↓
 
Home » Ronan Farrow says that Democrats found Ramirez

Ronan Farrow says that Democrats found Ramirez

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “AesopFan”]

My my my:

Check out what Ronan Farrow said on Good Morning America earlier today:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did [Deborah Ramirez] come forward?

FARROW: She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the Hill independently, and it has cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.

Now, that should have been Farrow’s story. Maybe he’d have retained some of the respect people had for him till now as an investigative reporter.

This is confirmation of what we all already suspected (as I wrote in previous posts here and here):

Not only was it inevitable that the left would find someone else to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, however vague the accusation and however deeply they had to dig—but it is also fairly obvious that they’ve known about this second person for some time (it took a while to interview her and write the story). I think it’s highly likely that all those negotiations with the Senate over the first accuser’s testimony had one basic goal: to postpone the vote till this second story could be published.

Not only did the Democrats find her, but they kept her existence a secret till the accusation was rolled out in The New Yorker at just the right monent.

I also made this previous prediction:

Another point that occurs to me is that, not only was the campaign to delay the confirmation vote and let Ford testify before the Senate based on the knowledge that this New Yorker article was in the hopper, and the delay was precisely timed to make sure it was published shortly beforehand, but now Ford really doesn’t have to testify at all. Maybe she will, but maybe she won’t. But the negotiations and delay to get to this second accuser were the point. And if Ramirez wants to testify—or temporarily claims she does—the idea would be to effect another delay until, if possible, the rollout of another accuser.

The third accuser certainly wasn’t long in coming, although there are some indications that the promised revelation may be in the process of fizzling out. But even if it never fully emerges, the story already served its purpose by just being out there, even in extremely vague form. It’s the old pig-f***ing thing all over again.

By the way, Ramirez seems to be refusing to testify. Surprise, surprise.

But none of that really matters. The only thing that matters is what how the GOP Gang of Four is going to vote. By my count, two one can defect, but no more. I make no predictions on that at this point, whatever their public utterances.

Comments

Ronan Farrow says that Democrats found Ramirez — 23 Comments

  1. Rush Limbaugh said today that, if Kavanaugh is not conformed now, the GOP can kiss the midterms goodbye. I agree.

    This thing is so transparent. Ford may just be a lefty ideologue with a story she made up but she may be disturbed. Someone I know very well has a wife who is a Psychology professor in the Bay Area. She probably knows Ford. She is a radical leftist whose kids run wild. I wonder what her boys are going through. Crazy mother.

  2. Mike K:

    I cannot understand statements like Rush’s, which seems (to me) to encourage self-destructive behavior by the voters. It’s not the first time he’s done that, either. He’s been whipping up rage at the GOP for a long time, for things that are not their fault but are the fault of just a few members.

    There is no question in my mind that the vast majority of the GOP members of Congress desperately want to win this and confirm Kavanaugh, but that a very few of them are holding up the works. That seems crystal clear. Get mad at that very few, not at the GOP as a whole. And vote for MORE GOP members of Congress, and more conservative ones, as a result, so that just a couple of holdouts don’t have so much power.

    That’s a no-brainer. That’s the message, and he should hammer it home.

    The message he’s giving is destructive, and perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it makes me angry. I’ve seen that sort of thing for years.

  3. This is a good article about the very real collateral damage done by the Feinstein Stunt Crew.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/dont-allow-the-lefts-political-stunts-to-lessen-the-seriousness-of-sexual-assault/

    BY JOHN ELLIS SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

    “The philosophical axiom that two things can be true at once needs to be kept in mind when discussing the allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It’s easy to get caught up in one truth and say things that we’ll regret later about the other truth. For example, it’s true that the Democrats are playing a shameful game of politics with the last-minute allegations about Kavanaugh. However, it’s also true that the allegations are serious and should be treated as such.

    Now, before proceeding further, I want to ask you not to read what I did not write. While I don’t have enough information to make a definitive statement, what I do know about the allegations causes me to question their veracity. I am not saying that I believe the allegations leveled against Kavanaugh, because at this time, I don’t. Nor am I saying that Senator Grassley and company should delay the vote, because they shouldn’t at this time. What I am saying is that conservatives need to be careful that while defending Brett Kavanaugh we don’t give reasons for our mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives to believe that we take the safety of women less seriously than those on the other side of the political aisle.”

