NY Times bombshell report blows up in their face. Again

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Who is he that you can say that he has no credibility?

A member of Hillary Clinton's defense team, so a political hack. There's also the bizarre nature of the allegations and the fact the fact that the woman he named as the victim says he's full of it. The New York Times, by even giving this claim publicity, is propagating falsehood.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

A member of Hillary Clinton's defense team, so a political hack. There's also the bizarre nature of the allegations and the fact the fact that the woman he named as the victim says he's full of it. The New York Times, by even giving this claim publicity, is propagating falsehood.

Again with the claim about Hillary. I've seen no sources for that one (nor is it relevant - he's also worked with Trump). And the supposed victim hasn't said jack. Friends say that she doesn't remember it happening, but she's refused to be interviewed.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, I wished to correct your misrepresentation of his role. Calling him "Bill Clinton's defense attorney" implies that he was the lead on the case and the attorney of record. He was not.

But, he was. He most assuredly was one of the attorneys of record. There is not just ONE, as you claim. Max Stier's name is on court documents as one of the attorneys representing Bill Clinton. Neither you nor I know exactly how much of Clinton's defense was handled by Max Stier.

What we do know with absolute certainty is that Max Stier is seeking to profit from current politics. For that he deserves to have his past political connections emphasized.

 

[Belk]

But, he was. He most assuredly was one of the attorneys of record. There is not just ONE, as you claim. Max Stier's name is on court documents as one of the attorneys representing Bill Clinton. Neither you nor I know exactly how much of Clinton's defense was handled by Max Stier.

What we do know with absolute certainty is that Max Stier is seeking to profit from current politics. For that he deserves to have his past political connections emphasized.

How about you stop derailing the thread?

 

[NightHawkeye]

How about you stop derailing the thread?

Not derailing the thread AT ALL. Max Stier is the source for the New York Times article.

His credibility has everything to do with the believability of the article. He's not credible. The New York Times apparently deliberately omitted his background when they ran the story.

 

[Hank77]

He was Bill Clinton's defense attorney during the impeachment and represented Bill Clinton during other sexual assault trials as well. He also represented Hillary in some of her alleged misdeeds.

Are you saying that any lawyer who is part of a defense team for a guilty party is no longer credible? Or even those not found guilty but were accused?
It seems to me that would include a lot of prominent attorneys, including many who have defended Trump.
You're going to have to be more specific to Max Stier's morals and ethics for me to be convinced.

 

[NightHawkeye]

You're going to have to be more specific to Max Stier's morals and ethics for me to be convinced.

I merely point the matter out. It is never my intention to provide all details anyone might desire.

Google, Bing and the other search engines will assist you in finding relevant details to satisfy your curiosity and need to know. If you want to believe him even though the New York Times omitted this most obvious conflict of interest, then that is certainly your choice.

 

[Belk]

Not derailing the thread AT ALL. Max Stier is the source for the New York Times article.

His credibility has everything to do with the believability of the article. He's not credible. The New York Times apparently deliberately omitted his background when they ran the story.

Yes, you are. You are attacking the messenger instead of detailing the facts of why the article is wrong.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Yes, you are. You are attacking the messenger instead of detailing the facts of why the article is wrong.

Incorrect.

Sometimes the messenger deserves scrutiny. It's not a matter of attacking. It's a matter of credibility. In this instance the evidence is weak. The named 'victim' disavows any knowledge of the alleged event. The story hinges solely on the credibility of Max Stier. The New York Times understood that and attempted to enhance his credibility. Unfortunately for them, putting lipstick on a pig doesn't really help much.

 

[Belk]

Incorrect.

Sometimes the messenger deserves scrutiny. It's not a matter of attacking. It's a matter of credibility.

OK NHE, let's check the credibility of the messenger.

In this instance the evidence is weak. The named 'victim' disavows any knowledge of the alleged event.

Deborah Ramirez had the grades to go to Yale in 1983. But she wasn’t prepared for what she’d find there.
...
During the winter of her freshman year, a drunken dormitory party unsettled her deeply. She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.

To Ms. Ramirez it wasn’t funny at all. It was the nadir of her first year, when she often felt insufficiently rich, experienced or savvy to mingle with her more privileged classmates.
ImageThe yearbook photo of Deborah Ramirez in The Yale Banner in 1987.
The yearbook photo of Deborah Ramirez in The Yale Banner in 1987.

