Since last night, we've witnessed several lessons about acceptable news reportage. First, a new woman emerged against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, but even some journalists can't believe what they are watching.  The new woman's story is based on a corroborating witness who wasn't at the party.  What?  Apparently, he heard something about the party after it happened.  Again, what? Jedediah Bila wrote this: New Yorker piece doesn't even confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party, contains an admission of memory gaps by Ramirez due to intoxication, and has numerous people on the record disputing her claim.  Once again, I'm awaiting facts: evidence, corroboration, possible testimony Caleb Hull put it this way: Timeline: • She didn't know who it was for 35 years • Kavanaugh was nominated • She met with Dem lawyer for 6 days to "assess her...(Read Full Post)