Patterico's Pontifications

9/17/2019

Claim: NYT Editors Removed the Passage About How the Anti-Kavanaugh Witness Not Remembering Anything

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:55 am

A recent New York Times article tried in vain to resuscitate a discredited allegation about Brett Kavanaugh. As I mentioned yesterday, there was a curious omission from the original version of the piece:

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.

The reporters knew about that detail because they had included it in their book.

Here’s a clip where the reporters now allege that the editors were responsible for deleting the critical passage:

Plot thickens.
Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly claim that the qualifier about the other alleged Kavanaugh accuser not remembering an incident at Yale was included in the initial NYT draft but removed. pic.twitter.com/p9wUTnFyM1

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) September 17, 2019

I believe them. This shows that the editors are hacks, which we already knew. I don’t think this lets the reporters off the hook. They don’t seem particularly exercised about the omission. They almost seem to defend it.

Chuck Philips (formerly of the Los Angeles Times) once wrote a looong blockbuster front-page story about how a murder defendant was not guilty because he had an alibi showing he was all the way across the country in church, instead of in Compton on the night of the murder. I later read court documents showing that the defendant had admitted, in a recorded interview, being in Compton on the night of the murders. I asked Philips about it in a phone conversation, pressing him as to why that little tidbit had not appeared in his blockbuster story (along with the videos of the church service that disproved the alleged alibi). He said it had been cut for reasons of space.

He didn’t seem too upset about it either.

This is who they are and this is what they do.

Why provide the reader with the full picture when the full picture would just ~~fully inform~~ confuse them? If the inconvenient fact makes for a less powerful story, the solution is simple. Cut the inconvenient fact.

You know. For reasons of space.

If you want to see how a real reporter handles the truth, watch this report from Jan Crowford of CBS:

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://t.co/GQhBTXHcze

— Jan Crawford (@JanCBS) September 17, 2019

That’s how you do it.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

Comments (134)

134 Responses to “Claim: NYT Editors Removed the Passage About How the Anti-Kavanaugh Witness Not Remembering Anything”

Attempts to blackmail witnesses would normally be seen as…nonoptimal. Except in our Narrative uber alles culture.

I feel very sorry for Kavanaugh. Much as I dislike some things that Lindsey Graham does, he was spot on with this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKgATvHx6j8

Except that is a warning for ALL political types. Period.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:18 am
There’sa comment (or tweet response) to the CBS Evening News tweet (the one not from Jan Crawford) that says in part:

They are using this to fill the headlines because they don’t want people to know Blasey Ford’s attorney wrote a book exposing her lies and motives…

https://twitter.com/CynthiaRentch/status/1173736779255406593

Q. Is this true (that such a book has been written)

2. If so, what is the name of the book?

3. Wouldn’t this violate attorney-client privilege?.

I suppose this could help explain why this is now news. Not to pressure Kavanaugh into ruling they would like on the court (an idea that Donald Trump has bought into)

Not to “prove” they are right.

But to take the headlines away from another story. Except that that would actually give it more publicity. Unless that would somehow cause reviewers to doubt the truth of the book.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:22 am
“I believe them. This shows that the editors are hacks, which we already knew. I don’t think this lets the reporters off the hook. They don’t seem particularly exercised about the omission. They almost seem to defend it.”

Well, as Mollie Hemingway notes, these same two reporters were on NPR and repeated that story—and also omitted the details that the woman didn’t claim the incident occurred and told friends the same thing. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/times-reporters-also-omitted-key-kavanaugh-detail-in-npr-interview/#.XYDtu_wsTGE.twitter Can’t blame that omission on the editors.

And, as an aside, one of the reporters (Robin Pogrebin) was a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s and was roommates at Yale with one of the leaders of the anti-Kavanaugh movement. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1173945943483453441
Pete (3aedd6) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:24 am
This attempt to blackmail or force Leland Keyser to bavk up the story is not news. It was reported
back then.

You can even reasd it between the lines in the hearing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript

GRASSLEY: Democratic staff was invited to participate and could have asked any questions they wanted to, but they declined. Which leads me then to wonder: If they’re really concerned with going to the truth, why wouldn’t you want to talk to the accused?

The process and procedure is what the committee always does when we receive allegations of wrongdoing.

My staff reached out to other individuals allegedly at the party: Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, Leland Keyser. All three submitted statements to the Senate under — under penalty of felony, denying any knowledge of the events described by Dr. Ford.

Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend, Dr. — Miss Keyser, stated she doesn’t know Judge Kavanaugh and doesn’t recall ever attending a party with him….

….MITCHELL: OK. And when you – when you did leave that night, did Leland Keyser – now Keyser ever follow up with you and say hey, what happened to you?

FORD: I have had communications with her recently.

MITCHELL: I’m talking about like the next day.

FORD: Oh no, she didn’t know about the event. She was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her….

KAVANAUGH: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. I wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. No one has seen a draft, or it, except for one of my former law clerks. This is my statement….All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event. Her longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me, and does not believe she ever saw me at a party, ever.

Here is the quote from Ms. Keyser’s attorney’s letter: quote, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford,” end quote. Think about that fact.

