It appears that over the weekend the Democrats and lamestream entertainment enemedia, as well as the extreme fringe anti-constitutionalist publications, were hard at work tracking down individuals who could be alleged victims of alleged sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The wheels on the bus are going round to gather more dirt because the initial “mud” didn’t stick in the tires and the slinging effect is landing mud on plenty as the Democrat-driven vehicle careens toward Brett Kavanaugh.
The latest alleged “victim” to come forward to smear Brett Kavanaugh is Deborah Ramirez, according to The New Yorker reporters Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer. This is another tale that is over 30 years old and involves a “drunken” memory that after six days of contemplation becomes clear as a bell and one that Kavanaugh has denied in a statement. It is also one where the alleged victim “thinks” an FBI investigation is warranted.
According to The New Yorker, Ramirez relayed the story to Farrow and Meyer.
Ramirez said that, when both she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, she was invited by a friend on the women’s soccer team to a dorm-room party. She recalled that the party took place in a suite at Lawrance Hall, in the part of Yale known as Old Campus, and that a small group of students decided to play a drinking game together. “We were sitting in a circle,” she said. “People would pick who drank.” Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)
Trending: How Could Stanley Ann Dunham Have Delivered Barack Hussein Obama In August Of 1961 in Hawaii, When Official University Of Washington Records Show Her 2,680 Miles Away In Seattle Attending Classes That Same Month?
A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”
Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.
And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.” Ramirez said that what has stayed with her most forcefully is the memory of laughter at her expense from Kavanaugh and the other students. “It was kind of a joke,” she recalled. “And now it’s clear to me it wasn’t a joke.”
Her “recall” of an event over 30 years ago while in an inebriated state was certainly better than Ford’s memory. But, what exactly do we have here? It’s the story of young college students getting together to engage in dumb games college kids play. Is there any individual, under the microscope of severe scrutiny by anyone, who doesn’t have an episode or two of inappropriate behavior occurring during high school and/or college years that was abandoned once adult maturity was reached? Or, those episodes were determined later to be in poor taste and inappropriate to the station one wanted to achieve in life? Most everyone has engaged in one or more episodes of immature, inappropriate high school and/or college behaviors that one regrets, considers to be in poor taste and inappropriate to the station one now has in life. Some are remembered and some are not.
But, back to Ramirez’s story. She requested that the alleged witnesses to the event, both male, remain anonymous. Why? It would go to the credibility of the confirmation that such a party occurred. What about the other females in the room, particularly her friend on the soccer team who invited her? She remembers that friend inviting her; surely, she remembers the friend’s name.
Again, this incident wasn’t reported as inappropriate or criminal at the time to school officials or law enforcement. Why? Could it be because it wasn’t considered as anything but stupid things that college kids do during that time – things that are often embarrassing and regrettable later in life, but nothing one would consider criminal?
The rabidness with which the Democrats are intent on smearing Kavanaugh is like a fisherman throwing a “cast net” – everything gets caught in it. In this “cast net” Democrats are throwing, two Yale law professors are now implicated in “hinting” to female law students who might potentially clerk for Kavanaugh to dress in certain ways. Amy Chua, law professor at Yale University, has been accused by anonymous female students of advising them how to look to convey a “model-like” femininity to secure a post in Kavanaugh’s chambers. Her husband, Jed Rubenfeld, also a law professor at Yale, supposedly told an anonymous female student that Kavanaugh hired women with a “certain look.” The student didn’t ask what that look was nor did Rubenfeld elaborate. According to The Guardian, the women wanted to remain anonymous out of fear and retribution that could damage their future careers.
Chua cancelled her classes at Yale for the semester and Rubenfeld is reportedly the subject of an internal investigation at Yale over his conduct with female law students, who voiced their concerns to Yale officials. Students also voiced concerns over Chua’s “powerful influence” over the clerkship process. Rubenfeld, in a statement to The Guardian, claimed the university informed him in June there was an informal review of allegations; however, to preserve anonymity, he was denied any specifics; therefore, does not know what he was purportedly to have done. He stated he was informed by Yale officials his position was not in jeopardy because of the allegations.
