Ronan Farrow attends Variety’s Power of Women: New York event at Cipriani Wall Street on Friday, April 13, 2018, in New York. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

Yesterday, the New Yorker ran a story by Woody Allen’s brother-in-law, Ronan Farrow, and Democrat shill Jane Mayer claiming that as a Yale underclassman, Brett Kavanaugh had exposed himself to a woman named Deborah Ramirez at a drunken party. The National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke analyzes the piece.

The piece starts out not with a summary of the story, but with the news that Democrats in Washington are taking it seriously — a weaselly attempt to pass the buck if I ever saw one (“People are saying!”). After that throat clearing, it is acknowledged that the person making the accusation around which the piece revolves had not mentioned it until Kavanaugh was nominated, “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” and agreed to make the charge on the record only after she had spent “six days [] carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

There are no corroborating witnesses. None. Of the “dozens” of classmates The New Yorker contacted, all either failed “to respond to interview requests . . . declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.” Indeed, we learn late in the piece that the authors could not establish that Kavanaugh was even there. “The New Yorker,” the tenth paragraph begins, “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” The only “evidence” provided comes from a “classmate” who was not at the party, but is certain he heard about the incident, and from “another classmate” who thinks he heard about an incident that could vaguely resemble the one alleged, but doesn’t know to whom it was done, or by whom. Or, as we would traditionally put it: The only proof provided is rumor.

Where did the corroborating witness get the information from? –@JDickerson

“He remembers it from–he was in the same dorm .. and he remembers it clearly” –@JaneMayerNYer

But did he see it? –@JDickerson

“No. As I’ve said, he heard it from someone who was there.” –@JaneMayerNYer pic.twitter.com/h9dxDiPJeX

— Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) September 24, 2018

This, when combined with the Ford allegations, was enough to make some Vichy Republicans run for the exits shouting that Kavanaugh should step aside so we can nominate…get this…more conservative. But running for the exits is something that an amazing number of Vichy Republicans and self-avowed “constitutional conservatives” are good at doing whenever a fight looms.

As it turns out, the Ramirez story flogged by Farrow and Mayer had been shopped around to multiple news outlets and they had all passed on it. In fact, this morning, Farrow seems to acknowledge that the New Yorker ran with the story because Senate Democrats wanted it.

Further to this, here are the clips/transcripts: https://t.co/x6aubNUwgl

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 24, 2018

This is the New York Time’s story:

Judge Kavanaugh’s prospects were further clouded on Sunday when The New Yorker reported on a new allegation of sexual impropriety: A woman who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh said that, during a drunken dormitory party their freshman year, he exposed himself to her, thrust his penis into her face and caused her to touch it without her consent.

In a statement, Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegation from the woman, Deborah Ramirez, and called it “a smear, plain and simple.” The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

NYT: “Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” https://t.co/dOs293z7uN

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 24, 2018

The Times interviewed dozens to corroborate 2nd allegation against Kavanaugh and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ramirez told ex-classmates she couldn't be certain Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself. ⁦@SherylNYT⁩ ⁦@npfandos⁩ https://t.co/lGVc4hJzEU

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) September 24, 2018

So it was too shaky for the New York Times, but the New Yorker went with it. Very telling. https://t.co/vL3xfqqQyb

— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 24, 2018

Strange New Respect for NYT standards 🙂

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) September 24, 2018

If the New York Times threw enough resources at the story to interview “several dozen” people and not even manage to meet the Nikki Haley Smear standard, it is pretty safe to conclude that the level of proof used by the New Yorker only passed legal muster because Kavanaugh is a public person and can’t sue them–and he’s a Republican which makes it all okay.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.
Follow @streiffredstate

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========