Toronto Passions
Toronto Escorts

NYT Reporters Say They Uncovered New Sexual Misconduct Claim Against Kavanaugh

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,484
113
09/14/2019 21:52 EDT | Updated

NYT Reporters Say They Uncovered New Sexual Misconduct Claim Against Kavanaugh

Two New York Times reporters said they learned of the unreported claim while investigating Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for an upcoming book.

By Carla Herreria, HuffPost US

Two New York Times reporters say they’ve uncovered a previously unreported account of sexual misconduct allegedly carried out by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was a student at Yale.

In an op-ed for the Times, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly said they learned of the alleged misconduct during a 10-month investigation of Kavanaugh’s life at prep school and Yale, including the assault accusations, for their upcoming book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.”

Max Stier, Kavanaugh’s classmate at Yale, told the reporters that he once saw Kavanaugh with his pants down while his friends pushed his penis into the hands of a female student during a dorm party.

According to Pogrebin and Kelly, Stier reported his account to senators and the FBI, though the FBI didn’t investigate it. Pogrebin and Kelly said they “corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with” Stier.

What Stier said he witnessed is similar to an allegation lodged against Kavanaugh by his former classmate Deborah Ramirez, which was first reported by the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow last September.

Ronan Farrow

✔@RonanFarrow

Two @nytimes reporters, @rpogrebin and @katekelly, spent months independently reporting out Deborah Ramirez’s allegation against Brett Kavanaugh and found it credible—and documented another serious claim of misconduct with an eyewitness: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html**…

Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not.

Deborah Ramirez’s Yale experience says much about the college’s efforts to diversify its student body in the 1980s.

nytimes.com

49.3K

8:04 PM - Sep 14, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

24.4K people are talking about this

Ramirez said that she was at a dorm room party with Kavanaugh and several others playing a drinking game when Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her. She pushed him away, she told the New Yorker last year, causing her to touch his penis.

Ramirez came forward with her accusations last September after Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused the then-Supreme Court nominee of drunkenly pinning her to a bed and trying to take off her clothes until she broke free and left while they were in high school.

Pogrebin and Kelly looked into both Ramirez’s and Ford’s claims for their upcoming book, which takes a deeper look into Kavanaugh’s prep school and Ivy League days in an attempt to piece together who he is, according to a summary.

In their investigation, the Times reporters said they talked to at least seven people who heard of Ramirez’s account “long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge,” including two former Yale students who learned of it days after it allegedly occurred.

While promoting Pogrebin and Kelly’s work, the New York Times’ opinion section posted a tweet that was meant to promote Pogrebin and Kelly’s work but instead appeared dismissive of sexual harassment.

The tweet suggested that “having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun.”

The Times deleted the tweet after people pointed out that sexual harassment should never be deduced down to “harmless” or “fun.”

“We have deleted an earlier tweet to this article that was poorly phrased,” the paper’s social media retraction said.

Caitlin Tremblay

✔@ctrembz

Love to log into Twitter after the first episode of Unbelievable triggered a panic attack to see this now-deleted but very, very, very bad New York Times tweet.

I am so tired. https://twitter.com/LemieuxLGM/status/1173010313022586881…

Scott Lemieux@LemieuxLGM

Uh...not really?

28

7:45 PM - Sep 14, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

37 people are talking about this

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nyt-reporters-uncover-new-sexual-misconduct-claim-kavanaugh_n_5d7d7ccde4b077dcbd5f6e7c
 

Zaibetter

Banned
Mar 27, 2016
4,284
1
0
Talking about the NYT and Kavanaugh

New York Times Apologizes for Incredibly Offensive Tweet About Brett Kavanaugh’s Alleged Misconduct

What the hell, New York Times?!?!

By now you’ve probably read about the newly surfaced allegations against Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh. In a report published on Saturday, the Times shared additional evidence that appears to further validate allegations by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh sexually harassed her at a college dorm party when the two were freshmen at Yale.

Additionally, the report contains another allegation about a separate incident at the university that demonstrates the same type of predatory behavior by Kavanaugh. A classmate of Kavanaugh’s, Max Stier, said he witnessed Kavanaugh with his pants down at another dorm party, shoving his dick into the hand of a female student, according to the report. (Kavanaugh did not answer questions from the newspaper about this incident.)
Stier told the FBI and senators about this last year during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, but nothing came of it.

All of this is very disturbing and confirms once again that Kavanaugh has no business being on the Supreme Court regardless of his denials.
Nevertheless, in promoting this major story to the world on Twitter, the New York Times opinion section somehow found a way to make the situation even worse, and the result is both baffling and unbelievably offensive.
“Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun,” some brainless fool at the Times tweeted. “But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn’t belong at Yale in the first place.”
After facing well-deserved backlash over this idiotic tweet, the Times announced it had deleted it, saying it was “poorly phrased,” which perhaps is the understatement of the year and equally offensive. That prompted more deserved criticism.

Later on Saturday evening, the newspaper deleted that tweet, too, and issued an apology.

“We deleted a previous tweet regarding this article. It was offensive, and we apologize,” the Times’ opinion section wrote on Twitter.

https://splinternews.com/new-york-times-apologizes-for-incredibly-offensive-twee-1838130691
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Not this nonsense again....
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Fake news originated by ex Clinton lawyer and a couple of crooked "journalists" hoping to cash in on book sales. Disgusting.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Who was that judge Obama wanted and the minority Republicans wouldn't give a hearing to?

Democracy isn't about 'majority rules' because the majority always rules. Democracy is about the minority accepting the rule, because one day, they'll be the majority and need that same acceptance. But you can't demand acceptance, you have to earn it. Once upon a time when Reagan's nomination of Bork was rejected, he was wise enough to find Anthony Kennedy who was unanimously approved.

The GOP were determined to block Garland and have Kavanaugh no matter the cost. Now the bills are coming due and have to be paid out of the Respect for the Supreme Court account. The Respect for Senate account has been overdrawn for a long time.

And it's gonna be nastier and heavier rule by ever-slimmer majorities with ever smaller consciences and ever-feebler ethics.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,927
1,198
113
Who was that judge Obama wanted and the minority Republicans wouldn't give a hearing to?
I'm not sure why the NY Times rehashing some bullshit opens up this discussion again.

First off, the Republicans were the majority in the Senate and the House. Second, there were a few changes to the Senate confirmation process by both McConnell and Harry Reid when the Dems held the Senate. I'd rather not go into the details all over again, but there was political jockeying on both sides.

The Senate Dems have a precedence of personally attacking Republican judicial nominees. Simply being Catholic, seems to grounds for an attack by the Dems. This goes back thirty years. It didn't just start with Kavanaugh.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I'm not sure why the NY Times rehashing some bullshit opens up this discussion again.

First off, the Republicans were the majority in the Senate and the House. Second, there were a few changes to the Senate confirmation process by both McConnell and Harry Reid when the Dems held the Senate. I'd rather not go into the details all over again, but there was political jockeying on both sides.

The Senate Dems have a precedence of personally attacking Republican judicial nominees. Simply being Catholic, seems to grounds for an attack by the Dems. This goes back thirty years. It didn't just start with Kavanaugh.
Because simply winning some fight in the Senate is a far cry from giving the United States the Judicial Branch it needs. And a price will be paid, that's why.

The other stuff you noted just illustrates that point.

As does the Times piece.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,927
1,198
113
Because simply winning some fight in the Senate is a far cry from giving the United States the Judicial Branch it needs. And a price will be paid, that's why.
I bet you're the guy who knows exactly what Judicial Branch the United States needs.

The Democrats have been fiercely fighting Republican judicial appointments for many years. I don't exactly know how it all started and I won't say the Republicans haven't played a part in ratching up the political rancor. I will say most of it wasn't covered by the liberal news networks. It's easy to think this all started with Merrick Garland.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I bet you're the guy who knows exactly what Judicial Branch the United States needs.

The Democrats have been fiercely fighting Republican judicial appointments for many years. I don't exactly know how it all started and I won't say the Republicans haven't played a part in ratching up the political rancor. I will say most of it wasn't covered by the liberal news networks. It's easy to think this all started with Merrick Garland.
Of course it didn't start then, but earlier rejected nominations like the couple during Nixon's time were more bi-partisan, one could even say principled, rather than self-interested or party determined, as in the the Garland case.

