New unsubstantiated allegations surfaced this weekend in the New Yorker by reporters Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow of #MeToo fame. The article accuses Brett Kavanaugh of exposing himself to a drunk classmate when they were both law students at Yale.
Although Kavanaugh’s former classmate Deborah Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” in early discussions with the New Yorker she subsequently became certain and formally made the incendiary claim to the reporters after, as she describes it in the article, “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.” (Good to know that 6 days with your lawyer can clear up 35 years with a confused memory. And I’m still not sure what “assessing your memory” means.)
The alleged incident occurred after she says she quickly became intoxicated playing a drinking game in a dorm room. According the article, “…she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)”
Why not, New Yorker? Did they or did they not verify her story? You don’t believe it’s important enough for readers to know that?
Even the über-liberal New York Times found the uncorroborated story unworthy of its publication. Here is what the Times wrote in making the determination that the Mayer, Farrow story just wasn’t credible:
“The (New York) Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”
This one paragraph is stunning. Even Ms. Ramirez, upon reaching out to former classmates, could find no one to corroborate her account and said she wasn’t certain herself.
And it isn’t just the Times who find Ramirez’s story difficult to believe. So too do the people Ramirez says were actually there as witnesses.
The New Yorker even admits, “One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. ‘I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,’ he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, ‘I have no idea.’ The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, ‘I have zero recollection.’”
The New Yorker goes further to completely undermine its own story. It writes, “In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in 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.'”
Mayer and Farrow may believe they are amplifying the theme of the #MeToo movement. They are not.
In their “blood in the water” zeal, they are pushing for the public “lynching” of a man’s reputation with not just flimsy evidence, but virtually none at all. Such a shaky accusation will likely raise the level of public skepticism when many legitimately abused women make allegations in the future, just like the damage done by the Duke lacrosse case.
These attacks have struck close to the judge’s home. Ashley Kavanaugh, the judge’s wife has experienced death threats and vile emails. Below are some of those emails published by Fox News (GRAPHIC LANGUAGE):
“Please tell your rapist, lying, cheating, corrupt b***h of a husband to put a bullet in his ugly f**king skull.”
“My condolences to you for being married to a rapist. Although you probably deserve it.”
“Hey b***h, did you know your husband was a rapist before you married him? F**k you and your f**king family.”
A third email, typed entirely in capital letters, read, “F**K YOU AND YOUR RAPIST HUSBAND.”
“F**K YOU, RAPE ENABLING C**T. YOUR HUSBAND IS A LIAR, THIEF, RAPIST AND PROBABLY A PEDOPHILE. BURN IN HELL YOU WORTHLESS F**KING C**T,” the email stated. “MAY YOU, YOUR HUSBAND AND YOUR KIDS BURN IN HELL YOU F**KING PIECES OF TRASH. EAAAAATTTTT S*******T!!!!!!!!!!”
This accusation is a public prosecution of the highest magnitude. To many on the left, the possibility of destroying the life’s work of a highly respected man is not just irrelevant to them, but welcomed. The fact that dozens of women, many who have worked or clerked for Judge Kavanaugh, have come forward to affirm his virtuous character simply doesn’t matter to them. Their mission? He’s a conservative so he must be crushed.
The Progressive Left will do anything to destroy anyone who has the audacity to gets in its way.What should have been one of the proudest moments for the parents, wife and children of this judge, nominated to a position considered the pinnacle of a legal career, has become a nightmare. And perhaps the greatest danger to the republic is that this Kavanaugh hearing could irreparably damage American jurisprudence (“innocent until proven guilty”) to its core.