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