Nolte: Washington Post Staffer Behind Kavanaugh Smears Begins Bashing Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trumps nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, meets with Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., not pictured, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2020. (Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times via AP, Pool)
Anna Moneymaker/New York Times via AP

The Washington Post staffer responsible for launching fake news attacks against Brett Kavanaugh is now smearing Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Emma Brown, a far-left Post reporter who was caught lying in the article that was pretty much responsible for launching a litany of now-debunked sexual assault allegations to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, is at it again to derail Barrett. This time with a ridiculous story filled with anti-Catholic hatred, anti-Christian bigotry, and cherry-picked quotes.

On September 18, 2016, Brown broke the now-debunked story that accused Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge of attempting to rape Christine Blasey-Ford at a 1982 house party. Everyone would have been in high school at the time.

There was no investigative journalism involved in the Post hit (I do not link fake news). Brown not only took dictation from Blasey-Ford (a proven and re-proven serial liar) and then lied to Post readers by papering over Blasey-Ford’s inconsistencies about who attended the 1982 house party (that never happened), Brown also deliberately withheld the name of one of the people Blasey-Ford told her was at the party, a lifelong friend of Blasey-Ford’s named Leland Ingham Keyser.

Had the Post reported the full truth, it would have undermined Blasey-Ford’s story considerably, and by extension, undermined Brown’s and the Post’s goal of destroying Kavanaugh’s chances to sit on the high court.

Over six or seven years Blasey-Ford recounted the alleged rape attempt (that never happened), the number of her attackers changed, as did the gender of those who were supposedly at this 1982 house party (that never happened).

Rather than lay out the facts to readers, rather than report the inconsistencies, the Post and Brown accepted and passed along the explanation that Blasey-Ford’s therapist got something wrong in the therapist notes.

What’s more, even though there’s proof Blasey-Ford told Brown and the Post about Keyser being at the 1982 house party (that never happened) prior to Brown publishing the piece, Brown still reported Ford said “four boys” and makes no mention of Keyser being there.

So Blasey-Ford told Brown Keyser was at the 1982 house party (that never happened), and Brown still stuck to the “four boys” narrative.


Why would Brown hide this information from readers?

The answer is simple. In order to do two things 1) make it look as though Blasey-Ford’s story remained consistent, and 2) keep Leland Ingham Keyser’s name hidden from the public.

Ah, but why would Brown and the Washington Post want to keep Leland Ingham Keyser’s name hidden from readers? After all, Keyser is Blasey-Ford’s friend, correct?

Yes, she is, but…

Keyser refused to lie for her old friend.

Keyser, just like every single other “witness” Blasey-Ford named, has no memory of the alleged rape attempt (that never happened) or even the 1982 house party (that never happened).

What’s more, Keyser says she has never met Kavanaugh.

So the woman Blasey-Ford named as a witness says no such thing happened.

That was something Brown and the Post were desperate the public never discover.

So now the proven liar Emma Brown is at it again attacking new Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett with a massive 2,500-word hit job (I don’t link fake news) determined to make Barrett look and sound like she’s some sort of Manchurian Candidate for a gang of religious fanatics desperate to oppress women.

On its face, the article is absurd inasmuch as Barrett is, ahem, a career woman, a highly-accomplished career woman on the verge of reaching the apex of her profession.

If this People of Praise organization is all about keeping women barefoot and pregnant, they kinda suck at it.

Brown reports that “Barrett lived with the Ranaghans when she was a Notre Dame law student, according to a person who knew her at the time.”

The Ranaghans are Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan, co-founders of the People of Praise.

The fact Barrett was living with such “scary people” is supposed to scare us, but…

Why would the co-founders of a religious group dedicated to oppressing women let Barrett live with them and go to law school?

Brown has no answer for that.

There’s all kinds of buried nuggets in this hit-piece that blow up the hit-piece. You just have to look for them.

For starters, People of Praise is not a Catholic organization. All Christian faiths are welcome, so there goes the wacko-Catholic line of attack.

The organization also sounds like one that welcomes people who view their faith in a number of different ways. For example, Barrett decided to become a career woman.

But the Post kinda wants us to forget that by cherry-picking things others associated with People of Praise believe:

The summer 2015 issue of People of Praise’s magazine, Vine & Branches, featured an article titled “Holiness in Marriage,” which it said was based on a talk given to women in the community in the 1980s by Jeanne DeCelles, wife of co-founder Paul DeCelles.

“Make it a joy for him to head you,” Jeanne DeCelles said, according to the article. “It is important for you to verbalize your commitment to submission. . . . Tell him what you think about things, make your input, but let him make the decisions, and support them once they are made.”

So what? Those are her personal religious beliefs.

The following one is even more desperate:

[Dorothy Ranaghan] lamented the impact of modern feminism in a 1991 essay that said “the basic differences between men and women should be respected and given cultural expression” and promoted the traditional roles of husbands as decision-makers and wives as homemakers, even as women pursue professional ambitions.

“The wife for her part is called to submit to her husband, not as a slave, but as a companion,” Ranaghan wrote, while stressing that there was “no room here for domination, oppression or of thinking of her as less than a full and free human person.”

What’s wrong with that?

That’s it?

Fifty years this organization has been out there and this is the best the bigots could come up with?

Barrett’s husband is a People of Praise member. Does anyone think he’s keeping his old lady oppressed and in the kitchen?

There is no allegation of law-breaking in the Post’s hit-job.

There is no allegation of any kind of wrongdoing in the Post’s hit-job.

There is no one complaining about the organization, or claiming to feel ill-used or misguided by People of Praise.

This is nothing more than a smear on people’s personal and religious beliefs.


Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.