere.”

    There would have to be a fairly well-documented list of her lies for that claim to be true. It’s one thing to only convey facts when they are favorable to Trump, but quite another to make false statements to promote or defend him. She may a “reliable” Trump supporter, but it doesn’t mean she’s not generally reliable about other things.

    It’s an opinion. Just like I have an opinion that you are not going to pay much attention to the evidence I provided, given that you have now twice suggested I said something false without waiting for the evidence. But hey. Shock me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  98. The rest of the story is the way she pointedly ignored me when I — politely at first — drew her mistake to her attention.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  99. You don’t have to link to Soave or Hemingway when French says the same thing about Stier and the shakiness of the Ramirez Seven.

    Paul Montagu (dfd657)

  100. She had NO EVIDENCE. Just her word. She couldn’t even give a good reason for waiting 35 years to bring this up.

    Technically, of course, her word is a form of evidence. But I know what you’re trying to say and I agree.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  101. Except her word doesnt match any of the collaborating witnesses, they were trying the same trick with anita hill, 28 years ago.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  102. Jan Crawford
    @JanCBS

    We report tonight the real bombshell: Christine Ford’s close HS friend (who Ford says was at the party when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her) said Ford’s story is not believable and told the FBI Ford’s allies pressured her, threatened her with a smear campaign to say otherwise https://twitter.com/cbseveningnews/

    BUT HIS DEMEANOR!!!!
    _

    harkin (58d012)

  103. 109… Seems to be rather important!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  104. 109… Seems to be rather important!

    I don’t see it at the link.

    nk (dbc370)

  105. Just popped up on my iPhone News (which I don’t want but that never leaves my far left swipe)

    Washington Post:

    Senator told FBI last fall about new Kavanaugh information”

    Pure slime.
    _

    harkin (58d012)

  106. The nyt has made a career of slandering people. Freedom of the press is a joke.

    mg (8cbc69)

  107. Freedom of the press is a joke.

    Given the propensity of the media to jump on people (mostly conservative, though celebrities in their private lives as well), hound them, assist in doxxing them, etc. a certain freedom FROM the press might be in order.

    PTw (894877)

  108. What an Utter Cock Up by the NYT.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  109. #103 “There’s also a difference between saying you’d like to see the evidence of something and falsely suggesting that I said something false.”

    (1) My suggestion (i.e., “opinion” — see below) would be false only if, in fact, there were such evidence of Hemingway’s only “accidentally” telling the truth and not being a reliable source for “anything” but Trump-favorable statements. The single example you give — which you concede is a “little intricate” to follow and relies on her “implicating” something due to “conflating” two NYT articles — may arguably not meet that standard. My suggestion that your statement is false is based upon my not having seen the evidence of the pattern you claim there is. But as you don’t now seem to be claiming that Hemingway habitually and deliberately lies (as opposed to merely making statements for which there may be no evidence), it’s not a significant concern of mine.

    #104

    (1) (a) “It’s an opinion.”

    Under that standard, as noted, my “suggestion” was a mere opinion and thus incapable of being “false.”

    (b) “Just like I have an opinion that you are not going to pay much attention to the evidence I provided, given that you have now twice suggested I said something false without waiting for the evidence.”

    Not exactly “just like”, as your opinion of what I may pay attention to is speculation about future events. And I’ve already addressed whether the evidence you provided supports your conclusion regarding Hemingway’s reliability. Furthermore, if I am required to “wait” for the evidence, then I’d be entitled to suggest that your statement might be false based on the present lack of evidence (the basis for yours, and the NYT’s, frequent “X asserts Y “without evidence”, tropes). Perhaps you should continue to “wait” for Hemingway’s response to your December 2018 post; she’s a busy gal (with all the habitual lying etc.)

    (2) But to cut to the chase: To me, Trump’s appointment of 150 federal judges (including Kavanaugh) alone outweighs his alleged 12,000+ lies, even if every one of them was deliberate and malicious. Especially considering which judges would have filled those slots if Clinton had won. Which is why you need McTrumpy superfans like Hemingway and me — to cover up or ignore his messes and insure his re-election over Biden or Warren in 2020.