You can think about the fact that it is all done through her lawyer.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:34 am
and max stier, has a personal gripe against trump, first time accident, second time coincidence, third time enemy action,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:38 am
Here’s a story from July 6, this year, New York Post (based on the Mollie hemingway book)

https://nypost.com/2019/07/06/how-a-climate-of-outrage-persecuted-2-women-who-refused-to-take-down-brett-kavanaugh

On June 28, 2018, the day after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, Ford sent Keyser a Facebook Messenger note out of the blue. It read, “Kinda freaking out that Brett K who tried to rape me in high school may be going on to the Supreme Court.” It was the first time Keyser had ever heard about the alleged assault, and she found the message both surprising and alarming.

On Monday, Sept. 17, the day after a Washington Post story about Ford was published, Keyser’s housekeeper came up to her bedroom to tell her that a friend was waiting for her downstairs. She came down to find Emma Brown, the reporter from the Post, sitting at her kitchen table. Brown identified herself and began talking about the night of the alleged assault. When asked, Keyser said she believed her friend Christine.

As interest in Keyser mounted, press vehicles blocked the road to her home, and she was forced to move into a hotel. Keyser had no idea she was going to be named as a participant at the gathering in question, had never spoken to Ford about it and had not heard from Ford or her lawyer either before or immediately after the story was published. She tried to get in touch with Ford for help understanding why she was being targeted but couldn’t reach her until Wednesday, Sept. 19, and then only briefly. Ford said she had never told her about what happened. She tried to talk some more about the alleged incident so she might recall it better. Other than suggesting Keyser was the driver that night, Ford had nothing else to offer.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which by this point had heard that Keyser was one of Ford’s named witnesses, sent her an e-mail requesting information. After much effort, Keyser knew two things: She had no recollection of the event Ford described, and she did not know Brett Kavanaugh. She felt that it was important to say this, which she did, through her attorney, in her first written statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. After the statement went public, Keyser texted Ford on Sept. 22, “I wish I could have been more supportive and that my statement was more helpful.”

Keyser was upset that Kavanaugh repeatedly referred to her statement in his testimony to “refute” Ford’s account. She informed friends and her lawyer in text messages that Kavanaugh’s use of her statement angered her. She had already told a reporter that she believed Ford and felt this statement had been overlooked.

Perhaps motivated by Keyser’s texts, one of these friends, a woman, called Keyser’s lawyer and insisted that he and Keyser had both perjured themselves. She was certain that Keyser must have known Kavanaugh.

After all, she reasoned, Keyser had dated Mark Judge, and Judge was always with Kavanaugh. In fact, however, Keyser had gone on only one date with Judge, to a very large house party, and she had no recollection of Kavanaugh’s being there or of ever meeting him.

Pressure to corroborate Ford’s story also came from outside Keyser’s circle of friends. Sara Corcoran, a journalist who was several years behind Ford and Keyser at Holton-Arms, published an aggressive open letter that recounted the paralysis of Keyser’s high-school boyfriend, Bill, in the Columbia Country Club pool.

“I still remember the chaotic scene, the paramedics, and the shock of what happened. Our parents often warned us about diving into the shallow end or at any depth.” Corcoran continued: “It was incredibly unfair to both of you that Bill broke his neck and died shortly thereafter. You were an inspiration…. There was nothing you could have done to save Bill from the fate that awaited him, but you can save Christine.”
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:39 am
Ah, here it is:

New York Post, posted online October 5, 2018 | 9:45am

https://nypost.com/2018/10/05/friend-of-ford-told-fbi-she-was-pressured-into-altering-statement/

Friend of Ford told FBI she was pressured into altering statementFriend of Ford told FBI she was pressured into altering statement

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told the FBI that allies of the college professor, who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her, pressured her to revise her earlier statement that she knew nothing about the alleged incident, according to a report.

Leland Keyser, who Ford has said was present at the house when she was assaulted in 1982, told investigators that retired FBI agent Monica McLean, a friend of Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, sources told the Wall Street Journal

And here’s the Wall Street Journal story:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter…

…Ms. McLean’s lawyer, David Laufman, said in a statement: “Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser’s account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh is absolutely false.”

Ms. Keyser’s lawyer on Sept. 23 said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had no recollection of attending a party with Judge Kavanaugh, whom she said she didn’t know. That same day, however, she told the Washington Post that she believed Dr. Ford. On Sept. 29, two days after Dr. Ford and the judge testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Keyser’s attorney sent a letter to the panel saying his client wasn’t refuting Dr. Ford’s account and that she believed it but couldn’t corroborate it….

…The friends [mutual friends of Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser, including Ms. McLean] told Ms. Keyser that if she had intended to say she didn’t remember the party—not that it had never happened—that she should clarify her statement, the person said, adding that the friends hadn’t “pressured” Ms. Keyser.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:47 am
That they threatened her with a smear campaign is new.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:50 am
Um, speaking of Robin Pogrebin……

“The Times’ PR team responded to a couple issues Sunday on Twitter, including a now-deleted tweet from the Opinion section promoting the piece. “Having a pe*is thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun,” it read. “But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn’t belong at Yale in the first place.”

“A tweet that went out from the @NYTOpinion account yesterday was clearly inappropriate and offensive,” the Times said. “We apologize for it and are reviewing the decision-making with those involved.”