    * * *
    We could hardly take their safety less seriously than the Democrats, who don’t take it seriously at all — see Ellison et al. — but I understand what he means: “don’t give reasons for the Dems to accuse us of taking their safety less seriously.”

    If your own mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives judge your commitment to their safety by the vaporware of the Democrats, then you have already failed.

  4. Tucker Carlson made the same statement or something in the same line of thinking last night. This scare tactic of threatening the republicans that voters will boycott them by collectively not turning out in the midterm only works if the ones holding all the cards (the gang of four) give a darn about their constituents or re-election. They don’t, and you end up punishing the good guys who don’t have a hand in ruining the confirmation. Flake must be enjoying his fifteen minutes of being the king maker/slayer.

    Its so juvenile, like a kid telling his dad he is going to intentionally flunk all his classes if his dad doesn’t buy him the latest iphone. Why don’t you go study hard and earn straight As before demanding Dad to buy you anything.

  5. In the old days when reputation mattered… The ladies found it quite oppressive as society responded to THEM and their power in the inner circles of social areas…

    i guess the question for people might be…
    IF they succeed, will you like the kind of world such people would make?

    even if they dont, you should hear shortly the responses to such POTENTIAL
    not actualized, for that is not what oppressive society with chapperones, cameras, signing cards, and more was about… preventing actualization of such potential without regard to the long road, as a requirement.

    once one needs to put metal gates on the store front to lock it down
    they ALL do

    though i dont suspect people who dont believe in a natural reality will get an epiphany, its still quite interesting… even more so if you studied history in terms of how people lived and carried on and their skills, and not what a few royals were doing to each other on certain dates (small picture vs big picture history)

  6. The message he’s giving is destructive, and perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it makes me angry. I’ve seen that sort of thing for years.

    I don’t think it is a “scare tactic.” I just think it is an observation.

    Turnout is what the GOP needs to drown the “blue wave.” A very obvious failure will hurt turnout by people who are not the political junkies we see on blogs like yours.

    I am volunteering for the AZ CD2 candidate but most voters are not all that interested in mid term elections.

  7. Who will ever want to run for office if this is what will happen to them by the “opposition” without recourse… i wonder how much they will get in collateral blackmail as people in power positions cave cause none can survive a false allegation let alone a real one…

    Olivia Cromwell will bag herself a king and then?

  8. Too bad for the kid Ronan. He had a nice start. Now he’ll be confined to the demented chambers of the left.

    Powerline does not spare taking a look at the sordid history of Jane Mayer, the mommy:
    ========

    Jane Mayer is the co-author of the New Yorker’s outrageous hit piece on Judge Kavanaugh. In this context readers may recall Mayer’s book (written with Jill Abramson) defaming Justice Thomas and supporting the Democrats’ late hit on him at the end of his confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1991. The Democrats sought to turn Justice Thomas into roadkill to prevent a black conservative from taking his place on the Court. The true victim of a ludicrous smear, Justice Thomas called out the Democrats’ 1991 playbook as “a high-tech lynching.” Now the Democrats seek to assassinate Judge Kavanaugh. We should have a #HeToo hashtag to denominate the victims of this form of leftist politics by other means.

    Mayer’s work on Justice Thomas is the precursor and analogue of the current assassination frenzy. Yet another case involving Mayer illuminates the New Yorker’s hit on Judge Kavanaugh. In the late 1990’s, Mayer came to the aid of the Democratic maestro of sexual abuse and his angry Democrat allies. As the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal unfolded Mayer reported that Linda Tripp — remember her? — had a teenage run-in with the law 30 years prior to her involvement in the Lewinsky matter. Mayer’s ironically titled March 1998 New Yorker article (“Portrait of a whistleblower”) is posted online here (behind the New Yorker paywall).

    Mayer and the Dems argued that Tripp committed a felony by failing to disclose on her Pentagon application an arrest in a case that got knocked down to loitering. Tripp sued Democratic operatives at the Pentagon for revealing the employment application on which she purportedly failed to disclose the arrest and won a $595,000 settlement. Jay Nordlinger told the story in the 2003 Weekly Standard article “Linda Tripp’s vindication.”

