With the liberal media in a frenzy thanks to The New Yorker’s contribution Sunday night in the campaign to smear and stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it was rather amusing to see how not only did a slew of fellow liberal media outlets pursue but not publish Deborah Ramirez’s claim, but The New York Times admit to coming up empty in the facts department.



Monday evening, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a purported "champion of women" and an "outspoken figure in the #MeToo movement," became a pariah in barely three breathtaking hours. At 6:47 p.m., the New Yorker published "Four Women Accuse New York’s Attorney General of Physical Abuse." Just after 10 p.m., Schneiderman, a Democrat who was the nationwide point man for state-level anti-Trump "resistance," resigned. The New York Times's handling of the episode appears to betray deep disappointment.



During a panel discussion on her 12:00 p.m. ET hour MSNBC show on Tuesday, anchor Andrea Mitchell and her guests feared that the resignation of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman over domestic abuse allegations would hurt ongoing legal challenges to President Trump’s policy agenda and be a “big loss” for the Democratic Party.



In the midst of all the sexual harassment shockers emerging from the media, Hollywood, and politics, the Left is still hailing Anita Hill as the patron saint of sexual harassment. An especially egregious case unfolded on Thursday afternoon, as the NPR show Fresh Air with Terry Gross spent a half-hour re-litigating Clarence Thomas as a harasser with his old journalistic nemesis Jane Mayer (now with The New Yorker) and feminist author Rebecca Traister.The online summary was headlined “For Years, Anita Hill Was A 'Canary In The Coal Mine' For Women Speaking Out.” Only after they’d exhausted two-thirds of the hour on Hill-Thomas, did they turn to the harassment controversies that are not 26 years old.



On her MSNBC show on Thursday, host Andrea Mitchell sounded the alarm for her left-wing audience as she warned: “Well, President Trump, of course, is making headlines every day, every hour, but Vice President Mike Pence largely flying under the radar....Joining me now is staff writer of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, who wrote the story, ‘The Danger of President Pence’...”



The New York Times appears to be playing games again with conservative authors, trying to keep them off its vaunted (and secretively manipulated) Best Sellers list. This has happened to Ted Cruz, to Dinesh D’Souza, and to David Limbaugh.

This case is more ironic: Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel has a new book out called The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech.



Journalist Jane Mayer issued another twisted attack on her own Enemy No. 1, the libertarian industrialist Koch brothers, from her New Yorker magazine perch. “Who Sponsored The Hate?” left no doubt as to who she thinks is responsible for the current Trumpian climate of political vituperation. Mayer has for years issued dark, often conspiratorial threats about the Koch brothers, the Midwestern industrialists who are guilty of trying to convince voters of the rightness of their beliefs, to the abject horror of a big-government left which has spent a generation trying to do the same thing. She began with the now-standard liberal line that conservative ideologues are reaping what they sowed with the rise of Trump and his supporters.



According to liberal New Yorker author Jane Mayer, half a billion dollars is only “big money” if it’s coming from the Koch brothers.

Mayer appeared on The View on March 3, 2016, to promote her latest conspiracy theory involving the Koch brothers: a new book entitled “Dark Money,” She claims to expose the Koch brothers “secret.” Their crime, according to Mayer? Wanting smaller government.



The New York Times often uses its book review to make liberal political statements under the cover of criticism, whether by praising books by liberals that bash conservatives, or eviscerating books by conservatives that attack the left. Sunday brought the first kind, summed up by this online teaser: "Dark Money argues that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy."



Chris Matthews's recent book Tip and the Gipper examined how President Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill sometimes set aside their ideological differences in favor of compromising and dealmaking. In a Tuesday post, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer also portrays the '80s O'Neill positively, but in her case it's to contrast his statesmanlike reaction to terrorist attacks that occurred on Reagan's watch with Darrell Issa's hackish exploitation of Benghazi.

Mayer writes that this past Friday, Issa "announced that he had issued a subpoena to Secretary of State John Kerry for a new round of hearings devoted to searching, against diminishing odds, for some dirty, dark secret about what really happened in Benghazi." She goes on:



The Tea Parties are driving the liberals crazy. They charged that Tea Partiers were racists but that pretty much backfired on them when they were unable to collect on the $100,000 Breitbart prize offered for any video evidence of racial epithets that were supposedly hurled at congressmen on March 20 at the Capitol. Now it seems that they have gone back to the Nancy Pelosi charge of accusing the grassroots Tea Party of being an "astroturf" organization. And who is suposedly financing them? According to a New Yorker hit piece article written by Jane Mayer, much of the money is coming from businessmen brothers, Charles and David Koch.

Of course, any article complaining about businessmen contributing to conservative causes will have a big elephant in the room in the form of George Soros who pours hundreds of millions into the far left movement. And that elephant is so large that even Mayer can't ignore it. So what to do? Why, portray Soros as saintly. So start plucking your harps as you read the hilarious money quote Mayer employs to explain away this hypocritical matter by presenting the "benevolent" Soros floating upon his heavenly cloud:

Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama’s. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros’s giving is transparent, and that “none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.”



Marc Thiessen is perhaps the nation's most prominent advocate of enhanced interrogation. He routinely debunks the left's myths regarding detention and interrogation policy, and has done battle with some of the loudest Bush-bashers of the legacy media along the way.

Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter and author of Courting Disaster, argues that the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques stopped terrorist attacks; saved American lives; and provided our military, intelligence services, and law enforcement officials with vital and actionable intelligence on the enemy.

That is heresy in liberal circles, Old Media chief among them. New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer penned a scathing review of Courting Disaster, in which she accused Thiessen of trying to "rewrite the history of the CIA’s interrogation program." Thiessen responded in National Review, and demonstrated just how desperate the liberal media is to paint Bush-era policies in a negative light.