According to a Times insider familiar with the matter, Pogrebin wrote the offensive tweet, which should have been vetted before it was posted.“

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-book-1498153

_

The msm is now pivoting over to this being a bombshell about a credible new allegation which somehow was “bungled” by the Times and Republicans are ‘pouncing’ and ‘seizing’ on one little itty-bitty mistake to defend a criminal pathological beer- guzzling predator.
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:51 am
Tangentially relevant
RIP Mary Martha Corinne Morrison Claiborne Roberts (nee Boggs)
kishnevi (496414) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:53 am
she’s perhaps the smartest member of the squad

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ayanna-pressley-to-file-brett-kavanaugh-impeachment-resolution-in-congress/
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:59 am
Mollie Hemingway in the Federalist Sept 15 wrote that “…Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh grew up in the same rough area…”

That should be:

“Roughly the same area.”

One thing seems clear: Leland Keyser was successfully pressured into saying she believed Christine Blasey Ford (and Ford was conceding that she never told her about it) but Leland Keyser took it back during the second FBI background check and since then she’s said nothing but “I don’t have any confidence in the story.”

This is one person who probably does not want a Democrat to be elected president, even if she despises Donald Trump, unless it is a Democrat who will break from all of this.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:59 am
“This attempt to blackmail or force Leland Keyser to bavk up the story is not news. It was reported back then.”
_

“That they threatened her with a smear campaign is new.”
__

You would think a small tidbit like threats would be considered news.
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:00 am
Don’t worry folks, non-partisan CNN will get to the bottom of the story…..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEqxxvpUEAA0ZZE?format=jpg&name=large
_
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:03 am
Cokie Roberts was from old Dem DC power family. Her late brother was big in DC lobbying.
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:06 am
Also, I rememver from CBF’s teestimony:

MITCHELL: OK. Have you been in – are you aware that the three people at the party besides yourself and — and Brett Kavanaugh have given statements under penalty of felony to the committee?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And are you aware of what those statements say?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Are you aware that they say that they have no memory or knowledge of such a party?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Do you have any particular motives to ascribe to Leland?

FORD: I guess we could take those one at a time. Leland has significant health challenges, and I’m happy that she’s focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera, So I’m glad that she’s taking care of herself.

I don’t expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs.

This statement here, that:

and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, is probably a lie.

Even if she actualy did send such a text it wasn’t right afterwards and it wasn’t without being pressured to.

Leland Keyser should be asked if she indeed apologized to Christine Blasey Ford for saying she never met Brett Kavanaugh.

There is a text on the record, but that was sent after her statement went public and apaprently said:

“I wish I could have been more supportive and that my statement was more helpful.”

The anti-Kavanaugh forces were trying to blame Leland Keyser’s statement on her lawyer. (and hinting she was too sick to be questioned, or maybe that illness had damaged her memory)
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:07 am
Is it a claim or a fact?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:07 am
We don’t know, but it was in the book.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:11 am
5… is it true that Stier was passed over for the spot he wanted and he’s currently hearing divorce cases in the DC area?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:12 am
Perhaps Baquet had it removed as part of his 2020 Project.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:13 am
As in, y’all come on down and we’ll cook ya up a mess a mumbo jumble…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:16 am
You have to wonder about any people who, in situations like this do corroborate things.

(usually that that they were told contemporaneously, or long before something became an issue.)
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:17 am
well they buried the corroboration for Kavanaugh, that’s what you need it,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:18 am
I know it’s the spew:

https://t.co/Te4KoBiBKM
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:20 am
The Daily News reports that the House Judiciary Committee is going to question the FBI Director next month about why they didn’t interveiew witnessess whom Deborah Ramirez said might back her up

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-brett-kavanaugh-jerry-nadler-christine-blasey-ford-deborah-ramirez-20190916-rw2dfeope5eplkwobaw6rxgofa-story.html
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:33 am
Nadler says

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler told WNYC on Monday morning that the issue would not be fodder for a new impeachment probe against Kavanaugh while the committee was busy investigating President Trump. But a Judiciary Committee aide said Nadler (D-Manhattan, Brooklyn) would question Wray at its October hearing to see if the administration tried to sway the bureau’s work.

This was the program on which Nadler was stumped when he was asked if the committee itself was going to try to interview thesee witnesses.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:34 am
not so much:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-kavanaugh-book-says-seven-people-back-up-ramirez-allegation-who-are-they
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:36 am
Is there anyone here who didn’t already understand this was going on?
SarahW (08f5d7) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:40 am
his wife, was replaced by dabney freidrich who trump nominated,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:46 am
I must admit the last few years has taught me what freedom of the press truly means
mg (8cbc69) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:51 am
It wouldn’t kill the NYT to hire a right-of-center editor or three, if only to break the rest of the staff out of their echo chambers.
Paul Montagu (dfd657) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:53 am
its the reverse of friedman’s shatila story, where he accused the head of the southern Lebanese militia of complicity, even though he was 300 miles away, in from Beirut to Jerusalem, he pointed left that claim out, (I only knew about this through widlanski)
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:56 am
It wouldn’t kill the NYT to hire a right-of-center editor or three, if only to break the rest of the staff out of their echo chambers.

Paul Montagu (dfd657) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:53 am

strongly agree.

Or an Ombudsman who wakes up every morning and goes to sleep every night just pissed they got something wrong.
Time123 (a7a01b) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:56 am
yes it would montagu, it’s like bringing crosses into dracula’s house, Douthat, a meek apologist for mayor howdy’s support of klopfer is as far as it goes,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 9:57 am
“It wouldn’t kill the NYT to hire a right-of-center editor or three, if only to break the rest of the staff out of their echo chambers.”

