• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

GrapeApes

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,491
Deborah Ramirez had the grades to go to Yale in 1983. But she wasn't prepared for what she'd find there.

A top student in southwestern Connecticut, she studied hard but socialized little. She was raised Catholic and had a sheltered upbringing. In the summers, she worked at Carvel dishing ice cream, commuting in the $500 car she'd bought with babysitting earnings.

At Yale, she encountered students from more worldly backgrounds. Many were affluent and had attended elite private high schools. They also had experience with drinking and sexual behavior that Ms. Ramirez — who had not intended to be intimate with a man until her wedding night — lacked.

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.
Ms. Ramirez's story would seem far less damaging to Mr. Kavanaugh's reputation than those of Dr. Ford, who claimed that he pinned her to a bed, groped her and tried to remove her clothes while covering her mouth.

But while we found Dr. Ford's allegations credible during a 10-month investigation, Ms. Ramirez's story could be more fully corroborated. During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been "the talk of campus." Our reporting suggests that it was.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez's mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.
We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez's allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Mr. Kavanaugh did not speak to us because we could not agree on terms for an interview. But he has denied Dr. Ford's and Ms. Ramirez's allegations, and declined to answer our questions about Mr. Stier's account.
Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her "credible." But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. "'We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,'" Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez's lawyers, recalled the agents saying. "It was almost a little apologetic."

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island and member of the Judiciary Committee, later said, "I would view the Ramirez allegations as not having been even remotely investigated." Other Democrats agreed.

Ultimately, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, concluded, "There is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez." Mr. Kavanaugh was confirmed on Oct. 6, 2018, by a vote of 50-48, the closest vote for a Supreme Court justice in more than 130 years.

In case you didn't read.

 

Masoyama

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,648
I don't know if its a cultural thing between Yale science and Yale law or 2018 vs 1988, but when my girlfriend did her postdoc there, almost everyone in our circle of friends was extremely normal. Lots of young people struggling to make it through and no one was a trust fund baby or critical of people that were worse of. I never heard any sexist or racist comments either.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,213
Christ this guy is a goddamn lunatic

How the hell did nobody follow up on this??? He is a serial sexual assaulter
 

Arctic_Fever

Member
Aug 6, 2018
77
That Times tweet is a mirror of the kind of shitty culture that allows guys like Kavanaugh to get away with the shit he has and still end up where he is.
 

ZedLilIndPum

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,998
No fault of the OP's, but I feel the NYT's headline (AND subhed) is so shitty that this thread shouldn't use it.

Like the REAL news is that her allegations are now finally corroborated. And that it makes the accusation that Kavanaugh lied under oath way way stronger.
 

Greecian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
642
Anyone with eyes could look at his demeanor during the hearings and tell that he is fucking guilty of the allegations. I believe the victims.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,814
How about we not derail the topic with that NYT tweet, which is the intent of the dailywire tweet in the first post.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,814


Ronan Farrow @RonanFarrow

Two @nytimes reporters, @rpogrebin and @katekelly, spent months independently reporting out Deborah Ramirez's allegation against Brett Kavanaugh and found it credible—and documented another serious claim of misconduct with an eyewitness: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html …

8:04 PM - Sep 14, 2019



The tweet is horrifying and should not be ignored, especially in the context of the article where the NYT buried a new allegation in the 9th paragraph of a story.
Who says you have to ignore it? Create a new thread for it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,276


Ronan Farrow @RonanFarrow

Two @nytimes reporters, @rpogrebin and @katekelly, spent months independently reporting out Deborah Ramirez's allegation against Brett Kavanaugh and found it credible—and documented another serious claim of misconduct with an eyewitness: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html …

8:04 PM - Sep 14, 2019




Who says you have to ignore it? Create a new thread for it.


Or we could talk about it here, you know, either way.
 

Arctic_Fever

Member
Aug 6, 2018
77
How about we not derail the topic with that NYT tweet, which is the intent of the dailywire tweet in the first post.

My bad.

More on-topic:
Mr. Kavanaugh did not speak to us because we could not agree on terms for an interview. But he has denied Dr. Ford's and Ms. Ramirez's allegations, and declined to answer our questions about Mr. Stier's account.
Yeah, of course.

Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.
Gross. But, probably not completely unexpected when you think of all the rape kits that are just sitting around untested in evidence. Also the whole FBI/DOJ being beholden to the executive thing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
41,368
Miami, FL
"Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her "credible." But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. "'We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,'" Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez's lawyers, recalled the agents saying. "It was almost a little apologetic." "


welp.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,276
Most of the comments are about how shitty the Times is. Congrats.

This thread hasn't even picked up like it should have because it shares the NYT's bad title. It's all connected. The fact that the paper of record has taken the good work of two of its reporters and actively and repeatedly sabotaged it is significant.
 

