Speaker 1: The process was a sham um. I don't think you
Speaker 1: can look at impeachment hearings without getting the documents. That's
Speaker 1: House would have to get the documents, and the Attorney
Speaker 1: General is shielding documents. So that was one of the
Speaker 1: presidential candidates that came out over the weekend. That was
Speaker 1: Amy Klobucher demanding either more investigation or outright impeachment or
Speaker 1: resignation from Brett Kavanaugh, one of our Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 1: A whole bunch of the candidates piled on with that,
Speaker 1: based on a New York Times story that came out
Speaker 1: over the weekend. I'm not sure I've seen a more
Speaker 1: naked parade of ridiculousness impeachment, you know, except the previous
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh go around. Impeachment calls came from Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: Beattell Rourke, Julian Castro, among others. Molly Hemingway is not
Speaker 1: only the co author with Kerry Saverino of Justice on Trial,
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh Confirmation in the Future of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: but she is the person who apparently single landedly went
Speaker 1: through the book and uh and first exposed It's notable exposed.
Speaker 1: It's notable flaws over the weekend, and Molly joins us. Now, Molly,
Speaker 1: how are you great? Good to be here with you. Well, thanks,
Speaker 1: it's it's great to talk to you again. So, when
Speaker 1: you got word of this New York Times story, take
Speaker 1: us through your day, what how did you react? What
Speaker 1: did you do? Well? As you know, as I talked
Speaker 1: with you before when I was on the show, My
Speaker 1: co author Carrie Saberino, and I wrote Justice on Trial,
Speaker 1: which is this definitive book on what happened during the confirmation.
Speaker 1: So we were interested in what this book would say,
Speaker 1: and we saw what they put out in the New
Speaker 1: York Times and it seemed very flimsy. But I also
Speaker 1: just read the book and noticed that they didn't include
Speaker 1: a major important piece of information in their article. So
Speaker 1: the article is about how someone heard from someone who
Speaker 1: talked to another person about a supposed incident, and so
Speaker 1: they say this should have been investigated. It's unclear why
Speaker 1: they think it rose to the level of needing investigation,
Speaker 1: even if it were true. But in the book they
Speaker 1: reveal the alleged victim, such as it were, says she
Speaker 1: has no recollection of any such incident. They kept that
Speaker 1: out of the New York Times. This story went viral yesterday.
Speaker 1: It led every evening newscast. Everyone said, there's a credible
Speaker 1: new allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It turned out it's not credible.
Speaker 1: It's also not new. It didn't even rise to the
Speaker 1: standard last year of Senate Democrats taking it seriously. Um
Speaker 1: Apparently it was told to a couple of Senate Democrats
Speaker 1: and they were willing to share all sorts of ridiculous
Speaker 1: stuff with for being further investigated. I will remind you
Speaker 1: of the alleged rape boat in Rhode Island, the nationwide
Speaker 1: crime spree that that the judge Kavanaugh was supposedly engaged in.
Speaker 1: Those things were taken more seriously than this claim. So
Speaker 1: it's not new, it's not credible. The alleged victim says
Speaker 1: she has no recollection of it, and yet our media
Speaker 1: not just went wild there continuing to go wild over it,
Speaker 1: and they are encouraging Democrats to call for impeachment based
Speaker 1: on nothing. This is why Carrie and I wrote the book,
Speaker 1: because we wanted to have the definitive history down, because
Speaker 1: we knew the media would try to reimagine everything and
Speaker 1: come up with new things to make it sound like
Speaker 1: what happened last year wasn't as ridiculous as as it was.
Speaker 1: And uh, and that's why we got all those facts
Speaker 1: down and kind of laid out what their game plan is,
Speaker 1: which is exactly what we're going through right now. I
Speaker 1: read the New York Times book review every Saturday night.
Speaker 1: Did they review your book about Kavanaugh? The only mention
Speaker 1: in the New York Times of our book, which again
Speaker 1: based on more than a hundred interviews with Supreme Court justices,
Speaker 1: high level people in the White House, senators, people close
Speaker 1: to the blasi Ford family, people close to the Kavanaugh family.
Speaker 1: The only mentioned has been when they admit that it's
Speaker 1: a best seller, so they put it on their best
Speaker 1: seller list. But they have never reported on our bombshell
Speaker 1: news that we've broken, um, you know, even stuff that's
Speaker 1: not particularly political, such as how Justice Kennedy retired, or
Speaker 1: what the Kavanaugh family was going through as they were
Speaker 1: going through the nomination process, or the fact that Leland
Speaker 1: Kaiser does not believe her friend, which we reported first
Speaker 1: got no mentioned. By the way, this book from these
Speaker 1: New York Times reporters also admits that, but they say
Speaker 1: that they don't believe her that they don't care that
Speaker 1: she doesn't believe her friend. Their gut tells them to
Speaker 1: believe um, Christine Bladiford, even though they found no evidence
Speaker 1: in support of her allegations. I'm not exaggerating by the
Speaker 1: way they literally say their gut tells them to believe
Speaker 1: her in the absence of evidence. What the heck is
Speaker 1: in this book? I mean that's some thin gruel. I
Speaker 1: mean that's using a Karta paint to try to paint
Speaker 1: your entire house. Men, You are spread that thin. I
Speaker 1: saw someone say it's like they got a big contract
Speaker 1: to come up with all sorts of dirt about Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: failed to come up with any dirt, but turned in
Speaker 1: a manuscript anyway. So it is it's a lot of saying, um,
Speaker 1: it's it's a lot of gossip, s marring and and
Speaker 1: anonymous claims, but nothing even really salacious. The only thing
Speaker 1: that you could even kind of call new, which isn't
Speaker 1: new because it came out last year to Senate Democrats,
Speaker 1: is this mysterious claim from a Clinton attorney that's denied
Speaker 1: by the alleged victims. We're talking with Molly Hemingway, who
Speaker 1: wrote the book Justice on Trial. The Kavanaugh confirmation in
Speaker 1: the future of the Supreme Court, and she pretty much
Speaker 1: single handedly forced the New York Times to alter their
Speaker 1: story that they ran over the weekend and uh and
Speaker 1: delve into their social media and change some things around.