“I had gone through high school, I’m the good girl, and now, in one evening, it was all ripped away,” she said in an interview earlier this year at her Boulder, Colo., home. By preying upon her in this way, she added, Mr. Kavanaugh and his friends “make it clear I’m not smart.”

Looks like you are incorrect. The named victim is quoted in the article and does not disavow any of the incident.

The story hinges solely on the credibility of Max Stier. The New York Times understood that and attempted to enhance his credibility. Unfortunately for them, putting lipstick on a pig doesn't really help much.

Oddly enough, it is not the NYT who's credibility I am questioning.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The named victim is quoted in the article and does not disavow any of the incident.

Incorrect.

She disavowed remembering any such incident.

Oddly enough, it is not the NYT who's credibility I am questioning.

You might want to read more ... before continuing to put more lipstick on it. The named victim remembers no such event having happened.

 

[Belk]

Incorrect.

She disavowed remembering any such incident.

You might want to read more ... before continuing to put more lipstick on it. The named victim remembers no such event having happened.

Let us know when you hit rock.

 

[Hank77]

I merely point the matter out. It is never my intention to provide all details anyone might desire.

Google, Bing and the other search engines will assist you in finding relevant details to satisfy your curiosity and need to know. If you want to believe him even though the New York Times omitted this most obvious conflict of interest, then that is certainly your choice.

Where is the conflict of interest? Does Bill Clinton have a grudge against Kavanaugh? Does Max Stier have a grudge against Kavanaugh?
I just don't see the conflict of interest.
Max Stier, in his career has worked in government for both Republicans and Dems.
Are you saying that attorneys who defended Trump never defended a Democrat?

What I'm see here is playing to partisan/tribal, instincts. Some of us aren't impressed with those tactics. More and more of the electorate are abandoning the parties exactly for this reason.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Where is the conflict of interest? Does Bill Clinton have a grudge against Kavanaugh? Does Max Stier have a grudge against Kavanaugh?

Those who have a grudge against Trump have a grudge against Kavanaugh.

What I'm see here is playing to partisan/tribal, instincts.

That's what we're seeing from the New York Times, certainly. That's why that paper has no credibility anymore.

 

[Hank77]

Those who have a grudge against Trump have a grudge against Kavanaugh.

Why?

That's what we're seeing from the New York Times, certainly. That's why that paper has no credibility anymore.

I'm asking about the credibility of Max Stier not the NYT.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Let us know when you hit rock.

Let me know when you find that she confirms the incident.

 

[Belk]

Let me know when you find that she confirms the incident.

I already quoted it in my response to you.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Where is the conflict of interest? Does Bill Clinton have a grudge against Kavanaugh?

Kavanaugh was part of Ken Starr's impeachment prosecution team.

Does Max Stier have a grudge against Kavanaugh?

Max Stier was on the Clinton defense team. Kavanaugh was on the prosecuting team.

 

[jgarden]

The most pathetic thing about this hoax may be that most of the leading Democrat candidates for President in 2020 immediately called for the impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh, based on...nothing.

This crowd behaves more like the candidates in some high school student senate election than for president of the United States.

1) Where was "Albion's" self-righteous indignation when Trump spent 5 years trying to undermine Obama's authority to serve in the White House by questioning his country of birth!

2) If Kavanaugh had been properly "vetted," an alien concept in the Trump Administration, the Republicans could have avoided this controversy with a better candidate. I'm sure America's women voters enjoy watching GOP male politicians closing ranks around Kavanaugh and accusing the Judge's female victims of lying!

3) If the Democrats were just inventing ways to harass Kavanaugh, why would they not extend their attacks to include Trump's other male Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch?

4) The fact that the treatment of Gorsuch stands in marked contrast to that of Kavanaugh strongly suggests that the problem lies with the Judge and not the Democrats!

 

[NightHawkeye]

The fact that the treatment of Gorsuch stands in marked contrast to that of Kavanaugh strongly suggests that the problem lies with the Judge and not the Democrats!

I'm not a big Kavanaugh fan. Kavanaugh was a Republican establishment pick whose name was not even on Trump's list of potential appointees.

That said, Kavanaugh hasn't been convicted of anything. There is no real evidence incriminating Kavanaugh. We even have the article today that Christine Blasey Ford's so-called corroborating witness was threatened if she failed to corroborate Ford's allegations. That's not right. In fact, it's arguably worse than anything Kavanaugh is accused of ... and apparently is not a mere allegation ... but confirmed FACT.