53 Year Old Accuser Deborah Ramirez Comes Forward With Allegations Against Kavanaugh … Was Drunk, 35 Years Ago, Cannot Really Remember & No One Can Corroberate Story
ANOTHER WOMAN COMES FORWARD WITH A 35 YEAR OLD STORY THAT NOT EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES THOUGHT WAS FIT TO PRINT …
The New Yorker published a story on Sunday night of a second woman accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of lewd behavior from some 35 years ago while in college. Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer have released a report in the New Yorker from Deborah Ramirez, accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. The salacious story includes a dildo and penises. And once again, we have a completely drunk woman at a party, vague memories and not one person who supposedly atteneded the party could confirm Kavanaugh was at the party. The 53-year-old accuser Deborah Ramirez told the New Yorker that she was initially hesitant to speak out because she was drunk at the time and her memory had gaps. Then miraculously after 35 years she spent six days “carefully assessing her memories” and consulting with her attorney before going public. Just like that she could remember.
Shameful. Not even the New York Times would touch this story because they could not find anyone to corroborate the story. Neither did the New Yorker. In other words, journalism is now considered just printing the vague recollections of accusation and rumor. But this is what it has come to. Piling on and making stuff up at all cost by the Left and Democrats. This is truly sad.
The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.
After 35 years and drunk at the time, suddenly she had an epiphany after 6 days of being coached by her lawyer …
Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.
And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.”
For some reason, even though the New Yorker had not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party, they printed this story anyhow.
The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party. A classmate of Ramirez’s, who declined to be identified because of the partisan battle over Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that another student told him about the incident either on the night of the party or in the next day or two. The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself. The classmate, like Ramirez, recalled that the party took place in a common room on the first floor in Entryway B of Lawrance Hall, during their freshman year. “I’ve known this all along,” he said. “It’s been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal.” The story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of typically acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus. The classmate said that he had been shocked, but not necessarily surprised, because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.”
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 one other classmate, 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.”
NY Times Reports Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump & Discussed 25th Amendment (Update: Rosenstein Denies)
THE FOX IN THE HEN HOUSE …
The New York Times is reporting that deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit. The information is reported to have come from memos written by Andrew McCabe, then the acting FBI director. McCabe declined to comment. According to a lawyer for Mr. McCabe, his clients memos have been turned over to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in the investigation into whether Trump associates conspired with Russia’s election interference. Interesting.
The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.
Mr. Rosenstein made these suggestions in the spring of 2017 when Mr. Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director plunged the White House into turmoil. Over the ensuing days, the president divulged classified intelligence to Russians in the Oval Office, and revelations emerged that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey to pledge loyalty and end an investigation into a senior aide.
Mr. Rosenstein was just two weeks into his job. He had begun overseeing the Russia investigation and played a key role in the president’s dismissal of Mr. Comey by writing a memo critical of his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But Mr. Rosenstein was caught off guard when Mr. Trump cited the memo in the firing, and he began telling people that he feared he had been used.
Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments.
If true, Rosenstein needs to be fired immediately. But is it true and one might want to consider the source of this leak. Was it McCabe or maybe the special counsel. Regardless, a special counsel needs to be put in place to investigate the deep state and all that they have done to thwart the Trump presidency and over throw a presidential election.
A question does arise as to why the New York Times would report such a story. I would ask why? Why now? The Times as been a part of the liberal media’s attack on Trump. Why would they report such a story now? Who thinks this is an attempt to rile up Trump so that he fires Rosenstein prior to the 2018 midterms. Isn’t this what was wanted all along? Then the NY Times and the rest of the liberal media gets to cry obstruction of justice. The deep state and the media are very slick and despicable. Do not think they will attempt anything to overthrow this president.
UPDATE I: From the Gateway Pundit, following the New York Times released its report, Andrew McCabe made a statement through his lawyer Michael Bromwich. Interesting, he did not deny The NY Times report.
“Andrew McCabe drafted memos to memorialize significant discussions he had with some high level officials and preserved them so he would have an accurate contemporaneous record of those discussions. When he was interviewed by the Special Counsel more than a year ago, he gave all of his memos — classified and unclassified — to the Special Counsel’s office,” Michael Bromwich said in an email.
UPDATE II: Rosenstein denies the report … The Story Is ‘Inaccurate and Factually Incorrect’.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Friday denied a New York Times report claiming that he suggested last year that he secretly record Donald Trump in the White House and discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.
“The New York Times‘ story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the [Justice] Department and are advancing their own personal agenda,” Rosenstein said in a statement. “But let me be clear about this: based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”
FAKE NEWS, FAKE POLLS …
A recent CNN poll shows that Democrats have a 10 point lead over Republicans in a generic ballot test, 52% of likely voters to 42%. But wait a minute, has the liberal MSM leaned nothing from the 2016 elections and all of the bogus polling? However, what should we expect from CNN Fake News? Let’s take a look at the methodology of the poll. So in a poll where CNN states that Democrats have a 10% point lead, they sampled 34% Democrats and only 25% Republicans. Really CNN? Then there was a so-called 40% Independent.
Democrats maintain a wide lead over Republicans in the race for control of the House of Representatives, a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS finds, including a 10-point lead among those most likely to turn out this November.
In a generic ballot test, 52% of likely voters back the Democratic candidate for House of Representatives in their district while 42% back the Republican. Among all registered voters, Democrats hold a 12-point margin over the GOP, suggesting preferences have not shifted much since an August CNN Poll, which did not include an assessment of likely voters.