    NYLawyer (6ff037)

  110. (2) But to cut to the chase: To me, Trump’s appointment of 150 federal judges (including Kavanaugh) alone outweighs his alleged 12,000+ lies, even if every one of them was deliberate and malicious. Especially considering which judges would have filled those slots if Clinton had won. Which is why you need McTrumpy superfans like Hemingway and me — to cover up or ignore his messes and insure his re-election over Biden or Warren in 2020.

    Trump is bad but I & Hemingway don’t care because of judicial appointments is a straight forward argument. But it’s not the same being honest.

    But don’t ask that people treat your statements as credible.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  111. I like judges who will remember who got them their jobs when Jones Day has a case before them as much as the next K Street lawyer, but a President has many, more important, responsibilities and America has many, more urgent, needs, and Trump’s judicial appointments, in the overall scheme of things, seem to me like the band playing in tune on the Titanic.

    nk (dbc370)

  112. Donald Trump and the Trump Humper brigade are like used car salesmen. Consummate bulls**t artists. They’ll tell you the truth when they can, but they’ll lie when they feel they have to. Anything to close the deal.

    Gryph (08c844)

  113. To some up charlton who went to school with pogrebin was coordinating the op against kavanaugh

    Narciso (7658f4)

  114. 91. There was nothing wrong with Kavanaugh’s demeanor, although he did give one or two curt responses.

    He did make a point of strongly challenging the charges, with some emphasis (not much) because he was advised to. (in order to impress Trump, so he shouldn’t withdraw his niomination, because Trump is strongly impressed by how strongly someone makes the case)

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  115. The new york times and the dog trainer and the washington post, are all burning the country, dont think the fire wont reach you in the dakotas, they mean to rule over you.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  116. Narciso (#121), in his enigmatic way, is implying that the NYT reporter who is a co-author of the book and the NYT piece, is a member of Kavenaugh’s class at Yale. Kavenaugh is Yale class of ’87 (Wikipedia). Pogrebin is also a Yale grad (more Wikipedia), and like Kavenaugh, seems to have been born in 1965. (See https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/17/style/weddings-edward-klaris-and-robin-pogrebin.html). So I assume they are classmates, or a year separates them.

    This probably explains why her story focuses on Yale — she was using friends and fellow alumni to gather up details, and she has knowledge of how Yale was back in the day, and she probably has a strong opinion on how fraternities behaved back then. It is kind of odd this is only coming up now. And it does seem like Pogrebin is someone you would expect to be a witness or a source for the story, not the actual reporter.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  117. Mollie Hemingway claims, in addition, that Pogrebin was roommates with one of the on the record sources of the stories about Kavenaugh’s behavior at Yale. Verifying this one appears to be beyond my google skills, so I would be skeptical of that for now. There IS enough to go hmmmmm…

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  118. And max stier has personal gripes against kavanaugh.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  119. 95. CBF had actually mofdified her story somewhat – she had to change the year; and what she said was not in accordance with her therapists notes from a few years back (if they were genuine)

    The explanation offered was that the therapist got things wrong. (about it being in her “late teens” and about the number of boys involved.

    Information like that was kept from the committee as much and as long as possible. But before anybody could get the strongest evidence we had Amy Klobuchar asking Christine Blasey Ford is therapists notes were condidered good evidence.

    The Democratic operatives simply don’t want people in thier base to realize it was all a pack of lies.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  120. She was lying, sammeh as clearly as jackie coakley, but ahe was just the iceberg, hillatys minions were entrenched three deep.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  121. Some people cannot conceive of a world where what matters is what gets done. They can only process the world in the context of things people say relative to some perfect, imagined standard. There are far more variables and much more volatility in the many, many variables of even some of the tiniest slices of life than can reasonably be managed. People who get things done understand this and thus do not put much stock in what they or others say. Not that what gets said is irrelevant or unimportant, words most certainly are important. To a point. But when push comes to shove, nothing is accomplished without some degree of change and thus adaptability. Consequently, over time, over a life time, doers become less and less concerned with what talkers have to say or what they themselves have said in the past. Their standard for consistency is whatever works.

