Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 17, 2019

LA Times Op-Ed: Given the partisan polarization over the Supreme Court, it's not surprising that an article in the New York Times reporting on a previously undisclosed allegation about Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh impelled some Democratic presidential candidates to call for his impeachment. But it's disappointing and perhaps dangerous " less for Kavanaugh than for the image of the court as an institution that is above partisan politics.

The article in question is something of an oddity. It appeared online in the newspaper's Opinion display but was also labeled "news analysis." But then the piece makes news with two claims: one a rehash of the debunked Ramirez claim and the other about a similar incident previously unreported. Immediately Dem candidates for President rushed to clamor of Kavanaugh's impeachment. Whatever you think of Kavanaugh's veracity " or his judicial philosophy, which is abhorrent to a lot of Democrats " this is an unseemly rush to judgment.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More FTA:

For now it's just an accusation, and there are complications that counsel caution in jumping to conclusions about it. For example, friends of the woman say she does not recall the incident, a detail in the book by Pogrebin and Kelly that the New York Times belatedly acknowledged in an "editor's note" appended to their article. [For this reason and others], the calls for impeachment are premature and open to the charge that they're politically motivated.

Of course, it's unlikely that the candidates' call for a Kavanaugh impeachment will make much headway. On Monday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, indicated that his panel was too busy pursuing an inquiry into impeaching Trump to spare time for a Kavanaugh investigation.

But the fact that the candidates' call for Kavanaugh's impeachment isn't going anywhere doesn't make it any less irresponsible. Calling for the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, even one whose confirmation you opposed, shouldn't be just another political potshot.

The LA Times has a long history for calling out the New York Times for its mistakes, but to allow its Senior Editorial Writer call out not only the NYT for a "correction" but also call Democratic candidates Harris, Warren, O'Rourke and Castro "irresponsible" for calling for Kavanaugh's impeachment is virtually unprecedented.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 11:38 AM | Reply

FakeLawyer needs his "safe space", he's snow flaking again.

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-17 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

RECENT COMMENTS:

aborted_moron on Irresponsible calls to impeach Kavanaugh not going anywhere ...

LOL, I thought I felt one of my ankle gummers slobbering away.

The likelihood of that comment having any insight or substance is di minimus.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 02:42 PM | Reply

#2 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON

That was quite the contribution to this thread.

You really should just sit in a corner and decompose.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 03:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You really should just sit in a corner and decompose.

Looks like you have identified AbortedMoron's highest, best use.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 03:11 PM | Reply

I love that Leland Keyser has gone from potentially Ford's star witness to her biggest nightmare.

She has totally backed off any claim of believing Ford. She has said that the whole thing just wasn't right and when she thought about who she was at the time of the alleged incident she said there's no way she wouldn't have wondered where Ford ran off too and there's no way she wouldn't have been concerned about how Ford got home. Further, she has said that she rarely ever hung out with kids from Kav's school and that after looking at his High School pictures and maps she concluded that she didn't even know him and probably never even met him.

The cherry on top is that she is claiming that Ford's team threatened to smear her if she didn't toe the line.

Then there's Ramirez. She was hammered, has fuzzy recollection of the event, isn't even sure if Kav was even in the room, had to be cajoled by partisans to make the allegation. 4 of the alleged witnesses she named had no recollection of this event.

Now, Steir's (a Clinton operative and longtime political foe of Kav) allegation is actually second-to-third hand (he refused to be interviewed) and is so ridiculous - that friends of a naked Kav "pushed his penis into a chick's hand" - that it can only be laughed at. On top of that, the alleged victim refused interview and her friends claim she had no recollection of this even happening (spotting a trend here?). Even further, the NYT embarrassingly omitted this crucial point and only added it after Mollie Hemingway pointed it out on Twitter and they got slammed on Twitter right after that.

WaPo, LAT and CBS Evening News are all calling this crap out. That in itself is amazing.

The left really shot themselves in the foot trying to resurrect this garbage.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At this point a reasonable person can only conclude that Ford was lying and these 2 NYT writers unwittingly did her a huge disservice by trying to resurrect this. The last thing she wants is any actual and critical scrutiny of her story.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 03:14 PM | Reply

"At this point a reasonable person can only conclude that Ford was lying"

Nonsense.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-17 03:15 PM | Reply

A reasonable person can conclude Kavanaugh is lying about what a bunch of stuff in his high school yearbook means, such as "Renate alumnus" and "FFFF."

