On Wednesday evening, The New Yorker ran a new investigative piece from Jane Meyer and Ronan Farrow.
On Wednesday evening, The New Yorker ran a new investigative piece from Jane Meyer and Ronan Farrow. That piece claimed that the FBI investigation into sexual assault claims against Brett Kavanaugh was insufficient. What made the investigation insufficient? According to Meyer and Farrow:
Who were these witnesses? The first, one Kenneth Appold, says he can support the claims of Deborah Ramirez – a woman first reported by Meyer and Farrow – who claims that at a drunken frat party, Kavanaugh exposed himself to her. Here’s Appold’s story:
What made him sure? He heard about it second-hand. But there’s a serious problem with Appold’s story, which Meyer and Farrow bury several paragraphs down:
The only witness at a massively public event had no memory of the event – so The New Yorker quoted a person that the witness supposedly talked to two decades ago, and who didn’t originally want to say anything before talking with the original witness.
Well done, New Yorker.
Then the report got even worse. The New Yorker wrote that some of Kavanaugh’s classmates said he was a bully in high school who laughed at other kids:
So that’s the whole story. Again, no witnesses at a highly public event. Again, second-hand stories without corroboration from the key witnesses at issue. And again, more useless stories that have nothing to do with the actual allegations at issue.