This is a paper that actually held a meeting on how to best inject racism and slavery into every subject they cover to help take down Trump.

On their opinion page they have a ‘conservative’ who said he was voting Obama because of the crease in his pants.

And oh yeah the Bedbug too.
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:04 am
they see 1984 as a how to manual, which was based on Stalinists practices, the case of aronson and Rutherford, were based on purge victims, probably Bukharin and radkov, who were unpersonned,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:04 am
“Or an Ombudsman who wakes up every morning and goes to sleep every night just pissed they got something wrong.“

They got rid of their Ombudsman because his/her admissions/critiques were being seized and pounced upon.
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:06 am
It was the Communist Chinese who saw 1984 as a how-to manual. (it kind of broke down after Mao’s death and the near overthrow of the government ion April, 1976)
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:06 am
more elaboration from the earlier tweet,

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/09/17/god-theyre-so-bad-at-this-on-the-view-robin-pogrebin-digs-her-and-kate-kellys-brett-kavanaugh-grave-even-deeper-video/
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:10 am
mg (#30):

What does freedom of speech truly mean?
Appalled (d07ae6) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:12 am
freedom of speech, means the govt cannot interfere, but with such a right comes great responsibility, the times after Sullivan, and not just them have been grossly irresponsible,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:17 am
“Why provide the reader with the full picture when the full picture would just fully inform confuse them? If the inconvenient fact makes for a less powerful story, the solution is simple. Cut the inconvenient fact.”

That sort of chicanery will land you a job issuing FISA warrants.
Munroe (732181) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:18 am
Leland Keyser: a bit of a hero amidst all the vileness of CBF’s advocates, and the reflexive “impeach him” chorus of today’s Dems. Thank you Ms. Keyser, wherever you are.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:30 am
34… lol… they’re as gullible as the day is long… as if that would ever be considered, let alone happen.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:37 am
Most of these moral panics dont happen unless you omit material facts from sanford to the bundy ranch, from baltimore to parkland.
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 10:41 am
Matt Wolking ✔
@MattWolking

“Did you read it right before it went to print?”

“We thought we had.”

These people don’t know what they did last week but we are supposed to take seriously their account of rumors from 30 years ago about Brett Kavanaugh?
_
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:07 am
Wholian Castro and the other Democrats running who promote the impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh should have asterisks placed next to their names signifying their complicity in this excremental hoax.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:18 am
47 – but demeanor!!

There are still people who believe BK expressing anger over this sh*tshow warrants disqualification.
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:21 am
Dimelo (tell me about)
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:31 am
I’m trying to figure out if their talking about the writers of the Kavanaugh piece.

https://mobile.twitter.com/yashar/status/1174020262062362625
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:38 am
Attempts to blackmail witnesses would normally be seen as…nonoptimal.

Ahem:

Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any person to—
(A)withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D)be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3)hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S.C. 1512(b)
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:48 am
And before anyone asks, an “official proceeding” includes “a proceeding before the Congress.” 18 USC § 1515(a)(1)(B).
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:52 am
If something is cut for space, it usually means it is at the end.

Reporters used to be warned that if there was anything important in a story they should put it near the start.

This was when things were cut for later editions or in syndication.

From this came the “inverted pyramid” – tell things in somewhat jumbled order in the order of importance.
Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:53 am
Mr. French has been nailing it. The title and subtitle speak for itself.

The New York Times Still Doesn’t Understand What It Did:
It had blockbuster new evidence exonerating Kavanaugh but instead emphasized a flimsy allegation.

Ms. Keyser’s comments in that book–and she’s a Democrat and friend of Ms. Blasey-Ford– completely blew up Ms. Blasey-Ford’s testimony.
Paul Montagu (dfd657) — 9/17/2019 @ 11:55 am
Karma. Revealed, quilled and calendared by his own hand. One day; some day– the mustard will hit the fan and ‘catch-up’ with him. It did with John Tower; Nixon, too.

‘Have another drink it’ll make you feel better; Have another drink and you’ll feel alright.’ – The Kinks 1974
DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:04 pm
Of course they did, it wasnt for molly, french would be still be throwing kavanaugh under the bus.
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:05 pm
It was an affidavit that they were trying to effect,

Once her lawyer had stated that she had no recollection of the event Ford described, and she did not know Brett Kavanaugh, they tried, and succeeded, in getting her to say to a newspaper (the Washington Post) that, nevertheless she believed Christine Blasey Ford.

And, in addition, helped with blaming the statement on her lawyer, (and trhere may have been something they did that caused her to issue a statement through her lawyer) and implied she was ill, and so couldn’t or didn’t pay attention to the statement.

And had her send a text message on Sept 22 to CBF Ford that went: “I wish I could have been more supportive and that my statement was more helpful.”

Which then, CBF in her testimony characterized as:

Leland has significant health challenges, and I’m happy that she’s focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera.

and CBF added that she was glad she was taking care of herself (obviously to exolain why she wasn’t pushing for a correction)

But some anonymous woman called Keyser’s lawyer and insisted that he and Keyser had both perjured themselves in saying that she did not know Brett Kavanaugh.

There may have been some other text messages Leland Keyser was practicsally forced to send which at least have been characterized as saying Kavanaugh’s use of her statement angered her.

