The New Yorker published new accusations on Sunday from a second woman who alleges that Judge Brett Kavanaugh acted sexually inappropriate towards her at a party during their college years.
Deborah Ramirez, 53, alleges that while she was at a Yale party, intoxicated to the point that she was on the ground in a “foggy” state “slurring” her words, Kavanaugh pulled his pants down and exposed himself to her.
The New Yorker report and a subsequent report from The New York Times both raise multiple red flags about the credibility of the allegations. Here are 10 key points compiled from both reports that raise serious questions about the claims:
1. The New Yorker could not find a single witness who could put Kavanaugh at the alleged party.
Buried more than 1,000 words into the report, Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer wrote:
The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.
2. The New York Times could not find a single person who could corroborate Ramirez’s claims.
The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.
3. The man accused of egging on Kavanaugh denied Ramirez’s allegations and vouched for Kavanaugh’s character.
Buried more than 1,400 words into The New Yorker story, Farrow and Mayer provide a quote from one of the men named by Ramirez:
One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. “I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,” he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, “I have no idea.” The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, “I have zero recollection.”
4. A third person that Ramirez claimed was at the party says she was not there for the alleged incident.
The classmate, who was not named, said that “she was not present at the incident.”
5. Ramirez contacted her former classmates, asking about the incident, and admitted she was not sure that Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself.
The Times’ report states:
Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
6. A woman who claims she was “best friends” with Ramirez says Ramirez never mentioned the story and initially said her friend’s accusations against Kavanaugh might be “politically motivated.”
Buried nearly 1,700 words into the New Yorker piece, the report states:
The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.
7. Ramirez, just like Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat and is dedicated to leftist causes.
Farrow and Mayer note more than 1,800 words into their report that “Ramirez is a registered Democrat,” noting that she “works toward human rights, social justice, and social change.”
8. Ramirez wasn’t even sure her memory was correct — until she spent six days going over it with her Democrat lawyer.
“In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” the outlet reports. “After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh…”
The New Yorker waits for more than 2,100 words to inform readers that Ramirez’s lawyer is “Stanley Garnett, a former Democratic district attorney in Boulder…”
9. Ramirez admits there are holes in her memory due to how much she drank at the party.
“She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident,” The New Yorker report states in the second paragraph.
Ramirez said that at the party, where students were playing a drinking game, she “quickly became inebriated” because of the large amounts of alcohol she was consuming, adding that she became so intoxicated that she “was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words.”
10. People who knew Ramirez after her time at Yale say that she never once mentioned the incident — until Kavanaugh’s nomination was pending.
More than 1,500 words into the article, The New Yorker report states:
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.