    The best thinkers/talkers can compensate for their lack of real-world experience with heightened degrees of self-criticism and introspection. A self-criticism that, somewhat ironically, makes them even less fit to be doers because it drives a perfectionism that in reality is simply not achievable. In the good thinkers, this brings on a sense of humility, humbleness. But it requires a degree of internal discipline and purposeful exposure to uncomfortable ideas that is very, very rare in society. Such an effort can become very isolating and often times is not very, if at all, self-satisfying. The doers, OTOH, do not think/operate this way. If they did, nothing would get done. They brush off their failed thinking/ideas by focusing on what was accomplished. They are not so committed to previous conceptions. The focus is on completing the task. If this didn’t work, try that. The better ones do some introspection, generally after the job is done, to learn from how past perceptions did not fit reality so that they can improve their planning for doings in the future.

    PTw (894877)

  122. And I’ve already addressed whether the evidence you provided supports your conclusion regarding Hemingway’s reliability.

    Where? That’s the only thing in your long-winded bag of nonsense I want to read and I don’t see it.

    Your next published comment will show me where.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  123. Furthermore, if I am required to “wait” for the evidence, then I’d be entitled to suggest that your statement might be false based on the present lack of evidence (the basis for yours, and the NYT’s, frequent “X asserts Y “without evidence”, tropes). Perhaps you should continue to “wait” for Hemingway’s response to your December 2018 post; she’s a busy gal (with all the habitual lying etc.)

    You had to wait until I got off work. You are dishonest. Again, I am moderating you and the next comment I published will either show me where you addressed my evidence or it will address it. I don’t care about the rest of your BS and it’s not going to see the light of day.

    Which means we likely won’t see another comment from you published, because the only way to get your comment published is to actually deal with the evidence and it’s clear to me you don’t want to do that.

    Why am I demanding this? Because you suggested I said something false. I have provided a link to the evidence that what I said is true. You will never again speak on this blog until you retract your suggestions or take my evidence head on.

    Hint on how to get moderated: suggest I have lied and avoid the evidence I have told the truth.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  124. So francis pan, was turned down and dabney freidrich became judge, motive.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  125. The single example you give — which you concede is a “little intricate” to follow and relies on her “implicating” something due to “conflating” two NYT articles — may arguably not meet that standard.

    I knew, when I provided you the link, that you were going to give the example a hand-wave.

    You’re not interested in the truth. You’re interested in making a point. You add no value here. Your comments can resume when that changes. It won’t, so they won’t.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  126. Please did hemingway run over your dog, its likr that gripe with breitbart, while the progs are literally burning the country down and tur ing your neck of the woods into calcutta,

    Narciso (7658f4)

  127. In short, you have one of two choices:

    1. Take on the argument in detail provided at the link. Not simply dismiss it with a handwave as you have done. Or

    2. Apologize for implying that I said something false, which itself was a false statement.

    A single false statement, with a persistent refusal to correct it, establishes a pattern of dishonesty. That is what Hemingway did and you are giving a performative example of how it works. Please continue the performance in your moderated comments, as I have every confidence you will.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  128. Or caracas, because what grewsome skydragon worship will lead, as power outages become endemic, who frustrates any arrests you make come on get a grip

    Narciso (7658f4)

  129. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate

    88. iowan2 (9c8856) — 9/16/2019 @ 3:06 pm

    Senator Grassely has spoke from the Floor of the Senate and states the Senate was NOT notified of the new account.

    Another lie. Something a simple phone call would have verified

    Not a lie, but a half truth (almost certainly a half truth becaue they’d be extending themselevs too much if it wss a total lie.)

    It seems to say something that it does not in fact say. It seems to say soemthing to anyone who is not a very close reader – in fact to anyone who doesn’t read it with the kind of scrutiny that might be given to a legally sworn deposition.

    I’m already familiar with what the catch is here.

    He notified “Senators”

    That doesn’t mean the commmittee!

    It means two or more Democratic Senators. Now they should, of course, notify the committee chairman if they meant it to be followd it. That was Grassley’s complaint about the way Californa Senator Dianne Feinstein handled Christine Blasey Ford. Her stated reason was that CBF did not want it to be given to the committee but ony wanted it to be for her guidance I suppose. And CBF claiemd she had not thing to do with the release ad in fact maybe she was a victim of liars too in that she thought she could sign a letter without having to back up what was written.