All these things (quotes in anewspaper, or text messages) carefully avoid the penalty of perjury.

Anyway when the FBI conducted its second round of interviews she toldthe story of being pressured and since then she has not claimed that she believed CBF.

It is really important to damage this whole slanderr machine. It’s not aone-time thing.
Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:11 pm
Of course they did, it wasnt for molly, french would be still be throwing kavanaugh under the bus.

It’s a substanceless hypothetical. French has been defending Kavanaugh against the flimsy stories against him for a year.
Paul Montagu (dfd657) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:12 pm
If he presented this info as a sworn statement, this is perjury, i know what happened to the eaelier instances
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:13 pm
You can’t say both sides are reasonably honest. One side or the other has to be engaged in abig conspiracy to lie. And I think it’s in the public interest to know who;s doing this.

And I think Michael Avenatti didn’t act alone with what he did re: Brett Kavanaugh.
Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:14 pm
Did French throw Kavanaugh under the bus, narciso? I ask because he has been a real tool/bootlicker to the Left on other issues.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:14 pm
I’ll tell you – there are people who threw Michael Aveatii under the bus, and hope it stops woth him.
Sammy Finkelman (8dcc71) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:15 pm
narciso:

You probably should stop using David French as a synonym for GodlessNevertrump, because it is leading you into mistakes.

Here is David Franch throwing Kavanaugh under the bus.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/kavanaugh-case-for-confirmation-allegations-explained/

He’s very thorough about it, so you should probably read carefully.
Appalled (d07ae6) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:18 pm
He has transfer tickets on how many times he follows left narrative going back to sanford.
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:22 pm
“Karma. Revealed, quilled and calendared by his own hand. One day; some day– the mustard will hit the fan and ‘catch-up’ with him. It did with John Tower; Nixon, too.”

It was a deuce in the urinal the first time you dropped it.
harkin (58d012) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:32 pm
@65. Except it’s not.

None of this would even be if not for is self-chronicled, immature acts revealing the low character of one Brett Kavanaugh– which has nothing to do w/his qualifications for the gig he holds now. He is who he is; he brought this on himself.

He “likes beer.” And itwill catch-up with him, as w/Tower…. and Nixon. Karma.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:46 pm
^is= his
DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/17/2019 @ 12:47 pm
54:

Um, no. French credulously thinks the NYT haplessly does “not understand” what it did.

French probably also discounts the existence of “Obama” judges, believes that Hillary deleted only yoga emails, and that democrats oppose voter ID because a little old lady 30 miles from town might not be able to vote.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 9/17/2019 @ 1:01 pm
#68 —

Let’s see:

French probably also discounts the existence of “Obama” judges

Well, you can check out:

The Judicial Resistance Rescues DACA, Again
(From NRO, May 17, 2019)

French probably believes that Hillary deleted only yoga emails,

Well, here is French from NRO, June 15, 2018

I know this is ancient history, but — I’m sorry — I just can’t let it go. When historians write the definitive, sordid histories of the 2016 election, the FBI, Hillary, emails, Russia, and Trump, there has to be a collection of chapters making the case that Hillary should have faced a jury of her peers.

And finally…

French probably believes that democrats oppose voter ID because a little old lady 30 miles from town might not be able to vote

OK, I can’t verify this last one through Google, and the comment gets to whether French thinks all Democrats are ratfinks. I will note that he has written strongly in favor of voter ID laws, and against the Democrats complaints about election fairness. See, for example:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/democrats-stop-delegitimizing-our-elections/

Look, French calls for civility an awful lot, and so maybe that makes him a Liberal or something. But his positions are just not the ones you try to attribute to him.
Appalled (d07ae6) — 9/17/2019 @ 1:25 pm
French credulously thinks the NYT haplessly does “not understand” what it did.

If they did so knowingly, then they’re not only biased but stupid. I’m inclined to believe that they’re so biased that they didn’t even contemplate the importance of the contrary evidence.
But your substanceless hypotheticals are noted.
Paul Montagu (dfd657) — 9/17/2019 @ 1:26 pm
Journalism of this ilk is one of the reasons so many people on the right are willing to accept Trump.
norcal (2d0ff6) — 9/17/2019 @ 1:55 pm
No you havent learned anything in 28 years, thars quite a long learning curve. They may be stupid, but their stupidity often feeds nations to the fire.
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 1:57 pm
French, and others here, must be very troubled that the FBI report on the one week investigation of Kavanaugh was never released publicly. I’m certain he’s stated just how troubled he is by that many times.
Munroe (732181) — 9/17/2019 @ 1:58 pm
69:
I was trying to make a point about his credulous deference to the good intentions of people not honestly mistaken, but malevolent. But perhaps he is just that way to fellow media. You’re right of course, about the Obama judges, and probably right about the others too.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:06 pm
And again, the DoJ needs to file perjury charges.
Kevin M (19357e) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:07 pm
And my surmise, is they left her name, in order to push her to change her story later, change my mindm
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:12 pm
As for “fully informed” there are lots of places where decision-makers are not fully informed, often to the degree that it warps their decision.

