10 Serious Problems With New Accusations Against Kavanaugh
1. The New Yorker could not find a single witness who could put Kavanaugh at the alleged party.2. The New York Times could not find a single person who could corroborate Ramirez's claims.
3. The man accused of egging on Kavanaugh denied Ramirez's allegations and vouched for Kavanaugh's character.
4. A third person that Ramirez claimed was at the party says she was not there for the alleged incident.
5. Ramirez contacted her former classmates, asking about the incident, and admitted she was not sure that Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself.
6. A woman who claims she was "best friends" with Ramirez says Ramirez never mentioned the story and initially said her friend's accusations against Kavanaugh might be "politically motivated."
7. Ramirez, just like Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat and is dedicated to leftist causes.
8. Ramirez wasn't even sure her memory was correct — until she spent six days going over it with her Democrat lawyer.
9. Ramirez admits there are holes in her memory due to how much she drank at the party.
10. People who knew Ramirez after her time at Yale say that she never once mentioned the incident — until Kavanaugh's nomination was pending.
Full article:
Comments (11)
8. Ramirez wasn't even sure her memory was correct — until she spent six days going over it with her Democrat lawyer.
"In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty," the outlet reports. "After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh..."
The New Yorker waits for more than 2,100 words to inform readers that Ramirez's lawyer is "Stanley Garnett, a former Democratic district attorney in Boulder..."
9. Ramirez admits there are holes in her memory due to how much she drank at the party.
"She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident," The New Yorker report states in the second paragraph.
Ramirez said that at the party, where students were playing a drinking game, she "quickly became inebriated" because of the large amounts of alcohol she was consuming, adding that she became so intoxicated that she "was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words."
10. People who knew Ramirez after her time at Yale say that she never once mentioned the incident — until Kavanaugh's nomination was pending.
More than 1,500 words into the article, The New Yorker report states:
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in 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.
Yee-up.
That's p
In short, they deemed the story unfit to print.
Based upon M4's comment, are we to presume she is privy to information that the NY Times is not?
Have to agree with you!