The rest is pretty much a grey area.

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important affairs." -- Albert Einstein

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-17 03:19 PM | Reply

LOL, SnoofMao is 100% sure on Renate alumnus and FFFF but the rest is a grey area.

Nonsense.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 05:49 PM | Reply

"She was one of the most competent, credible, and believable witnesses I have ever seen in over a decade of prosecuting cases," said Allison Leotta, who spent 12 years as a federal prosecutor in Washington, focusing on sex crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse. "What she described was a very bread-and-butter acquaintance sexual assault." Using Martha's common-sense standard, we can see no reason Ford would have come forward with her account if she didn't believe it.

At least five people have a strong recollection of hearing about the alleged incident with Ramirez long before Kavanaugh was a federal judge.
www.theatlantic.com

It's pretty clear that there was enough evidence to at least do a full investigation before the vote, rather than the 48 hour sham that was intended to provide cover for Republicans.

#11 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-09-17 06:09 PM | Reply

The use of the word "irresponsible" is ridiculous. If Kavanaugh is guilty of the things multiple women claim then he does not belong on our SC, but hey, Clarence Thomas still sits there so accusations of sexual inpropriety mean very little to Republicans with a right wing agenda. There wasn't even a pretense of honesty during the hearings for him to be seated. Republicans simply have no shame unless, of course, they are going after a Democratic President in an investigation into land deals in Arkansas, then they have to investigate every aspect of his personal life. Never mind that the leaders of that investigation were carrying on extramarital affairs when they were accusing him. There is no shame in the Republican Party, they can do anything they want with impunity and still become SC Justices.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-18 06:48 AM | Reply

The use of the word "irresponsible" is ridiculous. If Kavanaugh is guilty of the things multiple women claim then he does not belong on our SC, but hey, Clarence Thomas still sits there so accusations of sexual inpropriety mean very little to Republicans with a right wing agenda. There wasn't even a pretense of honesty during the hearings for him to be seated. Republicans simply have no shame unless, of course, they are going after a Democratic President in an investigation into land deals in Arkansas, then they have to investigate every aspect of his personal life. Never mind that the leaders of that investigation were carrying on extramarital affairs when they were accusing him. There is no shame in the Republican Party, they can do anything they want with impunity and still become SC Justices.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-18 06:48 AM | Reply

At least five people have a strong recollection of hearing about the alleged incident with Ramirez long before Kavanaugh was a federal judge.
www.theatlantic.com

It's pretty clear that there was enough evidence to at least do a full investigation before the vote, rather than the 48 hour sham that was intended to provide cover for Republicans.

#11 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Um, yeah. A few people heard some rumors. How many firsthand accounts? ZERO. The FBI doesn't have limitless resources. To suggest they should be trying to chase down 35 year old rumors without any firsthand accounts is absurd.

Also, have you even perused the Senate report? Are you even aware that 4 people who Ramirez named were interviewed? None of them could recall ----. Kavanaugh was the most heavily scrutinized nominee in the history of the court. That's not hyperbole, it's fact and it's borne out by the number of written questions he answered, documents produced, number of background checks, etc.

This "sham investigation" talking point is going to be tossed into the dumpster, at least on this site. It's a total lie and you should know better.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 07:24 AM | Reply

#13 | POSTED BY DANNI

You're full of ---- too. By your logic, as long as an accusation is made any nominee is immediately disqualified, only if said nominee is a Republican, of course.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 07:26 AM | Reply

What many seem to continue to be ignoring is that this was not a criminal investigation. This was a job interview and background investigation. The FBI didn't need to detail which 5 people heard about an alleged incident. They simply needed to note in the background check that 'allegations of having his penis near a woman during college' in his file and submit it right along with the rest of the background check. The Senators were very much aware, when they made their job suitability determination, that Kavanaugh had been accused of things, that no criminal charges were ever pursued and likely were not going to be pursued (so innocence or guilt was never going to be determined), and evidently their determination was that 30 year old allegations without reasonable evidence of support were not sufficient to withhold their consent of the President's nomination.

#16 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 08:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What many seem to continue to be ignoring is that this was not a criminal investigation."

Just like when someone very close to JeffJ made similar allegations, and there was no criminal investigation.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-18 01:11 PM | Reply

It's a total lie and you should know better.
#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Get off you're ------- high horse, Jeff. At least I'm engaging in conversation.

#18 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-09-18 05:12 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort