• What’s that Smell? Newest Kavanaugh Accuser Might Be Even Fishier than Previous Ones

    Surge Summary: The newest charges against Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh are as flimsy – or perhaps flimsier — than those of one year ago. Plus, there’s additional reason to suspect the motives of one of the main players pushing them.

    On Saturday, The New York Times ran a story repeating allegations that Brett Kavanaugh was drunk at a party in college and had his genitals thrust into a woman’s face. The allegation has not been confirmed, and friends of the alleged victim say she has no recollection of the events. The man telling the story, Max Stier, represented Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was accused of exposing himself to a woman in a hotel room.

    Stier’s story appears in the forthcoming book The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. [ Tyler O’Neil/PJ Media]

    It’s beyond ironic, then, that Max Stier has a seasoned history with sexual assault allegations — from the other side, however. Stier is a Democrat who, again, represented President Bill Clinton after Paula Jones accused him of showing her his genitals in a hotel room years previously. Clinton, recall, settled with Jones for $850-large and lost his law license for five years, in the mix.

    Stier also worked closely with David Kendall, representing Hillary Clinton against allegations of illegally handling classified information in the Whitewater investigation. Kavanaugh worked with Ken Starr on the other side of the Clinton impeachment battle. During his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh had accused his opponents of being motivated by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” This allegation seems to confirm that.

    Further to this, journalist/writer John Ziegler comments insightfully:

    Stier is hilariously described as a “thought-leader” who works for a D.C. non-profit. The liberal media activists on Twitter — including Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer who first, dubiously, reported on the Ramirez episode after the Christine Ford allegation became public — gushed all over him as someone whose reputation makes him a stellar witness.

    Except, what they and the Times piece didn’t tell you is that Stier worked on Bill Clinton’s defense team during his impeachment while Kavanaugh was a major player in Ken Starr’s opposing forces. This important fact, inexplicably left out of the Times story, but interestingly placed at the end of this 2018 article in the Yale paper which portrays a very different climate surrounding Kavanaugh at the time, goes way beyond the obvious problems with Stier’s possible political motivation here.

    Think about it this way… what are the chances that during the Clinton/Lewinsky saga, Stier could possibly be working against a man that he witnessed doing exactly the same thing the president he was defending was accused of by Paula Jones, and him not at least mention it to every single one of his co-workers — even if for some reason he didn’t want to leak it to the press at the time?!

    I would submit that there is even less possibility of that happening than there is of President Trump ever admitting he has committed some form of sexual assault.

    Tyler O’Neil continues:  Apparently, when Max Stier originally came forward with this allegation “no one believed him”. The New York Times relates, Stier “notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly.”

    So, the question must be asked: Isn’t it rivetingly significant that the FBI did not find Stier’s charge worth pursuing, and not one senator leaked this story to the press or brought it up in the hearings? Remember, at the hearings one year ago they were throwing every slander they could at Kavanaugh. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) — now a flailing presidential candidate —  publicized a rape allegation “from an anonymous letter that had no return address or any means to identify, much less authenticate, it.”

    Did the Democrats know then – and fear — Stier’s connection to the Kavanaugh allegations would expose the partisan nature of their attacks on the Supreme Court nominee?  If Stiers’ Clinton connections had been made clear, would it have spelled curtains for the Dems exertions against Kavanaugh?

    Pogrebin and Kelly ran with Stier’s story, even though Max Stier was a Clinton lawyer, the story lacked corroboration, and the alleged victim had no recollection of the event. In fact, the story appears to be an attempt to bolster another flimsy accusation against the Supreme Court justice.

    During the confirmation hearings, Deborah Ramirez claimed that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a party at Yale. … Ramirez’s story went uncorroborated. … Almost a year later, Pogrebin and Kelly claimed that it was the talk of the campus. “At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates …” the authors wrote.

    Yet, as it turned out, that was hardly the full picture of things.

    As PJ Media’s Matt Margolis noted, Ramirez herself “acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories” of the evening … and was “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” The New Yorker, which published the allegations, was also unable to find a single eyewitness, and none of the witnesses named by Ramirez as having been present for the incident corroborated her story—including Ramirez’s best friend.

    Not. One. Corroborated.

    All these details appear to confirm this vendetta against Brett Kavanaugh is, in fact, what Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer admitted they intended it to be. (Recall, Blasey Ford’s rape accusation against the high-court hopeful is what initially sparked the circulation of other claims against him.)  Her lawyer claimed that, even though Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed, he should have “an asterisk” by his name; his reputation and legitimacy as a justice should be inexpungably besmirched.

    Meantime, Massachusetts’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren – another Donkey Party presidential aspirant – chimed in, pushing the impeach-Kavanaugh tedium.

    Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.

    “Without a thorough examination”? Preposterous. The country was mesmerized by the controversy for weeks.

    So, a year after no allegation was bolstered after multiple investigations, Warren is suggesting that “these newest revelations,” which are similarly unconfirmed, justify impeaching a sitting Supreme Court justice? I understand appealing to the rabid Democratic base, but this scraping at the bottom of the barrel is shameful.

    This hit on former Judge Brett Kavanaugh twelve months ago stunk. It continues to stink as Progressives target the man who is now Supreme Court justice.

    Enough.

    H/T: Tyler O’Neil/PJ Media

    H/T: John Zeigler/Mediaite

    Image: photo credit: wuestenigel <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/30478819
    @N08/48549539856″>Close up of fresh fishes sold at a wet market in Bacolod</a>
    via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”https:/
    /creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>(license)</a>


    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend