The New Yorker staff knows the piece they ran that accuses Kavanaugh of exposing himself has no corroboration from a single witness. The names the accuser provided were checked out and not a single one recalls anything of the sort happening. Yet, they published it anyway.
….the New Yorker was unable to find a single witness to corroborate the story being made by the accuser. None. Not a single confirming witness to back up the claim. They write:
…”The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.”…
But wait.
It gets better.
The accuser did give the New Yorker six names to support her claim. Six witnesses Deborah Ramirez stated could substantiate her accusation. And when the New Yorker interviewed them, ALL SIX said it never happened.
[…] “In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale.”
“We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”” (The Article)
Now, stop for a minute and think about this.
A claim is made.
The New Yorker tries to substantiate the claim.
The New Yorker finds ZERO people who can validate the claim.
The six witnesses the accuser says will back up her claim all deny any knowledge of the claim; yet the New Yorker still runs the article.
According to the dems this justifies further delaying the vote. When do we get pissed off?!?! This bullshit of taking the high road is going to cast us big time! These dems are traitors and need to be treated as such! DAMMIT, I’m getting pissed off as hell.
The article is chock-full of bullshit. They spoke to people who went to Yale and agreed there were wild frat parties (but couldn’t say Kavanaugh attended any). Some who went to Yale heard stories about someone doing something at a party (but Kavanaugh wasn’t named). Wishful thinking disguised as reporting. They did, however include interviews with several friends of the accuser who said if it happened, she would have told them at the time…she didn’t.
If Kavanaugh goes down, President Trump needs to name Ann Coulter as his next SCOTUS nominee.
Larry Sinclair is still waiting for his interview….
Clear and Present Agenda.
The Press (now LSM) has been happy to put forth lies as “news” if it hurts America at least since 1950! Maybe longer but I was too young in ’49 to see hate in print and understand !
@ Tony R, that would give the Dems heartburn! I’d love every minute of it, too!!!
Senate question, if your allegations are proven false, have you been indemnified by anyone (Soros) in case you get sued for liable?
At this point, even if it were all true, I’d still vote to confirm. Dems have already proven they don’t truly care about sexual assaults (the sad thing is that I don’t even have to list names for proof).
This isn’t about “poundmetoo”.
Remember, a judge actually told Bill Cosby if he hadn’t spoken out against the black community none of the charges would have been brought against him.
Liberals have no problem with a woman being attacked, so long as the attacker is a toe-the-line liberal.