June was long before the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. So, what did these anonymous students claim against Rubenfeld? Well, that’s anonymous too. There is a lot to be said for anonymity – it denies the individual accused from due process; it allows the accusers to never face questioning by the accused; and, it’s good fodder to throw into the Kavanaugh “net” because nothing can be confirmed or denied. Moreover, these “accusers” are shielded from being hounded by the press and possibly scrutinized by the public, preserving their “future careers” while damaging others’. It’s all supposition that anything against Rubenfeld has to do with Kavanaugh; but, relays supposed guilt by association since Rubenfeld’s wife is implicated in Kavanaugh-gate because of her alleged comments.
Could it be that these students misunderstood what Rubenfeld and Chua were stating? Could it be that both Rubenfeld and Chua meant something else? When it comes to sending and receiving communication, there is always the possibility someone can botch the transmission, misinterpret the transmission, botch the reception, or perceive in the transmission something that is not there. This is why it is important to clarify.
According to Travis Lenkner, who clerked for Kavanaugh in 2007 and 2008, the idea being conveyed about Kavanaugh liking a certain look for his female clerks was absurd. He informed The Huffington Post that Kavanaugh had only one look for male and females – a suit was required every day since “it’s a formal chambers in a formal courthouse.”
In both the Ford and Ramirez claims, it was teenagers, which freshman college students are as well, doing stupid things that teenagers do. Neither Ford nor Ramirez were violated sexually. Did either of those incidents involve Kavanaugh? And, what if they did? Both incidents occurred before adult maturity, in an unrelated setting to any job Kavanaugh has held, and does not negate Kavanaugh’s exemplary performance, ethics or standards since becoming a member of the judiciary. So far, though, there is no indication from any other individuals that Kavanaugh was involved in either of these alleged incidents.
Both of these women’s accounts read as “kids doing stupid ****.”
But, if the standard the Democrats would like to apply to all individuals who serve in government is a “pristine life” from birth to when one begins serving in government, then every Democrat, Democrat supporter, and individual serving in government should prepare to have their life subjected to as much scrutiny. It shouldn’t matter that this standard is ridiculous, absurd or would require someone to know at a very early age that he or she would serve in government. It is the standard being applied that not one individual in either chamber of Congress or serving in government could meet.
Moreover, when accusations of actual sexual assault and misconduct against former Arkansas Governor and President Bill Clinton surfaced and were corroborated, Democrats turned a blind eye, didn’t care, and rallied in defense of him. The same thing with Sen. Edward (Ted) Kennedy, Keith Ellison, Corey Booker, and a host of others. These are proven claims that would hold up in a court of law. Those against Kavanaugh are not.
Let’s be honest here. How good is anyone’s memory after 30 or more years? How reliable is anyone’s memory recalling events over 30 or more years ago when in an inebriated state? Could you swear under oath about event occurring that far back?
It’s easy enough to explain why we remember things: multiple regions of the brain — particularly the hippocampus — are devoted to the job. It’s easy to understand why we forget stuff too: there’s only so much any busy brain can handle. What’s trickier is what happens in between: when we clearly remember things that simply never happened.
The phenomenon of false memories is common to everybody — the party you’re certain you attended in high school, say, when you were actually home with the flu, but so many people have told you about it over the years that it’s made its way into your own memory cache. False memories can sometimes be a mere curiosity, but other times they have real implications. Innocent people have gone to jail when well-intentioned eyewitnesses testify to events that actually unfolded an entirely different way.
What’s long been a puzzle to memory scientists is whether some people may be more susceptible to false memories than others — and, by extension, whether some people with exceptionally good memories may be immune to them. A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences answers both questions with a decisive no. False memories afflict everyone — even people with the best memories of all.
All of this nonsense, created and perpetrated by Democrats, is nothing more than political gaming at the expense of a lot of individuals based solely on a group hatred of non-establishment, Republican President Donald J. Trump and a purely partisan agenda of stacking the House and Senate with Democrats in the mid-term to produce a more lame duck government than what is in DC now. It’s all about power – keeping it, acquiring more, and moving to be the “one party” to “rule.” It doesn’t matter who they have to use, who they exploit, who they ruin or who they coerce to stretch the law and/or violate it, or who they can get to lie. With them, the ends justify the means.
This should, however, send shivers down the spine of every citizen of this republic. If tactics like this can be used against one member of society, you can bet your bottom dollar, it can and will be used against all members of society in the future. It also tells society that despite the laws of this republic and the God-given unalienable individual rights each possess, all of it can be thrown out the window at the behest of a select group of people harboring an agenda using the court of public opinion, not law, to determine the outcome.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.