    But they needed to use her.

    So also Max Stier probably asked for his name and his story not to be used (except to sway wavering Democratic Senators maybe)

    And we also don’t even know just when he came forward with this story

    the F.B.I. did not investigate

    Sounds like maybe they did something wrong? But the FBI couldn’t investigate it (and all that means is obtain statements) unless they were asked to, at least once the initial background check was over. besides it wasn’t anything that imugned Kavanaugh’s character.

    They are playing to people’s ignorance.

    Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71)

  130. The new york times lies 15 times a week, and thats being charitable, they defame faith organizations, stick up for communist dictators even mouldering ones like mugabe, a man who opened up a river of blood and pain

    Narciso (7658f4)

  131. Trump’s appointment of 150 federal judges (including Kavanaugh) alone outweighs his alleged 12,000+ lies, even if every one of them was deliberate and malicious.

    Well that’s just terrific. Trump’s GOP.

    “I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation-from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I’ll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscover of our values and our common sense.“

    Oh no, that’s right, that’s what would actually be terrific.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  132. What we have here are sins of ommission re the four witnesses, and sins of commission proferring a lie, now the context of the players are important in seeing motive.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  133. Trump’s appointment of 150 federal judges (including Kavanaugh) alone outweighs his alleged 12,000+ lies, even if every one of them was deliberate and malicious.

    Well that’s just terrific. Trump’s GOP.

    Yup, Dustin. And that comment comes from the same guy who pretends to be upset at me for supposedly telling one falsehood (which I didn’t, which I proved, although he ignores my evidence).

    This shows you what hacks these Trump superfans are, from Hemingway to NYLawyer all the way down. The truth is so important and so precious, we Trump superfans place our hands on our hips and we shout indignantly whenever we see dishonesty — or, often, when we can twist the facts so as to create a false narrative of dishonesty. But Trump’s lies? Why, we either deny them, pretend they didn’t happen like a fart in church, or rationalize them.

    The truth. It’s so important unless it hurts Donald Trump. That is the position of Trumpy McTrumpingway and of NYLawyer and a ton of other Trumpist hacks. LIke you say: Trump’s GOP.

    It’s sure not mine.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  134. The NYT reeks of desperation and they and the rest of the leftwing Democrat party organs should be condemned for the lying weasels they are. Racist punks, the lot of them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  135. It is truely bizarre that, in a thread devoted to a smear of Kavanaugh falling apart, we have a subthread on the general OK-ness of Trump lies and Trump supporter lies, because, after all, judges. It’s really quite post-modern.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  136. They’re a vast herd of ankle biters and it’s a daily Running of the Pomeranians at Pamplona Times one thousand.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  137. I’d argue it’s post-post-modern.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  138. Thats the squirrel appalled, not we, but im sure the atlanta journal will get around to it.

    Narciso (7658f4)

  139. I’m interested in Trump’s supporters really trying to discuss Trump without automatically referring to their views of democrats or the media. just talk about Trump on his own merits.

    By consistently discussing Trump only in comparison to a fringe right’s extreme nightmare version of the fringe left, there is absolutely no value. It’s simply not possible to worse than one extreme’s perspective on its opposite extreme, and any democrat approaching nomination will always be the most extreme evil possible from this perspective.

    By refusing to just talk about Trump’s choices on the basis of his own values or their own merits, it’s like admitting failure.

    A good test is Trump’s own creation: If your argument for Trump would actually wind up supporting him shooting someone dead in cold blood in the middle of Park Ave, it’s not a valid argument for his morality or merit.

    Years of this has ruined the credibility of a lot of people, and when they turn around and insinuate, or outright insist, that it’s Trump’s critics who are dishonest, it’s obviously quite annoying. These people don’t even give a crap about honesty in the first place!

    Dustin (6d7686)

  140. Postmodern is the language of totalitarians, like deman heidegger, it helps cover the river of blood with a parachutem

    Narciso (7658f4)

  141. In the Land of No Consequence, bad behavior rules.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  142. They will stop at nothing and if they succeed, if they get their way, nothing will ever be the same.

