“Essentially, Clinton, albeit indirectly, might get one last shot at accomplishing what she couldn’t in 2016 — defeating Trump.” Who the hell wrote this BS? Idiots, Trump won’t be removed from the office if even Dems impeach him. Hillary has ZERO chance to defeat Trump. She lost. Pure and simple. If she is running again, she is losing again. Karl Rove was very clear today “Nadler and Schiff want impeachment? Go for it! Pelosi doesn’t want it. She know she will lose the House.”

No, no Anon, run for office again. Which would be hysterical to watch her lose again.

She is still pulling strings, her code name Evergreen?  Jake Tapper and Gillibrand reached out using that. 

Billionaire Diller said she still has a role to play. 

Her excellent buddy and inlaw George Soros is helping to fund Blue Share along with David Brock. Hillary country anon.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareblue_Media

Kitty links sent me a 49-page memo on Blue share.  I also have it pinned to twitter.  They intend to do whatever it takes to get rid of Trump. This will not stop until Trump wins, and I suspect they won’t stop there. 

#TimeToSue 

Thank you anon! 🌸😎🥰Watch Killary tweets 

Advertisements

“The New York Times reporters behind the controversial piece on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh claimed Monday night that key details missing from the sexual misconduct allegation may have been removed from the original draft in the editing process.” NYT reporters vs editors . Well, the Gray Lady is going down.

In this time of cut-throat competition in the printed press vs. SM they sure are pulling the drain plug to their demise. 

I never want to see a business fail for the people that paid their dues and have to pay mortgages. 

This is what the owner of the NYT needs to do, fire all the editors involved with their Trump derangement syndrome. Cut the cancer to save the ship.  If the owner Sulzberger approves these articles then the shareholders should vote him out. 

Thank you anon, 🌸😎🥰

The green new deal is a lie

Now tell me more about the Green New Deal! The US doesn’t need Iranian oil.

 

That’s correct anon, and the jobs in Texas and all over the United States are booming in the energy business, good-paying ones. The US socialist party want to eliminate that in 2020 if elected.

Vote Trump 2020 save our jobs from extinction!

NYT has officially become hot garbage!

Kavanaugh accuser’s friend dismisses original allegations, detail also not mentioned in NYT excerpt of book

‘MediaBuzz’ host Howard Kurtz weighs in on the New York Times’ flawed ‘bombshell’ Brett Kavanaugh story that has been widely panned.

Leland Keyser, a friend of Christine Blasey Ford who allegedly was at the party where Ford says Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her decades ago, now says the story “just didn’t make any sense.”

That revelation is contained in a forthcoming book, by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, titled “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.“ But the Times omitted any reference to Keyser’s comments in a widely panned article this weekend by Pogrebin and Kelly that was adapted from the book.

The Times’ article instead included an uncorroborated allegation from a Clinton-linked lawyer claiming Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a female student, without mentioning that the student did not recall the events in question. The Times later published a major update to include those details, along with an editors’ note, but not before virtually all major Democratic presidential candidates had called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

Specifically, Keyser challenged Ford’s narrative that sometime in the summer of 1982, Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge assaulted her at a party also attended by Keyser and P.J. Smith.

"I don’t have any confidence in the story,” Keyser told the reporters of Ford’s claims, according to outlets that have reviewed advance copies of the forthcoming book.

"Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just didn’t make any sense,” Keyser added.

“Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just didn’t make any sense.”

— Leland Keyser

Ford has been unable to identify exactly where or when the alleged assault occurred, or how she got home after the incident.

Keyser reportedly remarked: "It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s getting home.“ Keyser told Pogrebin and Kelly, "I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”

I agree, and people should cancel subscriptions. This allegedly happened what 30 years ago? At Yale, really GTFOOH! Just that alone and being the only girl at a get together with three guys at Uni? 😆😆😆

That crap never happened!

Thank you anon!🌸😎🥰

The Times should be ashamed

LAW & THE COURTS

The Ongoing Smear Campaign against Brett Kavanaugh

By 

THE EDITORS

September 16, 2019 5:25 PM

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, September 4, 2018. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

The New York Times had a significant story to tell about Brett Kavanaugh. It’s this: In a new book, the Times reporters produced new evidence that profoundly undermined the central claims against Kavanaugh. Leland Keyser — Christine Blasey Ford’s friend and the person Ford herself testified was also at the party where Ford claimed Kavanaugh assaulted her — has stated on the record that she doesn’t have “any confidence” in Ford’s story.

Not only does she not recall the specific party at issue, she doesn’t recall “any others like it.” Moreover, Keyser maintains this recollection in spite of a determined effort by old friends to get her to change her testimony — a pressure campaign that Keyser admirably resisted.

But that’s not the story the New York Times chose to tell. Instead, this weekend it ran an extended piece that breathlessly asserts that there exists a new claim against Kavanaugh. The original story reported that a man named Max Stier alleged that “friends” pushed Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female student. Hours later — only after Democrats issued furious denunciations of Kavanaugh — did the Times add a rather significant editor’s note. The female student “declined to be interviewed,” and her “friends say that she does not recall the incident.”

In other words, “Never mind.” But even that editor’s note is incomplete. It turns out that Max Stier served as one of Bill Clinton’s lawyers during the Starr investigation, a fact that’s at least relevant to the existence of partisan bias.

The New York Times’s disgraceful weekend performance is a reminder that the media performed abysmally during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. Ronan Farrow had accumulated an enormous amount of capital reporting thoroughly-researched and well-corroborated claims of sexual abuse that helped launch the #MeToo movement. He squandered that reputation for scrupulosity by reporting Deborah Ramirez’s claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself in spite of the total absence of corroborating evidence and in spite of evidence Ramirez herself was unsure of her memories.

But for sheer malice nothing can match the speed and ferocity with which reporters accepted the facially-ludicrous rape story pushed by Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick. She claimed that she saw Kavanaugh “waiting his turn” for a gang rape and spiking punch to facilitate gang rapes. The story was never remotely plausible, but that didn’t stop media figures from shaming anyone who expressed public doubts on Twitter.

Perhaps the nadir of the whole affair is when 

Vox

 helped “explain the news” by publishing a piece arguing that the John Hughes movie 

Sixteen Candles

 provided “important context” for the Kavanaugh allegations. In the 1980s, you see, there was a different “cultural understanding” about gang rape.

No, there wasn’t. Gang rape was a terrible crime then, just as it is a terrible crime now. Notably, when Julie Swetnick’s claims collapsed during an MSNBC interview, many of the same media figures who trumpeted the claims and scorned all doubts fell silent. They felt no need to retract their outrage or to apologize for their scorn. Instead, they shifted their fire to claiming that Brett Kavanaugh was just too angry when he was accused of gang rape, sexual assault, and indecent exposure.

Against this backdrop, the Democrats calling for impeaching Kavanaugh — including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris — are disgracing themselves. The claims against Kavanaugh never stood up to scrutiny, and the evidence that has emerged since the hearings last fall has only served to undercut further the claims against him.

In a speech earlier this year, Ford’s attorney Debra Katz admitted to the partisanship that at least in part motivated her client: They wanted to put an “asterisk” next to his name. “When he takes a scalpel to 

Roe v. Wade

,” she said, “we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

The key word there is Roe. The fierce progressive dedication to abortion rights hovers over this entire affair. And so, instead of engaging in a necessary bout of soul-searching after their abysmal performance last year, the media continue their search-and-destroy mission. Last year, they tried to block Brett Kavanaugh. Now they try to bully him. The Times should be ashamed.

Thank you anon for your submittal, I agree with this. 🌸😎🥰 Time to start Sue!