Juries, by both sides and the court itself;

Elections, by media “standards” (Dem candidate frequents gay bars: no public interest; GOP candidate buys straight porn: leads the news the weekend before)

CNN and Fox can run the same story about Trump with neither report containing any fact mentioned by the other. At least here you can glean something, although you have to wade through turds to do so.
Kevin M (19357e) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:18 pm
If they did so knowingly, then they’re not only biased but stupid. I’m inclined to believe that they’re so biased that they didn’t even CONSIDER THE VERACITY of the contrary evidence.

I was at a local cellphone siting planning meeting a while back, and several people talked about some Internet “evidence” they had read about how cell phones cause cancer. I responded with a NIH study pointing out that brain cancer rates are actually down over 50 years, making cell phones up against the head unlikely to cause brain cancer.

“Well, they’re scientists, so they’re biased” said the hairdresser, confident in her scientific knowledge.

All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
Kevin M (19357e) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:26 pm
“Look, French calls for civility an awful lot, and so maybe that makes him a Liberal or something.”

You owe me a keyboard. Root beer does permanent damage no matter how much one cleans and dries the object that took the full force of teh spew.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:32 pm
78… there must be 50 ways to forget that effete Art Garfunkel…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:37 pm
the thing is they only mentioned seven times in the song, same for mango Gatorade, what fresh hell,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:40 pm
why are they still protecting him:

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20190916/federal-judge-epsteinrsquos-death-dashes–womenrsquos-hopes-to-toss-secret-pact
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:46 pm
Liking beer makes you Nixon or Tower. Got it.
harkin (8f010c) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:54 pm
And by that I mean liking beer makes you of low character.
harkin (8f010c) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:55 pm
there is senatorial courtesy, unless you are Ashcroft or sessions,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 2:56 pm
which omission is this now:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/witnesses-defended-kavanaugh-nyt-authors-falsely-claimed-they-were-silent/#.XYFNp15dX1E.twitter
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:01 pm
oh and al Sharpton, removes all doubt, on another matter,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:04 pm
and in another useless snipehunt,

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/09/17/nuked-corey-lewandowski-trolls-congressman-by-referring-to-him-as-president-swalwell-at-hearing/
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:14 pm
No you havent learned anything in 28 years, thars quite a long learning curve.

I don’t know the significance of “28 years”, but I’ll take your comment as a personal attack, which is unfortunate because you haven’t attended to the business of your previous smear, for which you still owe me an apology and retraction. To date, you’ve exhibited little honesty or character.
Paul Montagu (dfd657) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:24 pm
Clarence Thomas, the first time they tried this particular tactic, and mayer and Abramson have been dining out on that for at least 20 years,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:26 pm
Now as for the blame shifting against ngo, (refuted by reason) sandman, too many to tell and heshmat alavi, who was repersonned after a week, after Iranian regime stooges fell through,

I don’t trust Russians, they turned my country of birth, into a prison, comprende, and the regime has done much the same for Venezuela, dealing in drugs with the guerillas and the cartels, which tie to Hezbollah through west Africa, which ultimately ends in Lebanon,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:30 pm
ao when Assange was middleman for this guy, it was alright,

https://saraacarter.com/not-so-fast-doj-sues-snowden-after-his-book-violates-nda/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-pug
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:39 pm
Cory Cory Cory
mg (8cbc69) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:47 pm
e e e
fricking fingers
mg (8cbc69) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:49 pm
ao when Assange was middleman for this guy, it was alright,

They are after his royalties, and possibly his advance. Monetary damages for violating NDA. Snowden didn’t make a profit off Assange, or at least not a clear one.
Kevin M (19357e) — 9/17/2019 @ 4:03 pm
all teh racist punks
is that concrete all around
is it in your head?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 4:05 pm
Yep, dishonest and low character.
Paul Montagu (dfd657) — 9/17/2019 @ 4:09 pm
Well these two reporters just keep forgetting to mention the same key detail…

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/times-reporters-also-omitted-key-kavanaugh-detail-in-npr-interview/
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 4:10 pm
Trump appeared here in Rio Rancho, NM yesterday. Thousands came to see him, 200 came to protest, including one protester with a hand gun (arrested and hauled off).

No violence, police (burned in 2016 by Antifa with firebombs), kept order and guarded cars from vandals. Democratic politicians held counter-rallies, attended by dozens, attacking Trump’s many bad qualities.

I had laundry to do so I couldn’t go to any of this.
Kevin M (19357e) — 9/17/2019 @ 4:12 pm
yes it’s all water under the bridge,

https://twitter.com/Kira_Media/status/1174076070800371712

the one in caracas,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 4:12 pm
I was speaking of the stack of Pulitzers the guardian, the times and other publications made on purloined information,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 4:17 pm
narciso (d1f714) — 9/17/2019 @ 3:01 pm

Mendacity Molly is at it again. Those who asked for an instance of her lack of integrity can find it here. To “prove” that the witnesses to the supposed incident reported in the new book and the New York, she cites a quote by Dan Murphy, who was not one of the people identified by the New York Times as a “witness” to Stier allegation, in which he was talking about the claim by Ramirez, which is totally different. So in fact the witnesses who allegedly kept mum are not defending him.
Kishnevi (0cb353) — 9/17/2019 @ 4:59 pm
Hold everything, there’s a new accuser:

https://mobile.twitter.com/WalkedAway1999/status/1174048147204493312/photo/1
_
harkin (8f010c) — 9/17/2019 @ 5:19 pm
Kishnevi shouts “look, squirrel!”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 5:45 pm
These people will stop at nothing. And unfortunately, there are no consequences for character assassination and threats to smear people who are unwilling to lie to assist their evil anti-constitution, anti-American deeds.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 5:51 pm
Yep:
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/09/17/maggie-haberman-admits-times-bombshell-info-blasey-ford%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cwitness%E2%80%9D-nuked-story-buried-anyway/
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:00 pm
Yes, I just saw that, narciso. There must be accountability and consequences or this sort of schit will only ramp up and increase.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:05 pm
Kishnevi shouts “look, squirrel!”

