On Sunday, after the New Yorker published a very weak and thinly sourced report alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself during a party in college, I predicted Democratic lawmakers would use the flimsy report to claim that there is now an established pattern of abusive behavior by the judge.

I was right.

Politico reports this week (emphasis added):



Multiple Democrats told POLITICO on Monday that they see Deborah Ramirez's account in The New Yorker as credible — if not airtight — evidence for a case that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee has a pattern of untoward behavior toward women. They want the Judiciary Committee to postpone Thursday's planned hearing at which Ford and Kavanaugh are set to testify to allow more time to look into Ramirez as well as those made by [Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford].



Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., for example, said, “By pushing forward with this Thursday’s hearing, we’re at real risk of not hearing all of the relevant allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Any senators who don’t have real concerns about Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation, his integrity, ought to take a step back and reconsider at this point.”

Ramirez ought to be “given an opportunity to testify in front of the committee," he added.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has a spot on Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., leadership team, also supported delaying the committee vote on Kavanaugh "until there is a thorough investigation of Dr. Ford’s statements, and I think the same for Ms. Ramirez.”

This is pretty rich, all things considered.

Remember: The authors of the New Yorker report detailing Ramirez’s allegations admit in their article that they could not confirm whether Kavanaugh was even at the party where he supposedly exposed his genitals. Also, everyone that Ramirez named as a witness to the alleged incident has denied on record that any such thing happened.

Also, the report claims Ramirez “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” and only decided he was the offending party after she spent “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

Also, one of the witnesses that she placed at the scene of the alleged incident says he was not at the scene of the alleged incident.

Also, the New York Times reported separately that it “interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge” and that “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.”

Also, there are the discrepancies between how Mayer and Farrow claim the "story came out." Mayer says it came out after she and Farrow "reached out to" Ramirez, while Farrow claims Ramirez came forward after being approached by Senate Democrats.

Also, there’s the issue that Ramirez refuses to tell her story to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her lawyer reportedly told the committee staff, “ we are not issuing a statement … if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.”

Other than all of that, yeah, Democratic lawmakers are definitely right to see this second accusation as “credible — if not airtight — evidence for a case that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee has a pattern of untoward behavior toward women.” Never mind that the biggest holes in Ramirez's story were immediately obvious the moment the New Yorker published, even before the New York Times revealed why it had been unwilling to publish.

Their opposition to Kavanaugh is clearly being done in good faith. Really!