Top 2020 Democratic contenders Kamala Harris and Julian Castro announced on Sunday that Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh “must be impeached,” after a new, uncorroborated and disputed allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh surfaced in a New York Times piece.

The revitalized, longshot push to get Kavanaugh removed from the high court comes as Democrats' attempt to impeach President Trump have largely stalled. Trump, for his part, suggested Kavanaugh should sue for defamation.

The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

'PART OF WHAT MOTIVATED' CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD WAS TO PUT POLITICAL 'ASTERISK' ON KAVANAUGH, LAWYER ADMITS

According to the Times, Stier “notified senators and the FBI about this account, but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly.”

But the Times' article conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly's book also found that the female student in question denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.

“The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event,” noted The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway. “Seems, I don’t know, significant.”

Lawyer for Kavanaugh accuser admits Roe v. Wade motivated decision to come forward with allegationsVideo

“Omitting these facts from the @nytimes story is one of worst cases of journalistic malpractice that I can recall,” wrote the National Review's Washington correspondent, John McCormack on Twitter.

The Times went on to note in the article that it had “corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier,” but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.

Nevertheless, Democrats announced a new effort to topple Kavanaugh. Impeaching Kavanaugh would require a majority vote in the Democratic-controlled House, and a highly unlikely two-thirds vote in the GOP-majority Senate would then be needed to remove him from the bench.

“I sat through those hearings,” Harris wrote on Twitter. “Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached.”

NEW YORK TIMES DELETES TWEET CALLING PENIS THRUSTING 'HARMLESS FUN'

During the hearings, Harris strongly implied that she knew Kavanaugh had improperly discussed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's then-ongoing probe with a Trump-connected lawyer.

Harris provided no evidence for the bombshell insinuation, which went viral on social media and sent the hearing room into stunned silence, even as she directly accused Kavanaugh of lying under oath.

Castro echoed that sentiment and said Kavanaugh had committed perjury.

“It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath,” Castro wrote. “He should be impeached. And Congress should review the failure of the Department of Justice to properly investigate the matter.”

The Times' piece also stated that well before Kavanaugh became a federal judge “at least seven people” had heard about how Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to Deborah Ramirez at a party.

Ramirez had called classmates at Yale seeking corroboration for her story, and even told some of her classmates that she could not remember the culprit in the alleged episode — before changing her mind and publicly blaming Kavanaugh “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,” the New Yorker reported last year in a widely derided piece.

The Judiciary Committee then led by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in an executive summary of its investigation that it contacted Ramirez’s counsel “seven times seeking evidence to support claims made in the New Yorker,” but that “Ms. Ramirez produced nothing in response and refused a Committee request for an interview.”

Additionally, the FBI separately reached out to 11 people to corroborate the allegations by Ford and Ramirez, and ultimately spoke to ten individuals and two eyewitnesses. But the FBI found no corroboration.

Kavanaugh, predicted by Democrats during his confirmation process to be a hardline conservative, often sided with liberal justices during the Supreme Court's last term.

The president, meanwhile, accused the media of trying to influence the justice. He also went on to say that Kavanaugh should go on the offensive, taking on the media for false statements.

“Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!”

Grassley sent several criminal referrals to the Justice Department related to alleged lies submitted to Senate investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation process — which could be what the president meant when he wrote Sunday that the DOJ “should come to [Kavanuagh's] rescue.”

Ramirez was one of several women who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during his confirmation process. Christine Blasey Ford testified that Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her at a party when they were teens. Her attorney, Debra Katz, was quoted in a new book as saying that Ford was motivated to come forward in part by a desire to tag Kavanaugh's reputation with an “asterisk” before he could start ruling on abortion-related cases.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz said. “He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.

“It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

Fox News' Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.