New York Times again revives attacks on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh. National Review/Reuters.

The New York Times have again revived attacks against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh but exclude critical context. National Review. The report says that at a party in college Kavanaugh was pushed into a young woman and his penis was pushed into her hands. However, reviewers who have read the book note that the Times left out critical information, namely that the supposed female victim in the case had no recollection of the incident. 

The new allegations come after new video revealed that Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were motivated in part due to politics. The Federalist. Ford's lawyer said that Ford was partially motivated by attacking "misogyny" and defending Roe vs Wade. 

Christine Ford's lawyer Debra Katz says putting "an asterisk" next to Kavanaugh's name in case Kavanaugh attacked Roe v. Wade "is part of what motivated Christine." pic.twitter.com/zoFr2T8Aec

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) September 4, 2019

My Comment:
It seems so strange that the New York Times is reviving this now. Kavanaugh has been vindicated with several of his accusers being revealed as frauds. And there is no real reason for him to be attacked right now. He's already serving as a justice and it's not like it's that easy to get rid of him.

 But I do think that is what this is. The Democrats and there media allies are furious that the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh didn't work. They are still throwing a temper tantrum over the fact that they lost the Supreme Court and are now trying to get a do-over. They are probably angling for impeachment which would obviously fail miserably.

As for the accusation itself, it's a joke. It almost seems like Kavanaugh was the victim. He was supposedly pushed into a woman and it sounds like someone touched his penis without consent. That doesn't mean that the woman wasn't a victim too, but it seems like Kavanaugh didn't do anything wrong other than possibly being naked?

But, it is of course a moot point. The woman who was supposedly the victim in this case had no recollection if the event ever happening. There is only one witness, Max Stier, and it sounds like he might have an ax to grind as well. Supposedly he was one of the Clinton's attorneys, but I haven't seen a great source for that.

All of the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh have been poorly sourced and wouldn't hold up even in a civil case. Even if the accusations were 100% in this case there would have been no charges filed and probably not even a ticket for disorderly conduct. Indeed, if anything Kavanaugh was a victim. But again, even the supposed female victim in the case has no recollection of the event happening. 

The whole "lets believe any crazy accusation against public figures without any attempt at due process or even basic research" thing is getting a little old. We saw it with Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump and Roy Moore. If you push back against these accusations, when it's pretty damn clear that they wouldn't hold up in a court of law, you get called a misogynist or worse.