Monday, September 16, 2019

Who Did Stier Talk To And When Did Stier Talk To Them? (NYT Kavanaugh Smear Pt. 2)

1) Yale and drinking.
3) This is my tweet from this morning, which links to the blog.
4) The essence of the blog was that this is a non-story, for a lot of reasons, but mainly because college drinking parties where nobody alleges any abuse...are not newsworthy. This is why the FBI did not investigate.

5) The real story in my mind is that Stier reported what he saw a year ago, roughly at the time of the @senjudiciary proceedings, when Dr. Ford came forward with false accusations against Kavanaugh. In retrospect I assessed Stier thought he had something important to say.
6) Everybody is focused on the fact that Stier is a "swamp creature" and a "Hillary ally" but since I have worked in DC for 20 years and am extremely familiar with Stier's nonprofit (in fact I have spoken there, and almost took a leadership class there)...
7) ...I find it extremely hard to believe that Stier just made up what he saw out of whole cloth.

And the principle is very important - everyone comes forward to "crowdsource the truth," and allegations are investigated impartially.
8) The real problem is the same problem that we faced with the fraudulent Mueller investigation of @POTUS, which is that bad actors have weaponized the media and law enforcement.
9) We simply must have media, we must have law enforcement, and yes we also must have spies! Otherwise we are vulnerable in about a million ways.

But the hijacked Democrats (the party is clearly hijacked) have managed to ruin all of the above for a long time.
12) The goofballs are at it again.

Like clockwork, kicked off the internet in mid-thread.
13) This time (in an extra twist) I was logged out of Twitter AND when I logged back in, I was on Justin Bieber's page.
14) Give me a break.
16) Pogrebin and Kelly collaborated on a book about the Kavanaugh appointment process. Their book comes out in 2 days.

From a PR perspective one would typically think their agent worked with the Times to get an article out ahead of this.…
18) The article published by the New York Times is not commensurate with the quality of the writers of the Kavanaugh book; it is clearly a smear job; the entire thing is about Deborah Ramirez save for the "new information" which is patently defamatory IN MY VIEW (not a lawyer)
19) This is the entirety of the new accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. Sandwiched into a story about something else, made to look associated, made to look like he committed a crime.
20) The story about Ramirez is one of a minority woman who did not fit in with the upper crust Yalies and got taken advantage of.

The story about Kavanaugh is meant to suggest that he is a taker-advantager.
21) The authors suggest through innuendo (because otherwise why is this news) that Kavanaugh for taking liberties with a vulnerable woman, because he was drunk and with friends who exposed him and used him to assault a female who was present.
22) Neither Stier nor Kavanaugh offered comment on the story.
23) Even if the story were true, though, it wouldn't mean anything because Kavanaugh is not accused of actually doing anything to anyone.
24) If the story is that people go to Yale and get drunk and commit sloppy sexual assaults, then perhaps the authors should find Kavanaugh's friends and inform their bosses.
25) The real question, the systemic question, is:

- Why is this non-event considered news?
- Why is this news coming out now in particular?
- Who would have been in a position to leak what Max Stier told Senators/FBI?
26) Other questions:

- If the New York Times knew this story was uncorroborated (because the supposed victim denied it, and because the Judiciary Committee totally cleared Kavanaugh, and because Blasey-Ford's charges were false), what is the justification for their running it?
27) Other questions:

If it turns out that the FBI leaked yet again, who is going to be held accountable?

How can Kavanaugh and his family ever be repaid for the damage they have suffered because of these snakes?
28) How can the public ever come forward to the @senjudiciary or the @fbi if they know that their reports will be leaked at whim, with no repercussions for the leakers?
29) @POTUS @realDonaldTrump comments today

30) Noteworthy: "Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop?"
31) The New York Times made an editorial decision to run the story without noting that the victim denies it happened. As the Spectator, quoting Mollie Hemingway (who apparently saw the book) notes, they clearly had the information.

32) "First, Mollie Hemingway, who deserves some sort of medal for reading an advance copy of the Pogrebin-Kelly tome, notes on Twitter that the book includes a detail omitted in the Times’s ‘bombshell’."
33) "‘The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event. Seems, I don’t know, significant.’ You think?"
34) Here is the Tweet.

38) How many of these witch hunts will we have to live through?

How much censorship? (For a long time I could not send any Tweets linked to the Federalist; been kicked off of Medium)

How many of us will have to hear that we are immoral and don't even deserve bank accts?
39) I want to show you who Max Stier is. He doesn't just work for a simple nonprofit the way the New York Times misleadingly implies.

40) Stier is, for all intents and purposes, the FACE of the civil service.

42) GovExec columnist

(I am one as well...or I was one...before I became a member of the truth community.)
43) For such a public figure to lie to the FBI or the Senate would be suicidal.
44) So when did Stier come forward with what he knew?
45) I am assuming it was during the consideration process last fall, sometime after Blasey-Ford accused Kavanaugh, not too much after because he would likely have been following the news closely, heard about it, and decided to share what he knew.

Remember, everyone believed her
46) I am guessing that Stier, since he went to Yale with Kavanaugh and is a public figure, thought that he HAD TO disclose anything he knew or he might be accused of covering for Kavanaugh.

Think about it from his point of view.
47) This is a link to the monster report which exonerated Kavanaugh 100%.…
48) The @senjudiciary had "up to 40" extremely highly educated people investigating Kavanaugh over the sex assault allegations, from Blasey-Ford and others.
49) They took information any way it came in, and they did their own research.
50) They did a background check like no other, talking to people who knew Kavanaugh in high school and college as well as people who knew the individuals making accusations. They spoke to 45 people in all.
51) People who cleared Kavanaugh's name had to fear losing their jobs or worse. They feared for themselves and their families. That's how bad the witch hunt was.
52) They did as much research as was humanly possible, social media and regular media included with the interviews, and concluded:

"There was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh."

53) This was a monumental investigation into monumentally disgusting claims, but the New York Times article ignores that Kavanaugh was attacked and found completely blameless.
54) Page 7 of the report addresses Kavanaugh's drinking habits at Yale.

"several individuals who knew Justice Kavanaugh in high school and college contacted the Committee and the media to say they had never seen Justice
Kavanaugh black out or lose control when drinking."
55) "The Committee also interviewed other classmates at Yale who
stated that Justice Kavanaugh drank heavily. However, none of them could independently confirm any alleged sexual misconduct committed by Justice Kavanaugh."
56) Page 14 addresses the Ramirez allegations, which were the focus of the New York Times hit piece, and even the Times itself found NOTHING.
58) "that he [exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.'"
59) "Almost immediately after its publication, the New York Times posted a story that said its staff had interviewed several dozen people but could find no one to corroborate Ramirez’s account or anyone with firsthand knowledge of the alleged event."
60) "The Times also reported that Ramirez, in effort to refresh her recollection, 'contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.'"
61) "Hours after the New Yorker published the story, the Committee contacted Ramirez’s attorney."
62) "According to the article, Ramirez had investigated her claims and the Committee asked for any evidence—including statements from witnesses—that she had gathered to support her allegations."
63) "Through her attorney, she refused each of the Committee’s seven requests for such material."
64) This last fact alone - accusing Kavanaugh in the media but refusing to provide backup to Congress - should have ended everything where the Ramirez story was concerned.
65) Recall that "for some reason," the Democrats kept saying they wanted the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh.

We now know this is because the Democrats loaded the FBI with politicized sharks who had cannibalized the good agents.
66) "Ultimately, her attorneys agreed only to contact the FBI to demand [DEMAND] that she be included in the supplemental background investigation. The FBI reportedly interviewed Ramirez on Sunday, September 30, 2018."
69) Kavanaugh denied ever touching Ramirez and in fact there was another person at Yale known to drop his pants at parties and do what Kavanaugh was being accused of.
70) Female friend of Kavanaugh, 30 years: "knew Justice
Kavanaugh while he was in law school at Yale...cannot recall a single time where he would drink to excess."

Former roommate at Yale: "behavior alleged by Ramirez would be completely out of character for Justice Kavanaugh."
71) Ramirez friends:

* Kavanaugh drank, but she never mentioned an assault
* One person who did not have direct knowledge of Kavanaugh or Ramirez
* One person who knew Ramirez but nothing else
* One person who repeated the "FBI investigation needed" talking points
72) Multiple people saying that yes, Kavanaugh drank but never blacked out and never disrespected women.
73) Roommate from Yale who said that he barely saw Kavanaugh but Kavanaugh did get very drunk, and he knew Ramirez, and she felt like an "outsider," but she was "unusually honest," and based on Kavanaugh's "social circle" and drinking, they were "capable" of what she claimed
74) Kavanaugh says he "went to parties and had beers like everyone else" but did not get "frequently incoherently drunk" as his roommate claimed.
75) Kavanaugh denies getting "blackout drunk" - ever.
76) The roommate implies that Kavanaugh could have done it, but Kavanaugh notes their relationship had "contentious issues"
77) Judge Kavanaugh: "This didn't happen. I've never done anything like that. The story, as described -- back up. Karen Yarasavage, her best friend, says she never heard anything like this. If something like this had happened, it would have been the talk of campus."
78) Given this entire thread, how is it possible the New York Times could run with a story which any reasonable person would say baselessly harms Kavanaugh's good name?
79) Who did Stier tell, and when did he tell it?

"Grassley’s chief counsel...said Grassley’s office has no record of Max Stier reaching out with the accusation"

80) "The Washington Post last year confirmed that two intermediaries had relayed such a claim to lawmakers and the FBI. The Post did not publish a story in part because the intermediaries declined to identify the alleged witness"--…
81) "--and because the woman who was said to be involved declined to comment. "
82) So the Washington Post (9/15/19) DIDN'T run with the second Yale allegation because the allegations came by way of "two intermediaries" (not Stier) and the supposed victim wouldn't say she had been victimized.

In other words, it didn't meet journalistic standards!
83) The Washington Post had the allegations in 2018.

When did the New York Times get the allegations?
85) So when did the New York Times hear? Late last year, like the Post?

Well, it's not clear.

Stier or his associates didn't go to @ChuckGrassley @senjudiciary - why not take the appropriate route?

86) "We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation."

How did the writers "uncover" Stier's accusation?
87) Well it was "previously unreported," they say.
88) "A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends..."

(What was Stier doing at a drunken dorm party but ok)
89) "Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, 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 "Stier notified senators and the FBI" but didn't talk to them.
90) "We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier."
91) Circumstantially it sounds like Stier himself refused to talk to the body doing the investigating, going instead to the FBI and Democratic senators, who would NOT be impartial.

When an investigation did not happen, Stier's 2 associates tried to leak to the Post, but no dice.
92) Failing all of that, it was placed into a manuscript and held for later leverage.
93) If this is correct, then Stier did what the fake news typically does, which is to report accurate facts in such a way that they are most likely to achieve an ideological aim.

"slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes."

95) "These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation."
96) "Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for information due to proper sourcing and well respected journalists/editors."
97) So...Stier did not talk to the authors of the New York Times story.

Who did Stier talk to?

When did Stier talk to them?

How did he get in touch with them?

What happened to close out his inquiry?

How did word get from the senators and/or the FBI to the authors of this book, which became a New York Times article?

Release the documents!

Enough is enough.

mentions compile
By Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. All opinions are the author's own. Public domain.