Greg NYC3

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,467
Miami
"Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her "credible." But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. "'We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,'" Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez's lawyers, recalled the agents saying. "It was almost a little apologetic." "


welp.
We all knew it was a sham investigation but it's even clearer now that the Senate Republicans knew that he was guilty and pushed him through anyway.
 

deimosmasque

Ugly, Queer, Gender-Fluid, Drive-In Mutant, yes?
Moderator
Apr 22, 2018
14,170
Tampa, Fl
"Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her "credible." But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. "'We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,'" Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez's lawyers, recalled the agents saying. "It was almost a little apologetic." "


welp.

So, and I'm serious here, is the FBI still at fault for the shitty investigation if they were literally hogtied upside by Senate Republicans?
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
Like, fuck that NYT headline, but this is a bombshell get. Sure most of us knew the FBI did literally none of their due diligence, but now we have a sense of just exactly how much "none" actually is. More people to interview, more witnesses to call, more facts to unbury.

Makes sense now why Nadler and the judiciary requested documents early last month from all of Kavanaugh's past in government. They're hoping for more corroborating data to reveal itself. Considering the expanse of this rapist's actions, I'm sure there will be a little bit of meat to pick on.

Let's bury this toxic drunken rapist.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,089
This shouldn't surprise anyone after that one week sham of an investigation that the FBI did and that farce of a hearing the Republicans threw before.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I'm here for the really terribly worded tweet and the infinitismal chance Kavanaugh faces repercussions.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
We have a man who is part of the final decision on matters of the supreme importance that is absolutely a piece of shit, an abuser, a privileged shitheel, a broskie that you wouldn't trust to watch your dog while you're away. And he's there for life. The repuglicans play for keeps.
 
Oct 25, 2017
41,368
Miami, FL
So, and I'm serious here, is the FBI still at fault for the shitty investigation if they were literally hogtied upside by Senate Republicans?
Seems like both but we'd need someone in government to comment. I would assume a combination of limited resources made available, VERY limited time, and a VERY limited investigative scope (as decreed by Congress) are the principle issues at work here.

IIRC, Congress gave the FBI like...a week (?) to look at and reach out and find stuff. These kinds of things take months to do them right.
 

Menik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
247
Canada
Just when you thought the state of things couldn't get more disgusting, this is just fucking filthy.

What the really alarming thing is the FBI not picking up/not being able to pick up on the investigation with substantial evidence behind it. That's really fucking alarming. That should be ringing mutual bells across the country.
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
What makes this stuff notable isn't just the revealing of a lot more information, but the obstruction we now can be assured of as occurring to prevent the FBI from following legitimate evidence. We're not talking smoke here, mofo was still blazing and the FBI did less than nothing?

That always looked bad but nothing came from it so people naturally assumed that was that. But again, this development will now necessitate a further inspection of not only the rape information but the obvious cover-up. That's a difference with Trump's many many credible rapes and sexual assault cases. Those are disparate threads, like Kavanaugh's would be too. But Kavanaugh has that extra sauce now with someone or some people's abusing their power to affect an FBI investigation towards their outcome. And apparently they did it on a massive scale, lots of witnesses to attest to that.

We shall see. But I'm happy that it's Nadler and the judiciary and not some fuck like Neal. Decent chance they could tie it in with Trump's impeachment inquiry. There's so so much dirt that went down not only with Kavanaugh, but with Anthony Kennedy too. So hopefully after some more investigating, we can kick up more dirt to nail this bastard rapist and his friends.
 

KtotheRoc

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
56,621
The next Democratic President needs to pack the Court and make this fuck irrelevant.
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,934
white
boys will be boys

I fucking hate this fucker.
The other guy credibly accused of sexual assault on the court ain't white.

I'm not trying to #NotAllWhiteGuys this, but men getting away with sexual assault is pretty universal, and for the sake of black girls who often suffer in silence because their stories get ignored, I think it's important to keep that in mind.

The Anita HIll story also highlights that ignoring women's stories is also, sadly, bipartisan. Thanks, Joe.
 

Kard8p3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,269
So..when a democrat wins the presidency, is there really no way to remove this fucking monster from his SCOTUS seat?
 

Strike

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,340
So..when a democrat wins the presidency, is there really no way to remove this fucking monster from his SCOTUS seat?
They won't because "civility!" They won't to somehow protect institutions and traditions that only one party acknowledges. Hell, how many of the candidates are for stacking the courts or eliminating the filibuster?
 

Bedlam

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,536
*tears* I like beer, I DRINK BEER! *cries*

I hope this asshole's past will fly into his and the GOP's face for years and decades to come. Serves as a good reminder of those old perverts hypocrisy and sexism.
 

Zed

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,544
So..when a democrat wins the presidency, is there really no way to remove this fucking monster from his SCOTUS seat?

Most likely never since Democrats will probably never have enough people in the Senate to impeach because of how the Senate is set up. You are more likely to have a President just declare all Supreme Court rulings made where Kavanaugh tips the scales to be null and void and order the rulings to be ignored.