Latest Kavanaugh Accuser Worked for the Clintons
Lawyer Max Stier represented both Bill and Hillary Clinton
Following a Saturday report in the New York Times that includes allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, additional reports have now emerged revealing that the latest accuser, lawyer Max Stier, used to work for the Clintons.
The Times ran a story pushing allegations that Kavanaugh's genitals were thrust into a woman's hand while he was drunk at a party in college.
Friends of the alleged victim say she has no recollection of the events and the allegation has not been confirmed.
The claims by Stier appear in the new book The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.
"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," New York Times states in an article by the authors, teasing the book.
According to PJ Media, the alleged victim is not quoted in the article, and neither are any corroborating witnesses.
In fact, The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway reported that "the book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event."
The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event. Seems, I don’t know, significant.— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 15, 2019
As for Max Stier, he has a long history with sexual assault claims, but from the other side.
Stier, a Democrat, represented President Bill Clinton after Paula Jones accused him of exposing himself to her in a hotel room.
Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000 and lost his law license for five years.
Stier also worked closely with David Kendall, representing Hillary Clinton against allegations of illegally handling classified information in the Whitewater investigation.
Kavanaugh worked with Ken Starr on the other side of the Clinton impeachment battle.
During his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh had accused his opponents of being motivated by "revenge on behalf of the Clintons."
This allegation seems to confirm that.
Is that the same Max Stier who was one of Clinton’s defense attorneys? Yes, yes it is. https://t.co/JAM4rdDViy— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 15, 2019
The story gets even juicier, however.
When Stier originally came forward with this allegation, no one believed him.
According to the New York Times article, Stier "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."
The FBI did not find the allegation worth pursuing, and no senator leaked this story to the press or used it in the hearings when they were throwing everything in the book at Kavanaugh.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) — now a flagging presidential candidate — read a rape allegation from an anonymous letter that had no return address or any means to identify, much less authenticate it.
Now the Radical Left Democrats and their Partner, the LameStream Media, are after Brett Kavanaugh again, talking loudly of their favorite word, impeachment. He is an innocent man who has been treated HORRIBLY. Such lies about him. They want to scare him into turning Liberal!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019
Perhaps the Democrats knew then that Max Stier's connection to the Kavanaugh allegations would reveal their hand.
The partisan nature of the attacks could be made abundantly clear, the Clinton connections plain as day, and the jig would be up.
Pogrebin and Kelly ran with Stier's story, even though Max Stier was a Clinton lawyer, the story lacked corroboration, and the alleged victim had no recollection of the event.
In fact, the story appears to be an attempt to bolster another flimsy accusation against the Supreme Court justice.
During the confirmation hearings, Deborah Ramirez claimed that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a party at Yale.
Although there should have been dozens of witnesses if the assault happened, Ramirez's story went uncorroborated.
"If I had done that, it would have been the talk of the campus," Kavanaugh said during the confirmation battle.
Almost a year later, Pogrebin and Kelly claimed that it was the talk of the campus.
"At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge," the authors wrote.
"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."
Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019
Yet this does little to shore up Ramirez's claims.
As PJ Media's Matt Margolis noted, Ramirez herself "acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories" of the evening of the alleged incident.
Ramirez claims she was "was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.”
The New Yorker, which published the allegations, was also unable to find a single eyewitness, and none of the witnesses named by Ramirez as having been present for the incident corroborated her story—including Ramirez's best friend.
This seems yet another attempt to delegitimize a duly appointed and confirmed Supreme Court justice.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) argued that Kavanaugh should be impeached.
Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 15, 2019
So, a year after no allegation was bolstered after multiple investigations, Warren is suggesting that "these newest revelations," which are similarly unconfirmed, justify impeaching a sitting Supreme Court justice?
You can understand appealing to the rabid Democratic base, but this scraping at the bottom of the barrel is shameful.
If Warren becomes the Democratic nominee, voters should remember this in November.