Given Kavanaugh's intemperate, adolescent and entirely injudicious public breakdown, it's hard to imagine the GOP's search teams couldn't have found a more mature and seasoned candidate who might have earned support instead of confirming opposition. Like Clarence Thomas, his name will never be attached to a judgment without re-kindling mistrust among a large part of the American people.

And what good is a judge who cannot be trusted?
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,927
1,198
113
Given Kavanaugh's intemperate, adolescent and entirely injudicious public breakdown, it's hard to imagine the GOP's search teams couldn't have found a more mature and seasoned candidate who might have earned support instead of confirming opposition. Like Clarence Thomas, his name will never be attached to a judgment without re-kindling mistrust among a large part of the American people.

And what good is a judge who cannot be trusted?
Please spare us. You're spilling grape kool-aid all over yourself and us.

People's view of Kavanaugh's response is a personal, subjective matter. I personally don't want someone to just sit there, take unsubstantiated accusations and not fight back.

Please remember you're not on this thread to defend the Democrats' aggressive politics or relitigate Kavanaugh's appointment. You oldjones are actually defending the New York Times media smear campaign against Kavanaugh. My God, oldjones, the New York Times is apologizing and you're still carrying the water with grape-flavored powder mixed-in.
 

The Oracle

Pronouns: Who/Cares
Mar 8, 2004
23,195
46,638
113
On the slopes of Mount Parnassus, Greece
Please remember you're not on this thread to defend the Democrats' aggressive politics or relitigate Kavanaugh's appointment. You oldjones are actually defending the New York Times media smear campaign against Kavanaugh. My God, oldjones, the New York Times is apologizing and you're still carrying the water with grape-flavored powder mixed-in.
Well said. Trump of course was all over this at his rally in Albuquerque tonight,lol.

If the NYT credibility was in question before it's done now.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,977
8,122
113
Toronto
You TDS idiots are so gullible
Totally agree with your assessment of Trump Devotee Syndrome. They are like a cult and parrot everything this self-serving moron says.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Please spare us. You're spilling grape kool-aid all over yourself and us.

People's view of Kavanaugh's response is a personal, subjective matter. I personally don't want someone to just sit there, take unsubstantiated accusations and not fight back.

Please remember you're not on this thread to defend the Democrats' aggressive politics or relitigate Kavanaugh's appointment. You oldjones are actually defending the New York Times media smear campaign against Kavanaugh. My God, oldjones, the New York Times is apologizing and you're still carrying the water with grape-flavored powder mixed-in.
Thanks for your personal views of the Fighting Judges you want. I prefer the judicious ones. Fighters belong in the ring, and the ones who take it outside get hauled before judges, where they hope and pray they'll be facing someone who rises above personal antagonisms to administer rational, even-handed — and even-tempered — justice.

You're also entitled to make up whatever personal opinion you have of my posts, but I've only once referred to the Time's piece, and barely mentioned it then, only in closing, without expressing any opinion of it. I think you must have been sampling your own Kool-Aid, to have mentioned that so often and then supplied my entire so-called 'defence' out of your imagination.
----
PS: Indeed the Times did apologize, as they often have; it's their mission to get the news out fast, and in spite of best efforts they often get it wrong. So they're good at prompt retractions, corrections and apologies. I note that you may not be aware of what they apologized for, but seem content to leave the false impression it might be for the entire piece you take exception to, and claim I defended. T'ain't so.

If the apology is significant to our exchange, do quote it. Otherwise, it's just more Kool-Aid to be ignored.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
It kinda feels like they are colluding with Trump to help get him re-elected.
They are demonstrating the case against themselves nearly every week now.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
They are demonstrating the case against themselves nearly every week now.
That may keep Trump's minority firmly attached. But I can't see how it will persuade a single person who was against him to jump on their nasty bandwagon.

It's not like he or his many 'come and be fired' minions have used the three years to show how expert or even competent any of them were at running a government or a Presidency. And even if the folks against him can't agree who among them is better, they all solidly agree who is worst.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts