This is beyond bizarre. Seriously. Forget the salacious details in the story…. the construct of the story is so stunningly flawed it is jaw-dropping as presented.
The New Yorker runs an article about an accusation made by a woman named Deborah Ramirez (53, pictured right) about a freshman party at Yale, where she claims she was in a drunken stupor and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then 18, pulled out his penis during a drinking game.
Etc. Etc. Etc…. Really, no need to go further.
Because despite their search, and discussions with “dozens” of potential witnesses…
“The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident”…
….the New Yorker was unable to find a single witness to corroborate the story being made by the accuser. None. Not a single confirming witness to back up the claim. They write:
…”The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.”…
It gets better.
The accuser did give the New Yorker six names to support her claim. Six witnesses Deborah Ramirez stated could substantiate her accusation. And when the New Yorker interviewed them, ALL SIX said it never happened.
[…] “In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale.”
“We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”” (The Article)
Now, stop for a minute and think about this.
A claim is made.
The New Yorker tries to substantiate the claim.
The New Yorker finds ZERO people who can validate the claim.
The six witnesses the accuser says will back up her claim all deny any knowledge of the claim; yet the New Yorker still runs the article.
100% of the evidence discovered by the New Yorker refutes the claim.
Yet they publish it.
Enter the Star Chamber….