The feminist who co-wrote the New Yorker’shit piece on now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has admitted that she and collaborator Ronan Farrow didn’t know whether the accusations they published were true, and that her goal was fingering Kavanaugh with a “pattern” of behavior.
Jane Mayer confessed in an interview with Elle, which noted her long “career built on holding truth to power.”
The problem for Mayer and Farrow was this: Not a single witness corroborated Kavanaugh classmate Debbie Ramirez, who claimed Kavanaugh waved his penis in her face at a party when the two were classmates at Yale.
Mayer Fesses Up
Assuming the truth of the evidence-free, uncorroborated, and ultimately unproven charges against Kavanaugh, Elle posed this daunting question: “What have been the main differences between reporting on Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill versus Brett Kavanaugh? Did you learn anything in your reporting of Thomas that you applied to your reporting of Kavanaugh?”
It was a tough one to answer, but Mayer, speaking “truth to power,” was up to the task. “I think I was really advantaged by having covered the Thomas-Hill confirmation battle because basically I’d seen this movie before,” she said. “In fact, I’d watched as several of the same senators had disrespected Anita Hill a generation ago, and there they were, still questioning the woman’s credibility.
That answer assumes, of course, that Anita Hill told the truth as well. Having helped spread the smears against Thomas, Mayer knew what to do:
So having watched this before, I knew that key issues would be whether the judge had a pattern of similar behavior, since that helps establish who is telling the truth when there is a standoff, and whether there were credible corroborators on either side. Knowing this is why Ronan Farrow and I were so alert to the significance of other accusers, such as Deborah Ramirez. Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge.