Federalist senior editor Mollie Hemingway has long been an undisputed authority on the matter of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process and the liberal media’s lies and obfuscation of the facts. So, it should come as no surprise that she completely dominated USA Today D.C. bureau chief Susan Page when she tied to defend the latest New York Times salvo of poorly sourced and discredited accusations against the Associate Justice.
After anchor Bret Baier gave the rundown on what was going on with the story during Monday’s Special Report, Hemingway rightfully boasted of how she broke the story of The New York Times’s willful omission of key facts (click “expand):
HEMINGWAY: I think I actually broke the news that they had not included what was in book. Which is that the alleged victim of the incident had said through several friends that she does not remember any such thing. That was not included in this explosive New York Times story. It seemed relevant. And they finally added that correction late last night.
BAIER: Do think that they would have added it, had you not found that in that book?
HEMINGWAY: I think it’d be absurd to think they would have added it. It seems intentional.
One of those facts that seemed intentionally left out was that “the person supposedly making the allegation was yet another Clinton-related attorney [Max Stier].”
Despite admitting that she wasn’t aware that Stier was a Clinton flack, Page actually defended him as a reputable source:
There is one element of this that I think does deserve getting explored. And that was why there was no follow up interview with Max Stier, who’s a respected person. I didn’t realize he worked in a – in a- on a – for a Democratic presidents. A respected bipartisan person now, who tried to tell the FBI about somethings he saw at Yale and a U.S. senator encouraged the FBI to follow up and they didn’t.
Page also seemed to defend the shoddy reporting from The Times as the paper just publishing something before it was ready. “And, you know, presidential candidates, like reporters should be sure they have all the information at their disposal before they make an assertion....There is one -- This is a mess. And The New York Times, which is a great newspaper, made a mess of this,” she said
When Hemingway countered Page’s defense of Stier, she reminded viewers that the accusation was known by a senator and was not part of the package of accusations sent to the FBI for further investigation:
That there were all sorts of allegations that were swirling about and Democrats brought them to Republicans’ attention. This one, we’re told, was told to two Senate Democrats. They didn't even find it as credible as though Julie Swetnick gang rape cartel allegations or the Rhode Island rape boat allegation. So, if it were something that did need investigation and the Senate Democrats didn't think that, that is really saying that it didn’t even meet a lower standard.
“Senator Coons thought it needed a follow-up,” Page declared as if that meant something. “He wrote a letter saying that, I would like the FBI take a look at this.” She would go in to argue that an accusation pushed by a senator needed to be followed-up on.
“Actually, no, Chris Coons knows how the FBI investigation was set up and he was part of the discussions about that,” Hemingway shot back. “In fact, you don't want to make any allegation no matter how lacking in credibility. No matter if there’s a victim who denies any knowledge it.”
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
Fox News Channel’s Special Report
September 16, 2019
6:48:30 p.m. EasternBRET BAIER: The New York Times with this bombshell piece. Another allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. BUT, The New York Times adding an editor's note: “An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account. The book report said that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.” Good thing to add.
The President added to his comments earlier, just tweeting moments ago: “I call for the resignation of everybody at The New York Times involved in the Kavanaugh smear story, and while you're at it, the Russian witch hunt hoax, which is just as phony. They’ve taken the Old Grey Lady and broken her down, destroyed her virtue, and ruined her reputation. She can never recover and will never return to greatness, under current management. The Times is dead. Long live The New York Times." The president of the United States tweeting just moments ago.
Back at the panel. Mollie Hemingway has a book called Justice on Trial that deals with the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and was active on Twitter as this all developed this weekend. Mollie.
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: I think I actually broke the news that they had not included what was in book. Which is that the alleged victim of the incident had said through several friends that she does not remember any such thing. That was not included in this explosive New York Times story. It seemed relevant. And they finally added that correction late last night.
BAIER: Do think that they would have added it have you not found that in that book?
HEMINGWAY: I think it be absurd to think they would have added it. It seems intentional. They obscured a lot of information, including that the person supposedly making the allegation was yet another Clinton related attorney. And they tried to -- The whole thing is just a re-litigation of last year, where they tried to take these allegations that were made by Deborah Ramirez, which at the time, were considered so lacking in credibility that even The New York Times said that they couldn't confirm them. But now, a year later, we are supposed to believe that they are somehow credible.
BAIER: It’s almost exactly a year later. Meantime, Susan, 2020 Democrats – immediately, when the story comes out, call for Kavanaugh's impeachment.
(…)
SUSAN PAGE: And, you know, presidential candidates, like reporters should be sure they have all the information at their disposal before they make an assertion that, for instance, impeachment is needed.
There is one -- This is a mess. And The New York Times, which is a great newspaper made a mess of this. I think that would probably acknowledge that. There is one element of this that I think does deserve getting explored. And that was why there was no follow up interview with Max Stier, who’s a respected person. I didn’t realize he worked in a – in a- on a – for a Democratic presidents. A respected bipartisan person now, who tried to tell the FBI about somethings he saw at Yale and a U.S. senator encouraged the FBI to follow up and they didn’t.
BAIER: Let me – Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
PAGE: I think that does raise a legitimate question.
BAIER: I have something that goes to this point. Senator Chuck Grassley, who obviously ran the Kavanaugh hearings, addressed this very point.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): My team spoke to 45 individuals and took 25 written statements. [Transition] We laid out the information we received, including some of the ugliest of claims. In the end, there was no credible evidence to support any of the allegations. [Transition] My office never received anything from Mr. Stier or his unnamed friends. [Transition] After interviewing eight people related to the Ramirez legations, not once was Mr. Stier's name mentioned.
BAIER: Okay. You were going to say.
HEMINGWAY: Exactly that. That there were all sorts of allegations that were swirling about and Democrats brought them to Republicans’ attention. This one, we’re told, was told to two Senate Democrats. They didn't even find it as credible as though Julie Swetnick gang rape cartel allegations or the Rhode Island rape boat allegation. So, if it were something that did need investigation and the Senate Democrats didn't think that, that is really saying that it didn’t even meet a lower standard.
PAGE: Senator Coons thought it needed a follow-up.
HEMINGWAY: He has never said that he's talked to the actual majority that was handling the investigation.
PAGE: He wrote a letter saying that, I would like the FBI take a look at this. I don’t know whether they would’ve found something credible or not, but if you are vetting a Supreme Court nominee, you ought to follow up on an allegation that a U.S. senator says this is worth doing.
HEMINGWAY: Actually, no, Chris Coons knows how the FBI investigation was set up and he was part of the discussions about that. In fact, you don't want to make any allegation no matter how lacking in credibility. No matter if there’s a victim who denies any knowledge it. You don't want to slow down the working of a nomination process just for a delay tactic that is lacking in credibility.
(…)
