After the New York Times clarified on Sunday evening that the woman at the center of the new allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t recall the incident, Trump, predictably, reveled in the publication’s revision of the story.
The NYTimes does not peddle “fake” news, as Trump alleges. But of late they sure qualify as occasionally inept.
The reason Fat Nixon screamed like a banshee about it yesterday and is gloating about it today is precisely because Trump knows they blackmailed Kennedy into retirement (via Kennedy’s son’s dirty dealings with Deutsche Bank) in order to jam Kavanaugh onto SCOTUS. And the only reason Fat Nixon cares about SCOTUS is because–at some point deep in his lizard-brain stem, he knows that a corrupt SCOTUS is the only thing that can keep him out of jail, long run.
With Trump, THERE IS ALWAYS A TELL. Hiding in plain sight, usually.
Democracy Dies In Incompetencetm
And this is why I think the Democrats need to temper their reactions when things like this come up. It doesn’t negate the initial reporting, but it strips the initial impact. Jumping to a call for impeachment with teeth gnashing in a blink of an eye is not what we need.
Seems that the paper of record just might need to fire an editor and put someone in there who’s, I don’t know, a journalist?
There is no way Kavanaugh’s life before SCOTUS varies from the narrative put forth in the NYT story.
There will be the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed going forward.
I always felt that Kavanaugh had this as a problem and, in addition, serious financial compromise as one of the others of his many weaknesses.
You are absolutely correct.
Just move along. Democracy is dead. Nothing to see here, move along folks.
I’m confused as well - does this mean that Ramirez now says she doesn’t remember or is it someone else? Also, the most damning part at this point is this:
Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of “at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence” of her story. The bureau, the authors report, “interviewed none of them.” Nor did the FBI look into Stier’s account.
What about the 25 other people? They don’t remember it either?
The smug Orange Occupant should be ready for the shock when Rapey McDrunkerson is impeached for lying to congress. He lied about slut-shaming Renate and it is in the official record!
I am not Dutch, but my metaphor with Trump has always been the North Sea.
Each gallon representing a Trump treasonous act, a Trump crime, a Trump perversion…and a series of dykes (Trump’s paid operatives at many levels) holding back the Sea.
The Sea will rush in, people will know and Trump will fall, at some point.
How does one keep silent every one of the hundreds of people in every social structure that Trump has corrupted?
DAY 970: Still no pivot
Here’s part of the retraction: “it 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.”
Although very unclear, this says to me that it was NOT Ramirez who retracted. The lack of clarity on the part of the NYT is pretty stunning, especially considering the subject matter.
This is the part they’re now correcting, this statement wasn’t initially included in the story. “The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.”
“Friends say” is doing some work here.
Kav the Spaz should sue the NYT for “liable.”
No. The girl who declined to be interviewed was a different girl entirely. Also, not retracked is the fact that Ramirez has numerous collaborating witnesses and that there were 25 witnesses that the FBI did not interview. Still a sham investigation.
WTF? It’s like the NYTIMES is deliberately kneecapping their own story here. First the disgusting tweet calling a drunk at a party random jamming his penis is a woman’s face “harmless fun.” Then they stick huge revelations on Kavanaugh in the opinion section under the headline "Kavanaugh fit in. Ramirez didn’t. " And now we learn they left out these key facts? They couldn’t have undermined this story more if they tried. Given the astonishing level of incompetence it would take to do all these things inadvertently, maybe they tried?
The Ramirez assault is separate and distinct from the one the Times had to revise. The latter one had a single source, and I remember thinking it was odd the first time I read the story. My impression was that the guy may have seen the Ramirez incident, and misremembered it.
DAY 256 since Democrats assumed House majority and leadership. Still no accountability imposed upon Republicans.