    Everything will change.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  143. Don’t listen to the scolds who wouldn’t recognize a joke if it bit them on their narrow asses.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  144. Narciso,

    The message I get from this thread, more explicitly than most because the NY Lawyer writes pretty well, is that we should just accept the lies, because the other side is worse. And by the way, you’re probably lying yourself, you hypocrite.

    Very postmodern, because it denies that truth has any function, except as a cudgel to be used when bad faith is required.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  145. The left and their sycophants will mischaracterize everything and claim to be the virtuous ones.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  146. I’m not addressing NY Lawyer, like inigo Montoya I stomach the times even though they enabled the murder of my country, and are following through against my adopted one, now you don’t care about this digital lynching till it affects you, by then it’s too late,

    narciso (d1f714)

  147. they enabled the murder of my country, and are following through against my adopted one

    Everyone adopted America if you go back far enough. That’s what makes America America. The NYT is pretty terrible, though it’s been a long time since I’ve felt they were relevant, so I think you’re talking about something from a while back. The NYT could blink out of existence tomorrow and I doubt it would change the result of anything.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  148. yes, the rot has seeped into the university, that’s why there is a two minute hate that has gone on for years,

    narciso (d1f714)

  149. it doesn’t matter what you think, they shape the conversation from dawn to midnight, along with the ap, like transcription errors, all the way down the chain,

    narciso (d1f714)

  150. FYI, NYShyster’s response in moderation was swc-level hackery. He is done here. I wasted a lot of time on swc but it trained me to spot his type, and I won’t waste another second on the likes of NYShyster.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  151. I’m interested in Trump’s supporters really trying to discuss Trump without automatically referring to their views of democrats or the media. just talk about Trump on his own merits.

    Dustin, I think what we see shows a revealed preference. You might be interested in policy outcomes or some principle or value. But in many instances they are not. So when they’re asked “What do you think of this thing Trump did?” they judge it based on it’s perceived impact on their tribal status. If the thing is objectively bad, they look for a way to score it and latch onto anything that will justify it. This is not them ignoring the point, this that you and they have different end goals.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  152. 163. Tribal, indeed. On one side we have ORANGE MAN BAD, and on the other, we have ORANGE MAN GOD. I think that about sums it up nicely.

    Gryph (08c844)

  153. Although Trump is very good at making everything about him I think it would be a mistake to assume those are the only 2 tribes.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  154. This man and his family received death threats from unhinged people, based on this patrana y porqueria from hillarys devil dog brian fallon and willies girl and chinese spy enabler feinatein, this shouldnr have to be explained on this board

    Narciso (7658f4)

  155. NYShyster’s response in moderation was swc-level hackery.

    Well I guess we will just have to take your word for that, won’t we?

    PTw (de48de)

  156. Or make a decision based on years of consistent behavior.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  157. The Times story was later amended to add a rather important missing detail: “the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.”
    It’s really not such a telling point that they left out.

    If you believe in the general veracity of these allegations against Brett Kavanauugh, then the second Yale victim is just protecting herself from publicity. This is how the wrtrs ad the believers in this narrative will explain it to themselves.

    If, on the other hand, you believe there is a big smear campaign going on against Brett Kavanaugh, that extends to peripheral characters, then the second Yale “victim” is afraid to deny it publicly.’

    It’s the second choice, of course, that is true. We can safely say that because we know absolutely implausible allegations were made against Brett Kavanaugh (partially under the sponsorship of Michael Avenatti) and Leland Keyser was afraid to contradict Christine Blasey Ford and the narrative.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d7dd8)

  158. narciso @128:

    And max stier has personal gripes against kavanaugh.

    What was that?

    Sammy Finkelman (1d7dd8)

  159. His girlfriend lost out to dabney freidrich for a federal judgeship.

    Narciso (181de5)

  160. What is the connection to Kavanaugh?

    Sammy Finkelman (2e9ec5)

  161. freidrich dated Kavanaugh, many moons ago, but it’s mostly a gripe against trump and mcconnell,

    narciso (d1f714)

  162. Max Stier is a Democrat.

    Is the idea here that Obama didn’t appoint her to a judgeship because she had once (they say?) dated Brett Kavanaugh?

    Why would Max Stier supposedly believe that?

    I don’t understand.

    Sammy Finkelman (2e9ec5)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6192 secs.