On the contrary, it goes to the heart of the matter.

If you want to complain about leftist journalists having no integrity, then you can’t use right wing journalists who have no integrity to make your case.

Unless of course you don’t actually care about journalists having integrity, but just find it a useful polemical tool.
Kishnevi (0cb353) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:12 pm
Authors Kelly and Pogrebin claim that Kavanaugh’s fellow classmates chose not to comment about these charges, and then claim that silence was a condemnation.

In truth, Bret Kavanaugh’s fellow classmates weren’t silent about the claims. In fact, they did not hesitate to deny them…

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/witnesses-defended-kavanaugh-nyt-authors-falsely-claimed-they-were-silent/#.XYFNp15dX1E.twitter
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:14 pm
Perhaps I’ve missed your outrage at repeated lies and malevolence at the NYT, kishnevi. I’ll pay closer attention.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:16 pm
Colonel, that’s the same mendacious article that Narciso linked and that I was referring to in my comment.
Kishnevi (0cb353) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:28 pm
“A classmate named Max Stier, who now works in a nonprofit good government organization in Washington, remembers seeing his friends put Kavanaugh’s penis in [woman’s] hands. Max Stier brought story to members of the Senate at the time, he also made FBI aware of it, and neither pursued it — certainly FBI didn’t in a meaningful way. Max Stier as a result has decided not to speak publicly about it, kind of feeling that he did his part in trying to make appropriate authorities aware of what he observed at the time, and they didn’t pursue it so he had no interest in resurfacing these allegations.”

Has Stier identified “his friends”? Does Stier’s behavior as described in that paragraph ring true to you? Does he sound like the sort of man who would just drop it? Given the media’s intense determination to get Kavanaugh, do you think he wouldn’t have found numerous outlets to tell his story to? Has he said anything about this since then? Do you find it at all curious this comes up almost exactly on the anniversary of last year’s failed attempt to smear Brett Kavanaugh and derail his confirmation?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:46 pm
Seeing the personal and professional investment that stier had in the matter.
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:51 pm
1) I am sure the book’s publication was purposely set to the anniversary date, and the stories are a reflex of that.

2)Stier apparently sent his story in after the Blasey Ford story was made public. As a member of Team Clinton, he probably had enough political acumen to realize the story was going nowhere–lost in the shuffle of Avenatti’s rape story–and accordingly lost interest.
He seems to have made a point of avoiding contact with the NYT reporters.
Remember, as a member of team Clinton, he probably has an interest in getting claims of sexual misconduct by prominent conservatives to float around, but not to have them disproved or proved. That helps insulate Billy Jeff Clinton.
Kishnevi (0cb353) — 9/17/2019 @ 7:03 pm
@83/84. Karma, H. It’s of his own making; revealed, quilled and calendared by his own hand.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:08 pm
Not very convincing, kishnevi.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:10 pm
We already spelled out his professional conflicts (hes part of michael lewis pillow toss soon to be on hbo) and personal (re his girlfriend, who was up for judge, then cocaine mitch stalled (can you believe)
Narciso (7658f4) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:38 pm
I think it’s convincing and accords with the facts. Member of Team Clinton tries to peddle a story he knows is fake, realizes it is going nowhere, decides his own interests dictate letting it dissipate into the aether, unproved but also not discredited, as the best course of action. You’ll note I am assuming the friends don’t exist.
Kishnevi (170c4a) — 9/17/2019 @ 8:40 pm
Heh. Kishnevi can see the light from a lighthouse 60, 90, 120 miles away. In broad daylight, usually. His points are very convincing. In context.
PTw (894877) — 9/18/2019 @ 4:55 am
Robin Pogrebin
@rpogrebin
How Fox News twisted the Kavanaugh scandal into a way to attack the New York Times
@atrupar
https://vox.com
__ _

Will Ricciardella
@WillRicci
How NYT Reporter Who Botched The Kav Sex Assault Story Found A Way To Blame Fox News
__ _

JP 🐶
@jayep01
“How Vox twisted the NYT misleading article into a way to attack Fox News”
__ _

Debra Heine
@NiceDeb

Replying to
@rpogrebin
@atrupar
and
@voxdotcom
At this point, shouldn’t you just slither off the stage with what’s left of your dignity? I’m sure there will be many opportunities to smear republicans you don’t like.
_
harkin (58d012) — 9/18/2019 @ 11:06 am
And then there’s just pure derangement:

Susan Simpson
@TheViewFromLL2
If you were obligated to publish devastating news about a Supreme Court Justice committing sexual assault and perjury, but wanted to make sure that the news had as little impact as feasibly possible, you’d do what @nytimes did with the Kavanaugh story.
_
harkin (58d012) — 9/18/2019 @ 11:10 am
there must be two moons on her word, or two scoops,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/18/2019 @ 11:12 am
Hmmmm… no follow-up, correcting the record. How unusual!