Speaker 1: You know. My to me, the lasting headline out of this,
Speaker 1: I think Kavina will be fine and it'll settle down
Speaker 1: and it will be one of these two day dust
Speaker 1: ups um, partially because you set the record straight. But
Speaker 1: the lasting impression to me is the New York Times
Speaker 1: is just willing to do anything. We need to have
Speaker 1: some news outlets out there that we we all trust
Speaker 1: and believe in, at least some we all know that
Speaker 1: they're politically slanted. But man, this it's eroding even already
Speaker 1: my lack of respect for the New York Times. It's
Speaker 1: not just the New York Times, though you saw that
Speaker 1: the Washington Post took this false story and ran with it.
Speaker 1: They're trying to buttress the claim and they're kind of
Speaker 1: just moving past the fact that it's all based on
Speaker 1: a false premise. Major broadcast media lead their news shows
Speaker 1: with it last night and this morning, even after the
Speaker 1: correction was made to the piece. It is not just
Speaker 1: the Times. The Times is particularly egregious, but we have
Speaker 1: actual corruption riddled throughout our corporate media and it needs
Speaker 1: to be so. I don't wish I had a good
Speaker 1: answer of what needs to happen, What people need to
Speaker 1: stop falling for anything UM that is being put out
Speaker 1: that does not have corroboration. They need to demand more
Speaker 1: of people. They need to convey just how frustrated they
Speaker 1: are with these media folks who just run wild and
Speaker 1: have no concern for the truth. Well, ironically, I think
Speaker 1: some of our formerly respected, most respected media outlets are
Speaker 1: pulling down their pants and saying, look at me, look
Speaker 1: at me. So one of the comments on your Twitter
Speaker 1: feed that I really enjoyed, and this ring is so
Speaker 1: true in my life, people, I deal with UM and
Speaker 1: talk to you about politics. It was John who commented
Speaker 1: that the Kavanaugh railroad is the most politically clarifying event
Speaker 1: in my life and is why is The New York
Speaker 1: Times seems intent on reminding us I will crawl over
Speaker 1: broken glass to vote for a guy don't particularly like
Speaker 1: next year. Jack and I were discussing this earlier. I
Speaker 1: don't think the left understands how they are driving people
Speaker 1: uh into being Trump voters, well, there is a problem
Speaker 1: with them being in an echo chamber where they all
Speaker 1: reinforced themselves. And I think what's interesting is all of this,
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh situation but also the Russia hoax, are the
Speaker 1: result of people being unable to accept the fact that
Speaker 1: they lost an election, and so they break all sorts
Speaker 1: of norms and procedures and ways that we have of
Speaker 1: interacting with each other, all in an attempt to oust someone,
Speaker 1: whether that's Trump or Kavanaugh. I think what was so
Speaker 1: clarifying about the Kavanaugh experience was that we're as with Trump,
Speaker 1: you could say, I don't like it, but he seems
Speaker 1: to be a kind of, you know, kind of character.
Speaker 1: With Kavanaugh, this is a guy who spent decades establishing
Speaker 1: probably one of the best reputations of any man in America,
Speaker 1: who has friends who are willing to do anything for
Speaker 1: him because of what a good friend he's been, how
Speaker 1: well he has treated women. To see that they would
Speaker 1: do this even to this man was so clarifying that
Speaker 1: it wasn't you know, it's not about whether Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is has an ambiguous moral morality or whatever. This is
Speaker 1: about the desire to destroy people who are politically on
Speaker 1: the other side of you, and there was no way
Speaker 1: you could look at what happened and come up with
Speaker 1: a different conclusion unless you were part of that far left.
Speaker 1: Molly Hemingway and Carrie Savorino's book is Justice on Trial,
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh Confirmation, in the Future of the Supreme Court. Molly,
Speaker 1: it's always great to talk. Thanks for the time. Let's
Speaker 1: do it again soon. Thank you. Thanks, that's amazing. I just, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm in media. I unders and how desperate
Speaker 1: some media sources are. They've got to get eyes in
Speaker 1: here as they've just got to and they've got to
Speaker 1: do it today. But everybody going wild over a story
Speaker 1: this thin, even as Molly pointed out, after it's been
Speaker 1: largely debunked. I mean, that's a testament how desperate they are.
Speaker 1: It's sad, man, They're literally pulling down their pants Strong
Speaker 1: and Getty