Clinton Lawyer and Kavanaugh Smear-Whisperer Max Stier Worked With the Washington Post Since 2016, But Forgot to Mention the Brett Kavanaugh Smears Until Democrats Needed Them in 2018

More: It turns out that Robin Pogrebin wrote the promotional tweet for her promotional article/smear promoting her book that has all the #Woke brigades up in arms.

The left is acting like this is the big scandal here -- not that this article fails to mention that the alleged victim denies any memory of this farcical allegation (which, as far as I can tell, was actually made by Clinton lawyer Max Stier, who claims he "heard" things).

This is the scandal, they're saying: that the tweet used to promote this story said something about penises being harmless. To wit:

Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn’t belong at Yale in the first place.

Well, that's, whatever, not a terrific sentence but on the other hand, who cares?

I kind of think the deliberate omission of key information while making a smear for personal economic gain was the bigger sin, but that's just me.

And now, this guy now alleges that the co-author of this article, and the co-author of the book the article is intended to serve as puffery for, wrote this tweet her very own self:

This really puts lie to the claim of "multiple layers of painstaking fact-checking and editorial oversight," doesn't it? Just handing out the Times' twitter keys to any flunkie with an agenda and book to promote?

A friend says it's as if the New York Times just gave her the keys to the car and said, "Keep it under 90 and top off the tank when you're done, huh?"

I'm thinking that there was no editor involved, not really, in the original article. I'm thinking this pair just turned in their article and it went to press with almost no checking at all.

It gets worse: Phil Kerpen is bumping this old find from November 2018.

It turns out this same Robin Pobrebin tried to "force feed" a quote to a Ramirez friend, trying to contrive some (spurious, journalist-invented) corroboration for her "recovered memories."

The exact text is below, but here's my take:

The friend says "I know nothing of this and I haven't spoken to Ramirez in a long time. She's political, and I'm not."

So this "reporter," desperate to find or create any corroboration for Ramirez's claim, floats this idea: How about saying that after this incident, she became very very political? As in, wink-wink, something must have happened to drastically change her personality.

And what could that something be, besides Brett Kavanaugh's Baleful Pud of Despair?

The woman declined to repeat the lines this "reporter" had pre-written for her:

Can't wait for this newest "journalistic" endeavor.

I think we all assume that the practice of quote-fishing -- "Could you say x for me? It would rilly rilly help" -- is pretty much 90% of "journalism" today. They don't find witnesses; they cast them, and have them repeat pre-written lines that will forward the plot.

posted by Ace of Spades at 08:05 PM

| Access Comments