The Architect of the Latest
Kavanaugh Smear Just Gave
a Self-Damning Radio Interview

What a crock by the two women. Both NYT reporters. Would they like to be accused with no foundation. The left will be its own downfall. We in the middle and independent voters are really sick of this crap. I might not always agree with DJT but I will vote for him. The Dims have no credibility.

Hey, it almost worked for the lying-through-her-teeth Anita Hill.

Note that, to date, the so-called victims of Kavanaugh did not file police reports documenting their experiences and initiating legal action. Doing so would likely entail an investigation and possible charges and court proceedings. Instead, these assertions of what happened are best classified as propaganda likely intended to undermine the credibility of Kavanaugh in future Supreme Court proceedings. Propaganda circumvents the legal system and denies the accused the Constitutional rights afforded by that system, including: * The right of the accused to confront the accuser including the right to cross examine * Established rules of evidence such as inadmissibility of hearsay * The responsibility of the accuser to prove the charges. Until then, the accused is presumed innocent What has been done and continues to be done to Kavanaugh is grossly unfair.

The fake story presumes that Kavanaugh had a detachable penis.

Fake News, circling the drain. Is it possible for the credibility of the NYT to be in the negative numbers? Starting to seem like that is where they are.

If Ramirez was so very traumatized by something that happened at Yale that she couldn’t talk about it, either she is very emotionally unstable or she was subject to something brutal. A penis in the hand isn’t brutal and really actually something humorous to recount.

When the racist card fails, the Dims always fall back on the 'sexual predator' accusation. It started with Anita Hill, worked on Roy Moore, almost worked on Kavanaugh, so why not go to the well one more time. It's note worthy that these kind of charges are enhancements to a democrats career!

A semi-interesting bit of trivia is that the reporette's name, Pogrebin, derives from the Russian for "to bury". Which is the Left's goal in all this in the first place. Even more interesting, though, is that the Pogrebin is also a Harry Potter character . . . a foot-tall Russian demon with a hairy body and an oversized grey head. Read this description: "The Pogrebin is attracted to Humans, and enjoys trailing them. When the Human turns around, the Pogrebin crouches down, and, because of its large head, resembles a rock. If the beast manages to tail a Human for a few hours, a sense of despair and futility will wash over the Human. When the victim sits or sinks to its knees to weep, the Pogrebin attacks and attempts to devour them. Fortunately, the Pogrebin can be fought off with simple dark charms, Stunning Spells, or kicking." A profile of your average God-hating leftist/communist/demoncrat. Who said the devil isn't clever?

I've been saying for a while now that NYT (and others) are no longer serious outlets of Journalism, they're the club newsletter for the DNC. As such, you should have no expectation that their writers will exhibit journalistic integrity, because they're not journalists, they're zealous advocates for a political ideology, and zealots aren't interested in facts, they're merely pushing propaganda that advances their cause regardless of whether that propaganda is based in fact or fiction, and usually it's the later. These two women should be ashamed of themselves for such lack of professional integrity, but as I also like to say, libtards like them are incapable of shame or embarrassment, because these zealots really do believe they're doing the Lord's work.

The latest fad in liberal reporting. Start with your conclusion and gather evidence that supports your conclusion. Ignore all evidence that does not agree with your conclusion. This seems to occur and be accepted in both tv and print media with reckless abandon today.

Make no mistake, this article and their cockamamie book are a shot across the bow of any potential Judicial Nominee from the Trump administration to replace Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg, should she retire or die. The message is clear as day: "We will smear and destroy you, your career, your family if you have the temerity to cross us and possibly impede our access to our precious abortions."

The line O.P. quotes is grammatically tortured enough to qualify as incoherent. The story is a piece with a kind of behavior... the piece behaves how? Oh, I guess it libels a good man with lies that nothing can confirm, that kind of behavior. The culture of death's scorched-earth strategy for defending women's legal right to kill their babies is to kill truth. Not just a particular truth, but truth, itself. Lord, have mercy.

I write this sincerely; I am not trying to be crude. But the claim against Kavanaugh is that multiple friends pressed his penis into the hand of a young women while they all attended a college party. I want to know: Who were the friends? If you can remember who the victim is, why can't you name the "friends" who were (a) touching Kavanaugh's penis and (b) placing it into the victim's hand? Also, how often do men whip out their genitals at parties -- even at college parties? Is that pretty standard practice at college parties? For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that guys -- including Kavanaugh -- were whipping out their penises at this or other college parties. What guy allows a friend to touch his penis? What guy allows multiple buddies to do so? And Kavanaugh isn't into guys. But let's say Kavanaugh was into guys. Let's say his buddies were into guys. Would they be pushing his "business" into the hand of a woman? Or would they be keeping his business to themselves -- cuz they were into him? Bottom line: How likely is this scenario in any college setting involving any straight males? And how likely is it for Kavanaugh and is pals? Not very likely in my opinion!

Where was the editor of this article? Here's a mental contortion for you: "None of them is more likely than not to be true."