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2019/09/17/blackout-abc-nbc-ignore-pro-kavanaugh-bombshell-cbs-gives-scant-36
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/18/2019 @ 1:55 pm
It’s cowardly to make an ad hominem attack against Molly Hemingway that is unsupported by any kind of evidence external to that of your opinion.

Even if she is a lying mcliarpants as you alliteratively suggest, her book could be 100% accurate.

Virtue well-signaled, coward.

I get it that you live in a place where being conservative can lead to having your tires slashed, but that only makes you a pragmatic coward.
Jonathan K. Smith (9570eb) — 9/19/2019 @ 4:17 am
Give them more rope… https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nyt-reporters-havent-kept-their-story-straight-about-brett-kavanaugh-asking-them-to-lie
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/20/2019 @ 6:56 am
112. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/17/2019 @ 6:46 pm
What are you quoting?

You mised some important points.

Max Stier brought story to members of the Senate at the time,

Members of the senate.

But not any Republicans.

This was ammunition to be saved for when it could be most useful.

It probably didn’t check out. The existence of the party, I mean. Besides, they had Ramirez, so they didn’t need him.

“brought story”

And I believe it is probably incorrect to say he brought the story – to anyone. I’d say more likely, the story was brought to him! Don’t you?

Brought to him based on his having attended Yale at the same time as Brett Kavanaugh, and then he was recruited or volunteered to be a source for a made-up story.

That’s what I think is the way to see it. (as a rebutable presumption)

he also made FBI aware of it,

Which he knew, being a lawyer, could not possibly have any follow-up. It’s not the FBI he should have made aware of such a story, if he wanted it folllowed up, it’s Senator Grassley. But this was on purpose. It was to place it on the record, but without having it investigated.

and neither pursued it — certainly FBI didn’t in a meaningful way.

It was the Democrats on the committee, not the Republicans, who didn’t pursue it! Because the Republicans never heard of it!

Remember those weasel words: Members of the Senate. There’s a reason for that particular choice of words.

As for the FBI, he knew it wasn’t going to do it unless it was asked to by the Senate, and it usually wouldn’t be because the Senate Judiciary Committee can do its own investigating.

If he wanted it pursued, he had to tell the committee. Which he didn’t. And he’s an experienced Washington lawyer who knows how Washington works.

Max Stier as a result has decided not to speak publicly about it, </blockquote. max Stier is mt speakng about it, becase afew questions could destroy his story. The victim probably was originally suopposed to be Debbie Ramirez, but something about it didn't check out (maybe his version was different from the tale Debbie Ramirez told) so another woman was made the woman he was reporting about.

kind of feeling that he did his part in trying to make appropriate authorities aware of what he observed at the time, and they didn’t pursue it so he had no interest in resurfacing these allegations.”

A BIG LIE He knew exactly what the appropriate authorities were, and, after a certain point in time, that’s the committee.
Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6) — 9/20/2019 @ 7:35 am
Does Stier’s behavior as described in that paragraph ring true to you?

Well, it does, if the story is a lie.
Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6) — 9/20/2019 @ 7:36 am
I mean it rings true that Max Stier told some Senators and the FBI something like this but also that the story is a lie.

I think most likely that not only did Kavanaugh not do any of these things he’s been accused of, but the parties at which they allegedly happened, to CBF, to Debbie Ramirez and to this other woman, and needless to say anythhing witnessed by Julie Swetnick, never took place!

And Brett Kavanaugh, unlike most people, can document practically every place he has been since 1980.
Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6) — 9/20/2019 @ 7:48 am
The choice of weasel words means that the allegations probably really were made to “memers f the Senate” and I wonder how many other false allegations about Brett Kavanaugh were made that the Democrats ultimately decided not to use.

It is important that these allegations be pursued and the peole who amde thme be questioned, becasue there are probably enough of them that someone will tell the trth (at least if offered immunity, althouh no doubt they trieds to avoid legal liability or at least any provable legal lliability) and maybe this can be traced back to whoever was cooking them up, and that’s important to do.
Sammy Finkelman (9a15c6) — 9/20/2019 @ 7:56 am
126… I believe that was a quote pulled from the Pogrebin & Kelly book, Sammy.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/20/2019 @ 8:07 am
Again:
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/09/19/there-it-is-max-boot-says-the-nyts-misstep-on-kavanaugh-isnt-nearly-as-terrible-as-what-trump-and-his-minions-have-done-kate-kelly-agrees/
Narciso (181de5) — 9/20/2019 @ 8:29 am
Another interesting discovery… https://pjmedia.com/trending/did-mark-judges-memoir-cause-christine-blasey-ford-to-revise-her-assault-story/
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/20/2019 @ 2:06 pm
so jill Abramson (remember how she started her career) insisted the charges against Kavanaugh are not unfounded,
narciso (d1f714) — 9/20/2019 @ 2:34 pm
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/20/new-york-times-kavanaugh-reporter-told-source-what-to-say/
narciso (d1f714) — 9/20/2019 @ 2:38 pm

9/17/2019

Claim: NYT Editors Removed the Passage About How the Anti-Kavanaugh Witness Not Remembering Anything

134 Responses to “Claim: NYT Editors Removed the Passage About How the Anti-Kavanaugh Witness Not Remembering Anything”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out