MORE ON METHODOLOGY
A total of 1,003 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Among the entire sample, 34% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 40% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Didn’t CNN already dump their former polling firm ORC after the 2016 elections because of the BS polling and data? No one trusts fake news and fake polling. It does not appear that much has changed.
Most of the headlines about CNN’s new public-opinion poll this week focused on President Donald Trump’s 38 percent approval rating. But there was also this: After a 2016 election in which most of the data underestimated Trump’s chances, CNN has a new pollster.
The new poll was conducted by SSRS, a major survey-research company, instead of CNN’s old partner, ORC International. CNN confirmed this week that its partnership with ORC, which included co-branding of the poll, has ended after more than a decade.
The switch comes at a perilous moment for both the media and the polling industry. Attacked by the president as “fake news” for results he disagrees with, pollsters and the news organizations they work with inspire little confidence from the public. A Marist-McClatchy poll — yes, a poll about polling — back in March found that only 7 percent of Americans have a great deal of trust in polls, and just 29 percent said they have a good amount of trust in polls.
ED SCHULTZ PASSES AWAY …
Today it comes as a surprise that longtime broadcaster Ed Schultz has died at the age if 64. Media reports state that he dies of “natural causes” as Schultz passed quietly early morning on July 5 at his home in Washington, D.C. I can’t say I agreed with much Ed Schultz had to say, although I can agree that passing away at the age of 64 is far too young. After his show was canceled at MSNBC Schultz joined TT America to produce “The News with Ed Schultz.” As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, Schultz and his new show were criticized by many of his fellow progressives for taking a new positive tone towards both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Republican President Donald Trump. None more evident where I never agreed more with Ed Schultz as he ripped Hillary Clinton a new one for not having the common decency to give her concession speech, but instead prolonging the BS by sending out her campaign chair Podesta instead. Schultz stated, this is the same campaign that was questing Trump to how he would handle the outcome of the election.”
Schultz rips Hillary Clinton for not speaking on election night
Ed Schultz, the longtime broadcaster who churned up the Fargo-Moorhead area airwaves before moving into the national spotlight as a progressive firebrand, died of natural causes Thursday, July 5, at his home in Washington, D.C.
Schultz, the host of “The News With Ed Schultz” on RT America, was 64.
“We at RT America are sad to announce the passing of Edward Andrew Schultz. Ed Schultz passed quietly early morning on July 5 at his home in Washington, D.C. This announcement comes as a shock to all of us here at RT America,” the network said in a statement.
Schultz never shied away from controversy. If anything, he sought it out.
He was a man of contrasts. A political chameleon with a driving ambition. [...]
In 2004, Schultz took his radio show nationwide. Then in 2009, he moved to national television, becoming a prime-time progressive voice on MSNBC through 2015, when his show was dropped.
He started his job at RT America, formerly called Russia Today, in early 2016, hosting the half-hour show “The News With Ed Schultz.”
Schultz, who was critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin while at MSNBC, said when he took the RT job that he didn’t anticipate any problems. “Nobody is going to tell Ed Schultz what to say,” he told The Forum.
Liberal MSM Loses Their Mind Upon Justice Kennedy Retirement … MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, ‘Hell to Pay’ If Democrats Don’t Block Anthony Kennedy Replacement (VIDEO)
THE LIBERAL MSM LOSING THEIR MINDS WITH JUSTICE KENNEDY RETIREMENT ANNOUNCEMENT …
Hmm, so why would the liberal MSM become so insane by the announcement of the retirement of Justice Kennedy? Do they think the Supreme Court is supposed to be more powerful than the Legislative or Executive branches of government? Yesterday, following the retirement announcement of Justice Kennedy, the LEFT-wing Democrat media lost their minds. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews stated, that if Democrats “don’t use everything they’ve got, if they don’t play hardball, I think they’re through.” Matthews went on to say, “If they allow Trump to fill the Supreme Court with another conservative who will not share Justice Anthony Kennedy’s views on social issues like marriage quality, then the Democratic leadership “will have hell to pay.” The LEFT, Democrats and the liberal MSM can kick, scream, whine and throw all the temper tantrums they want. The fact of the matter is they have no power to stop it. Honestly, who thinks that had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election, Heaven forbid, that she would have appointed a Justice comparable to that of Scalia? As for Kennedy, he might not have even considered stepping down.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Wednesday said that the Senate would hold a vote on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s successor this fall.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews did not mince words in reacting to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s surprise retirement announcement on Wednesday.
“I don’t think the Democrats should allow meetings to occur with Trump’s nominee to fill this vacancy by Justice Kennedy,” Matthews said. “I think they have to fight eye for an eye for what happened in ‘16 when the Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, refused to even consider or even meet with Merrick Garland.”
If the Democratic leadership under Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer “allows this to go forward,” Matthews continued, they are going to have a “huge problem with the Democratic base.” He pointed to incumbent Congressman Joe Crowley’s loss the night before to young progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a sign of just how vulnerable the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is right now.
“There is no way politically the Democratic base will stand for any kind of hearings or vote for a Trump nominee before the election,” he added. “We’ve got an election in four and half months. There’s no reason to consider a replacement on the Supreme Court in that time.” Matthews said McConnell has “no right” to bring a nominee up for a vote after what he did to Merrick Garland two years ago.
Who finds this comical that the LEFT is going crazy over a Ronald Reagan SCOTUS appointee?