Accuracy in Media


Results are in on the supplemental background investigation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and the verdict, according to the mainstream media, is sham.

“Report: The FBI’s Investigation of Kavanaugh Was a Sham,” read the NY Mag headline.

“The Kavanaugh Investigation is a Sham, and Republicans All Know it,” read the headline on GQ.

Newsweek quotes Michael Avenatti, attorney for both Stormy Daniels and Julie Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh of participating in gang rapes as a high schooler, saying it was a “sham investigation.”

“The FBI Probe Ignored Testimonies from Former Classmates of Kavanaugh,” read the headline on another piece by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker.

The investigation was ordered to determine whether the accusations were true that Kavanaugh attacked Christine Blasey Ford during a teen drinking party on a summer night in the 1980s.

Ford has said she can’t remember exactly when, where or how the attack took place or who was in the house when it happened.

After the emotional hearing last week, at which Ford recounted the incident and Kavanaugh denied it vociferously, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., convinced the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote the nominee out on condition his confirmation not be taken up until after a one-week investigation into the claims presented at the hearing.

Ford’s lawyers have insisted another interview of her be made part of the investigation. The FBI completed it after talking to 10 people connected with the claims of Ford and another woman, Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a drinking party at Yale during Kavanaugh’s freshman year.

Ramirez spoke with investigators. Her lawyer supplied a list of 20 others who he says can corroborate portions of her story or that they heard it at the time, but none are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident and the FBI has declined to interview them.

GQ blamed it on Trump’s desire to push through the nominee before disqualifying information can emerge. This despite Trump’s order that the FBI talk to “whoever they deem appropriate.”

“By all accounts, the process that has ensued has been – and this is a technical term – a bureaucratic clusterf—k of the highest order,” wrote GQ’s Jay Willis. “The White House quickly moved to limit the scope of the inquiry, excluding form the list of potential witnesses former classmates who could corroborate or debunk some of Kavanaugh’s most obvious lies, especially those related to his drinking habits.”

Willis wrote that this was “always the riskiest possible outcome of Senate Democrats’ demands for an FBI investigation: that if it occurred, Kavanaugh’s enablers would employ a perfunctory process rigged to turn up as little of substance as possible. Grassley and company did not care whether Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath or committed sexual assault before Jeff Flake began having second thoughts. Why would they care about these things now?”

Newsweek also pushed the line that Trump had ordered limits on the investigation so strict agents could not get at the truth. “Those four people – Judge, Ramirez, Keyser and Smyth – were believed to be the only people the White House initially allowed the FBI to interview. In a later statement, the president and his staff said the FBI were free to interview whomever it would like, so long as the investigation was completed by Friday.”

Later, it reported: “In addition to Kavanaugh, Ford and Swetnick, the list of people who have not been interviewed swells to dozens when counting the more than 20 names Ramirez gave and countless other Yale classmates who have reportedly taken it upon themselves to contact the FBI with their accounts on what Kavanaugh was like when they knew him.”




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments