The smear campaign against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is having its intended effect.
He is the object of ridicule and derision among left-wing cartoonists and columnists. His family has received death threats. And now, he can’t teach at Harvard.
The Yard’s legal eagles say they can’t have a man like Kavanaugh teaching law, and so Kavanaugh will not lecture at the famous school in January.
While Harvard’s law students and teachers were smearing the judge, NBC was reporting that Kavanaugh perjured himself in Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing. Problem is, Kavanaugh didn’t lie.
No Teaching at Harvard
But that won’t matter to Harvard’s future star chamber administrators. Nor will his innocence.
On Monday, the Washington Post reported that Kavanaugh withdrew from his teaching post at Harvard.
“Today, Judge Kavanaugh indicated that he can no longer commit to teaching his course in January Term 2019, so the course will not be offered,” Catherine Claypoole of the law school curriculum committee wrote in an e-mail, the Post reported.
Not that the scholars at Harvard wanted him there anyway: “Hundreds of Harvard Law School graduates had signed a letter calling on the school to rescind Kavanaugh’s appointment as lecturer at the school.”
“People are coming together to say, ‘This isn’t the type of person we want teaching at Harvard Law,’” said Jessica Lynn Corsi, a law lecturer and 2010 graduate of the school. It’s an incredibly important job, she said, to shape the minds of students destined to become Supreme Court justices, legal scholars and other leaders.
More than 800 graduates have signed the letter in less than three days, but it’s not just the sheer number that carries weight, Corsi argued. “It’s the character and the work of the people that are signing on,” she said.
Why can’t Kavanaugh teach, according to this missive? “Now more than ever, HLS must send a clear message that it takes sexual violence seriously,” the worthies of HLS wrote. “The accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, including those by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, are credible and grave. They seriously call into question his character and morality, and should disqualify him from ... any position of esteem, including lectureships at HLS.”
In fact, the accusations aren’t credible, as the evidence shows and The New American has reported. The prosecutor who questioned Ford, for instance, flatly stated that her own witnesses “refuted” and “failed to corroborate” her tale.
Likewise, NBC failed to corroborate an allegation of perjury against the judge, as the Daily Caller reported.
The leftist network reported on Monday that Kavanaugh exchanged text messages with fellow Yale grads in July about Debbie Ramirez and her claim that a drunken Kavanaugh exposed himself to her. “The judge and his team,” the network reported, “were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim.”
Like Ford, Ramirez had something of a memory problem when it came to Kavanaugh. While Ford says she drank just one beer when Kavanaugh attacked, Ramirez was stone drunk. Ramirez didn’t finger Kavanaugh until she spent six days “carefully assessing her memory,” as the New Yorker’s hit piece hopefully put it, and some time with her attorney.
NBC reported that “the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated Ramirez would air allegations against him,” noting that “Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of his former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez’s allegation that he exposed himself to her in college was in a Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.”
In other words, Kavanaugh lied to Hatch because he knew the Ramirez smear was coming in July and tried to stop it.
NBC conveniently omitted, however, a fuller version of that question in the transcript of a committee staff member’s interview with Kavanaugh on September 25, two days before he answered Hatch in commitee: “Before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd,” the staff member asked, “have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?”
Kavanaugh answered no, explaining in detail: “The New York Times couldn't corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that.”
In other words, Kavanaugh knew about the forthcoming Ramirez smear job but was unclear, as the DC reported, on the details.
Caught in the editorial hijinks, NBC slyly edited its article to include that answer with no admission it did so.
Photo: AP Images