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/jane-mayer-revisited.php

  10. And not to forget the attempt to bribe Susan Collins to vote no on Kavannaugh. This is not being taken seriously enough. I think it’s a huge problem.

  11. I entirely agree with neo, In any election refusing to vote for the Republican nominee is a de facto vote for their democrat opponent. The primaries is where to place pressure on the GOP. That’s how we reduce RINO leverage in the future.

  12. I certainly agree as to the midterms too. McConnell said this will come to a floor vote. He better follow through. In the end, I only think Flake might defect. He is a knave. The other moderates are simply fools (at least on this matter). Despite mountains of conflicting evidence, the Collins’s and Murkowski’s of the GOP STILL believe Democrats generally operate in good faith; that the media, while leaning left, is professional and reasonable. There’s just no hope for these fools overall. Just pressure them to fall in line here.

    Neo has done several excellent posts on the fool/knave distinction among leftists. I would love a post and discussion on this distinction among the right. The Kavanaugh circus has shown there are clearly plenty of both among conservative politicians, pundits, journalists, intellectuals, etc.

    Also, the GOP (and conservative PACs) really should put pressure on Heitkamp. Are they running ads in North Dakota on this matter? They should

  14. http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

    “When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.”

    Guess who hits ten out of ten?

  15. https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-accuser-demand-media-hearing/

    KAVANAUGH ACCUSER ISSUES ANOTHER DEMAND, WANTS TO LIMIT MEDIA PRESENT IN HEARING
    9:42 PM 09/25/2018
    Scott Morefield | Reporter

    “Christine Blasey Ford, through her attorneys, is seeking to limit press coverage of Thursday’s scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

    According to emails uncovered and reported on by The Washington Times, Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating specifics on media coverage with Republicans on the committee.

    Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.

    Although press is sometimes limited because of space restrictions and the identities of some witnesses are sometimes shielded, “longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage,” the Times reported.”

    * * *
    One of my all-time-favorite series of historical novels deals with the period in French-English rivalry when the young Mary Stuart is brought to France to marry their Dauphin. Our Hero, Francis Crawford (a young Scots nobleman), is instrumental in saving her life on several occasions but runs afoul of one of the powerful Scots in the court, and is challenged to a duel for supposedly insulting said lord.
    The challenger is entitled to specify the conditions of combat, and requires Crawford to supply an ostentation list of mounts and weapons.
    He is dumb-founded, on the day, to discover that the French King has provided everything asked for. Thus rebuked, he forfeits the duel and slinks away.

    If the Republicans supply everything Ford wants (within sanity; no yielding on the order of testimony, for instance), will she be suitably rebuked?

  16. https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/democrats-total-personal-war-on-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-a-midterm-wake-up-call-for-republicans/

    “This is what Democrat total war looks like.

    Democrats can get away with it because of a supportive media, and a small number of weak links in the Republican majority in the Senate.Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell don’t have to worry about Democrats half as much as they have to worry about Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake, and to a lesser extent, Bob Corker.

    The total war on Kavanaugh is why so many Trump voters voters wanted someone who would fight, as Jonathan Tobin noted at National Review, Has the Kavanaugh Battle Vindicated Trump Voters?

    ‘The willingness of the Democrats and their mainstream-media allies to use a solitary, unsubstantiated, 36-year-old allegation to turn Judge Brett Kavanaugh into a Me Too villain whose guilt of a heinous crime is to be assumed despite the lack of proof or a semblance of due process has shocked his friends and supporters. But it has also vindicated the Trump approach to politics. After the public assassination of Kavanaugh’s character over the last week, there can’t be many left in the GOP who will still dispute former Breitbart CEO Steve Bannon’s assertion that politics is warfare and Trump is thus justified in anything he does to combat his opponents….’

    It also brings back what I said in The value of Trump to the Trump voter is that he stands between them and #TheResistance:

    ‘Right now the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and the people who hate them every bit as much as they hate Trump.’

    This is not about Brett Kavanaugh. Democrats would have waged total personal war on any Trump nominee.”

  17. https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/25/keith-ellison-karen-monahan-investigation/

    MINNESOTA DEMOCRATS’ ‘INDEPENDENT’ ELLISON INVESTIGATION HANDLED BY THEIR OWN LAWYER’S PARTNER
    9:31 PM 09/25/2018
    Peter Hasson | Reporter
    Minnesota Democrats claimed to be running an “independent investigation” into domestic abuse allegations against DNC deputy chair Keith Ellison.
    The state party’s own attorney ran the investigation, before handing it off to one of his legal partners.
    Ellison’s GOP opponent called it “laughable” that Democrats described their investigation as “independent.”

  18. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/grassley-rejects-feinsteins-efforts-to-postpone-kavanaugh-ford-hearing

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/will-she-or-wont-she.php

    “I should add that the letter comes from Margot Cleveland’s Twitter feed, the only place I have seen it.

    Grassley’s letter assumes that Ford will testify on Thursday pursuant to the Committee’s invitation, but it is not clear that Ford will actually show up. At last word, Committee staff were still going back and forth with Ford’s lawyers–who are obnoxious partisans–about the logistics of her testimony. In my view, Ford’s lawyers (who is paying them, by the way?) seem to be looking for a way out, an excuse for Ford not to appear.

    Why might Ms. Ford want to dodge a Committee appearance? Grassley’s admonition with regard to the criminal penalties for lying to Congress apply to Ford as much as to Ramirez, and, while there is probably zero chance of Ford facing criminal prosecution–however much she may deserve it–lying under oath is uncomfortable for most people. ”

    * *
    I’m surprised there is still only one source for Grassley’s letter — and that a Twitter feed — but I haven’t seen anything else either and couldn’t read it in the fine print, so I’m glad PL published it.

  20. Mike K:

    Limbaugh’s “observation” would be an actual observation if it went something like this:

    “I hear that some people say that if the GOP doesn’t make sure Kavanaugh is approved that’s it for them in the midterms—those people will stay home. I understand the gut feeling but beware—don’t do it! It will only benefit the Democrats. The GOP is being held hostage by just a few people, and the way to deal with it is to vote for more GOP members of Congress so that the few can’t hold the many hostage.”

    Did Rush say that? Bet not—you can see for yourself. Now, that’s not the transcript of the entire show, but it’s his statement on his website, and it’s destructive and a scare tactic, and if the GOP does end up failing to confirm Kavanaugh because of a few stubborn holdouts, Limbaugh’s statement will indeed depress the GOP vote and could be responsible for the Democrats taking control of the House and even perhaps the Senate if enough voters on the right stay home.

    I’ve noticed this type of thing for many years with Limbaugh. It is not something new at all. It’s a pattern he has of playing with fire. I’ve written a few posts on it before, starting in 2012 when he was very critical of Romney and the GOPe (see this, this, and this).

  21. How exactly did the Democrats “find” Ramirez? Didn’t Ramirez have to float this story somewhere in the last 3 months to catch the attention of the Democrats? If it really is the case that the Democrats initiated this, then that is basically proof that Ramirez is lying, and is only a front.

  22. Rush wants to be a GOP “power” (like the King of Rohan?), but most of his base has a political winner in Trump. Who was elected and has some real power. So Rush is less needed.

    Neo is of course very correct — what the GOP needs is more conservative Senators, and a stronger Tea Party org that can go against RINO / maverick / “liberal” Senators who call themselves Reps.
    —
    Senator Susan Collins, who has served in the position since 1997, ran for and easily won reelection to a fourth term in office in a landslide by 68% to 32%, which is her largest margin yet. (2014; up in 2020)

    Incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski won re-election to a third term in office. (2016; up in 2022)

    Jeff Flake is leaving (rather than losing!) * we need a conservative in 2018!

    In 2012 Corker was reelected. On September 26, 2017, Corker announced that he would not seek reelection in 2018 *we need a conservative in 2018!

    The USA needs more conservative senators, so there is no Gang of Appeasement with Rep haters.

    Today, too many Democrats are sick with Democrat Derangement Syndrome, and a few Reps often support some Deranged Dem rather than an imperfect but better Rep.

    It’s good to point out the imperfections — and Neo does this more fairly more often than anybody on the net that I’ve found — but the votes at the end are what matter the most for the elected politicians. Like, McCain’s vote to keep Obamacare was terrible, but made the Rep promise to scrap it fail. Because there weren’t enough Reps.

    We need more Reps elected, and more voters to vote for Reps.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