Pete's Prep: Monday, Sept. 24, 2018

Why is "The Why" missing from so much of the Kavanaugh reporting?

Journalism 101 teaches The Five W's -- Who, What, Where, When, and Why. Sometimes, there's the sixth "How" that gets added, too. It's a mechanism designed to arrive at truth by thoroughly examining a question.

Yet, as I read the coverage of the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, I've noticed how uninterested reporters are in one of these questions. The Why. And this disinterest appears in virtually all stories.

For example, why did Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) withhold the allegation from Christine Blasey Ford for two months. She says she did so in a failed attempt to protect Ford's anonymity. However, the protocol has such protection built into it. Sitting on the letter does not. Which is why it leaked.

Why it leaked.

National reporters are uninterested in why it leaked.

They are also uninterested in why Democrats are refusing to participate in any investigation or interviews with Kavanaugh or any of the named witnesses (who all say they have no idea what Ford's talking about).

From Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley's letter to his Democratic colleagues:

Democrats refuse to investigate. Why? The media is uninterested. Leftists are outraged when I simply point this truth out, because they are relying on a media that is uninterested in the answer to the question.

Instead, Democrats are screaming for the FBI to investigate. This would be the same FBI that somehow missed all of these newly-discovered accusations of rapist-in-training behavior during six previous investigations into Brett Kavanaugh's background.

Here’s how it really works. For every judicial nominee and every nominee for a politically appointed position in the Justice Department, the FBI conducts a “background investigation.” The FBI does not evaluate the nominee’s fitness for service or make a recommendation on his or her suitability for confirmation. It gathers non-public facts, conducts interviews, and compiles a file on the nominee. That file is transmitted to the White House and later the Senate, after a nomination is officially made.

In the Senate, the FBI file is kept locked in a safe. It can be accessed only by a handful of staffers, all of whom have top-secret security clearances and all of whom agree to treat the files as though they contained state secrets. On top of that, witnesses who submit information to the FBI have the option of doing so completely anonymously, so even the cleared Senate staffers do not know who furnished the information.


If either the Republican or the Democrat staffer reviewing an FBI file find anything of concern, the committee conducts additional investigation. Sometimes, especially if it finds gaps in the file, it might ask the FBI to conduct additional interviews. More often, the committee’s investigators will conduct interviews themselves. (Lying to the committee investigators, like lying to the FBI or lying under oath, is a crime punishable by prison time.) Once the staff has completed its work, it reports the results to senators who may decide to conduct interviews themselves. Ultimately, on the basis of this investigation, the senators decide whether or not a nomination should move forward.

So, why was this process abandoned by Democrats and Diane Feinstein?

Again, reporters are uninterested.

Here's another one...

Why has Ford not filed a police report in Maryland where the alleged attack occurred? There is no statute of limitations on this crime in Maryland, so it seems like a good place to start a criminal investigation. Yet, it hasn't been done. Why?

An another one...

Why hasn't Ford offered a sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee - as everyone else has?

Is it possible that Ford and her attorney are trying to avoid making a statement that would open her up for legal penalty? Filing a police report would do that. Giving a false statement to the committee would, as well.

But nobody in legacy media outlets seems interested in this.

And, now have another 35-year old unsupported allegation from a social justice progressive. 

Deborah Ramirez claims she didn't remember all of the details because she was so drunk, but thanks to the efforts of her attorney - she now remembers.

In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she  was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident  with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and  consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident  enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had  exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her  face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him  away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s  role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be  warranted,” she said.

That's quite a sentence. For 35 years her memory was hazy and incomplete. But after talking to a lawyer, she now remembers. Why did she need her attorney to coax out the memories?

Also, why is she calling for the exact same thing - for the FBI to investigate - as Ford is? Is this indicative of a coordinated effort here to delay the confirmation by making these types of unproven accusation?

Also, why are Democrats able investigate Ramirez's accusation, but not Ford's?

And why would Ramirez be "reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh's role in the alleged incident" when she so clearly remembers the most damning element:

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.”

Her story is unsupported by any actual witnesses, and every person named by Ramirez say it didn't happen and they never heard any such rumor. These were the people closest to her.

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be  involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a  woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives.  And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came  up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she  hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women  had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of  what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

Ramirez  is a registered Democrat, but said that her decision to speak out was  not politically motivated and, regarding her views, that she “works  toward human rights, social justice, and social change.” Ramirez said  that she felt “disappointed and betrayed” by the statements from  classmates questioning her allegation, “because I clearly remember  people in the room whose names are on this letter.”

Why is hearsay published as legitimate, when named witnesses all say it didn't happen?

The authors of the story state: "The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party."

That's an amazing thing to admit in a story that alleges a man is a serial abuser.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Senator leading the charge against Kavanaugh says conservatives don't get due process rights or the presumption of innocence because they're conservatives.


But, wait! There's more!

The New York Times couldn't confirm the Ramirez story, so didn't publish it.

The lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels says Kavanaugh ran a gang rape club.

Former Buncombe County Manager Wanda Greene may be close to a plea deal with federal prosecutors.

Pete Kaliner

Pete Kaliner

Want to know more about Pete Kaliner? Get his official bio, social pages and articles on News Radio 570 WWNC! Read more


Content Goes Here