It was every writer’s dream — or it should have been. Two New York Times reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, wrote a book about one of the most controversial and most reported news stories of our time, the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, and thanks to their due diligence, they uncovered a truly blockbuster revelation: Not only did Christine Blasey Ford’s key witness and friend — Leland Keyser — state that she didn’t recall the party where Ford claimed she was assaulted, she also says she doesn’t remember “any others like it.”
Her words were strong: “It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s getting home,” she said. “I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”
Even more, Pogrebin and Kelly uncovered a pressure campaign to get Keyser to alter her testimony, to back Ford. Keyser told the writers, “I was told behind the scenes that certain things could spread about me if I didn’t comply,” and they report on group texts containing ominous language about Keyser’s allegedly “f***ed up” life.
While the reaction to the allegations against Kavanaugh was almost uniformly partisan (Republicans rejected the claims; Democrats either believed them or thought they cast enough doubt on Kavanaugh to deny him the nomination), there is — in fact — a truth of the matter here. Kavanaugh did or did not assault Ford, and in any fair proceeding Keyser’s testimony would detonate like a bomb. Remember, this was Ford’s witness and friend. She’s a Democrat. And, moreover, there was now evidence of a pressure campaign that looked a lot like an attempt to suborn perjury.
Confronted with these facts, other mainstream-media reporters were able to quickly discern the true blockbuster in the book. For example, here’s CBS News’s Jan Crawford, in a tweet from last night:
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
And here’s the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake analyzing its significance today:[A]s Democrats go big on calling for Kavanaugh’s impeachment — despite a key clarification from the Times that the supposed victim of the newly alleged assault doesn’t recall it, either — Keyser’s account isn’t one they can simply ignore. It’s a significant implicit defense of Kavanaugh, from someone with plenty of motivation to be on the other side of this story.
So, given these facts, what does the New York Times do? Rather than feature the blockbuster, it ran with an incredibly odd “new” allegation against Kavanaugh (it wasn’t truly new; the Senate knew about the claim) that friends had “pushed” his penis into the hands of a female student, but it withholds from the readers the fact that the alleged victim would not speak to the reporters and told friends she has no memory of the incident.
All in all, the story was one of the worst examples I’ve ever seen of neglecting story for narrative. The true story casts strong doubt on the narrative that many New York Times readers and staffers firmly believe; so the Times fed its readers the narrative.
But does the Times get what it did even now? After the truth has been put on blast across the length and breadth of social media? No, it does not. In an extraordinary piece that purports to “answer reader questions” about the Brett Kavanaugh debacle, it does not even address the failure to report the true blockbuster. Instead it lamely attempts to backfill the new allegation.
But as the CBS report above indicates, you can do both. You can — in a brief span of time, it turns out — report on the full context of the new claim and the key claims from Leland Keyser. In fact, the CBS report concludes with a devastating and accurate summation: “Now all four people that Ford identified as being at that high-school party in the summer of 1982 have now said no such party occurred, and today both the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee said they would not support impeaching Kavanaugh.”
Remember, these were the witnesses whom Ford identified. There is zero direct corroboration of any of Ford’s claims, and there is now substantial reason to doubt the alleged party even took place as described.
Yet the needs of the narrative are still trumping the necessity of telling the story. Last night the reporters blamed the omission of the fact that the alleged victim in the new claim didn’t recall the incident on their editors. Pogrebin said, “I think what happened was that . . . we had [the woman’s] name, and the Times doesn’t usually include the name of the victim, and so in this case I think the editors felt like maybe it was better to remove it, and in removing her name, they removed the other reference to the fact that she didn’t remember [the incident].”
Well, just edit out the woman’s name. Leave in the key fact that no actual victim has come forward.
Moreover, we learned yesterday that the Washington Post long ago responsibly passed on printing the new claim against Kavanaugh, in part “because the woman who was said to be involved declined to comment.”
Today, the tale got even more incredible.
Obviously, this is invented from the liberal point of view, concocted by people who don’t mind handling someone else’s pecker.
They know EXACTLY what they did. It’s their business model. We know they had an editors meeting in which they discussed their strategy of painting Trump as a racist. This is the same strategy except replacing Trump with Kavanaugh and racism with sexual assault. It’s just your basic lying and the NYT is committed to it.
Democrat reaction: “Impeach Kavanaugh!!” These are the most irresponsible and untrustworthy people in the country. Nothing they say or do can be trusted as credible. They care about nothing but destroying those who will not think as they do.
So, when will Blasey Ford be charged with perjury? There are now witnesses to the fact that she lied. At times, Democrats appear to abhor perjury; why not now?
From The Hill.
In other words, Due process for ME but not for THEE!!!
In other words, “Me, too! Me, too!”
But these are NOT “new allegations!
These are all OLD allegations already dealt with by a thorough investigation before Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed.
(Of course DEM donor Tom Steyer added that the entire investigation before the confirmation was a “farce.” )
So much for accepting due process.
Witness tampering is a crime. So when are those people who attempted to intimidate Keyser into testifying in a certain way going to be prosecuted?
As to the “it was the NYTs fault” meme:
@Nan G: ANYONE that calls for Kavanaugh’s impeachment for this accusation proves themselves willing to ignore law and Constitutional protections to eliminate a political foe. Nothing could be more dangerous to the survival of our form of government which relies on the integrity and honor of those we choose to represent us. If Democrats had any honor or integrity, they would disqualify as a possible candidate any who used this lie to demand an honorable member of the Supreme Court be removed.
Of course, this activity has become commonplace among Democrats. They have apparently given up any hope of presenting a better qualified candidate which can defeat President Trump and have come to rely on removal from office rather than winning elections. The leftist liberal media assists them in these efforts. As we have seen here, liberal media will promote any lie necessary to attack Trump and desperately try to support removing Trump from office.
Democrats do not have a single care about pursuing truth and justice. All laws are in place for, in their view, is to be used as weapons to promote their agenda. Laws will be ignored when they impede their agenda and used inappropriately to further it.
So far, not a single one of these candidates has admitted their error in jumping to conclusions based on the NYT’s abusive lies. Again, this is most revealing of the character (or lack thereof) of these candidates.
This is the Judiciary Committee, right? And according to Greggie Goebbels, it is the purpose of he Judiciary Committee to look into any criminal activity done by a duly elected politician. Yet……………………….
there is mounting evidence that a certain Congresswoman committed immigration fraud, married her own brother (also against the law) for the purpose of committing such immigration fraud and perjured herself in testimony to a divorce court where she would have been sworn in to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Why isn’t Jabba the Hut looking into that?
@retire05: Why isn’t Pelosi DEMANDING it? She claimed she was going to make ethics a priority; apparently what she meant was she was going to use ethics as a pretext to pursue impeachment of Trump on false accusations. It is simply beyond any possible defensive argument that the Democrats are trying to illegal take power and, failing that, use their legislative duty to campaign for 2020.
Those who don’t denounce this enable it.
because nancy is one of the dirtiest demorats in congress. she is worse than mccanin- a rat of the highest order.
Because SanFran Nan is trying desperately to hold on to her gavel. AOC plus Three are running to show, and SanFran Nan knows it.
Jabba the Hut’s witch hunt is nothing more than a tax payer funded opposition research committee. Almost $40 million for Mueller. How much is Jabba the Hut costing us and where is Greggie Goebbels’ concern over that expenditure?