Vindictive motives will often result in bending the truth or even peddling outright lies in an effort to inflict maximum damage on a target. Following the election of President Donald Trump, most mainstream-media outlets exposed themselves as Democrat partisans who vindictively attack Trump and conservatives because their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, was soundly defeated. In this era of Leftmedia vindictiveness, The New York Times served up yet another piece of propaganda aimed at propping up the fallacious and discredited smear campaign against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
This latest hit piece claims — without any supporting evidence and in fact with statements from the alleged victim denying any memory of the supposed event — that back when Kavanaugh was at Yale, he drunkenly sexually harassed a fellow student at a party. In its original story, the Times failed to mention an important detail that it only reluctantly added later in an editors’ note that stated in part, “The female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.”
So, the entire premise of the article is based upon a non-memory of a supposed drunken sexual assault that no one can verify ever occurred, most significantly not even the alleged victim. The Times sought to pass off a steaming pile of bovine excrement as “evidence” to support its vindictive claim that Kavanaugh is unfit for the highest court in the land. The strategy: to rally Democrats to the anti-Kavanaugh lynch mob.
It worked like a charm. Democrat presidential candidates immediately grabbed their virtue-signal torches and demanded Kavanaugh’s impeachment.
The timing of this latest salvo against Kavanaugh appears to be strange, though, as it is months away from the primaries and over a year away from the 2020 election. But it may be less about timing and more of an attempted counterpunch to shore up the #MeToo narrative against Kavanaugh after recent revelations have further eroded the credibility of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford. For example, Ford’s longtime and closest friend, Leland Keyser, who was supposedly at the party in which Ford claimed she was attacked, stated that her story “just didn’t make any sense” and that she didn’t “have any confidence in the story.” Furthermore, Ford’s own father didn’t believe her story. In fact, write The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino, “It wasn’t just Ford’s father. The national drama played out on a decidedly local scale as the D.C.-based family and friends of Ford’s quietly apologized to friends and family of Kavanaugh, even as the toxic political environment made it punitive for them to speak up publicly.”
The real reason for this whole leftist charade is the same as it was the moment Kavanaugh was nominated: abortion. Don’t take our word for it. Here’s Ford attorney Debra Katz: “I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm the misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanuagh on the Court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade we will know who he is, we know his character and we know what motivates him. It’s important that we know and that’s part of what motivated Christine.”
Democrats and their Leftmedia cohorts have grossly smeared Kavanaugh in an effort to at the very least impact his rulings in any abortion-related case, and their long-term aim is to create a sufficiently negative narrative to provide grounds for a future Democrat-controlled Congress to impeach him. In other words, this latest play by the Times is not designed for any immediate impact but simply to put another story on the record against Kavanaugh.