PIERS MORGAN:

Referring to the NYT

“…So they deliberately withheld from their readers a staggeringly important piece of information that would have led the vast majority of those readers to have a very different perception as to the veracity of this story?

This is the very worst kind of indefensible guttersnipe journalism; a trumped-up smear with no credible basis of evidence to support it, designed to destroy the reputation of one of America’s highest ranking lawmakers, and possibly cost him his job.

And it raises a number of very difficult questions for the New York Times.

First, who took the decision to leave out that salient fact, and who else knew?

Second, why did they take that decision?

Third, what is the New York Times doing publishing such scurrilous unverified gossip like this in the first place?

It’s hard not to conclude that they did it because their anti-Trump agenda is now so embedded in the newspaper’s DNA they’re prepared to play fast and loose with facts if it helps take him down…”

Original

Alleged Victim In New York Times Kavanaugh Story Denies Any Recollection Of Incident

Mollie Hemingway:

“…New York Times reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly are out with a new book that attempts to buttress the unsubstantiated claims deployed last year against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” is neither a look at the education of Brett Kavanaugh nor an investigation. They admit they found no evidence to support the claims made by Christine Blasey Ford or Debbie Ramirez, although they say their “gut reaction” to the allegations is that they are true. They generously concede that their “gut” tells them that Michael Avennati client Julie Swetnick’s claims are not true, citing the lack of corroboration.

In any case, Stier’s claim, which even two Democratic senators’ offices didn’t find particularly worthwhile, was that he had seen an inebriated Kavanaugh, pants-down, at a freshman-year party. Stier’s claim to the staffers, we’re told, was that other people at the party put Kavanaugh’s genitalia into the hands of a classmate. Another unnamed person alleged said that he or she might have remembered hearing that the female student had transferred out of her college because of Kavanaugh, “though exactly why was unclear.”

The reporters, who describe Democrats in glowing terms and Republicans otherwise, say that Stier is a “respected thought leader” in the defense of the federal bureaucracy. They don’t mention his history of working for the Clintons. As for the victim? They say she “has refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it.”

To repeat: Several of her friends said she does not recall it.

So to summarize, the only new claim in the new book is that a Democratic attorney told two senators that he saw an incident where a third party allegedly did something to Kavanaugh and the young woman. In their book, the authors are upset that this claim didn’t lead to a massive FBI investigation, although they don’t explain why they think it should have.

Pogebrin and Kelly left the victim’s denial out of their New York Times story. It is unclear why the reporters and editors allowed the story to be published without this salient fact that they conceded, albeit briefly, in their own book…”

The only true journalism being practiced in relation to this sad story is by Mollie Hemingway. The NYT “reporters/authors” are not journalists, but activists with a cavalier attitude to truth.

Without fake hate crimes what would the professional victim class do?

In this case it appears tied to mundane business failure. That this guy would resort to racial fakery is a tell about just how sick identity politics and racial grievance politics have become. I feel sorry for the guy, but he should be prosecuted.

Disgusting lefty smears against conservative justices edition. Has the left gone completely bonkers?

Interesting analysis of demographic changes in suburban and exurban areas and how the changes affect the parties.

Amy Walter:

“…In other words, Democrats can’t make up for losses in rural areas by winning ‘the suburbs.” Democrats also need to also perform better in suburbs that aren’t in — or around — big population centers. And, mid-size city suburbs also happen to be in states that have an outsized influence on the Electoral College.

Boston College’s David Hopkins lays it out clearly here: “Just as Democrats appear to be gaining in the largest Sun Belt population centers, for example, they must contend with clear signals of eroding popularity in smaller suburbs (and rural areas) in midwestern states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa: a trend that resulted in the party’s unexpected defeat in 2016. These countervailing developments have left Democrats locked in perennially close and bitter electoral competition with a Republican Party that has been able to defend, and even expand, its own suburban base surrounding the mid-size and small cities of the nation’s midsection—still the electoral backbone of red-state America.”…”

Original

Take Two Aspirin and Call Me by My Pronouns. At ‘woke’ medical schools, curricula are increasingly focused on social justice rather than treating illness.

What could go wrong?