The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.
The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.
The only firsthand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.
The Times' revision says: "Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article."
RALEIGH, N.C. – Multiple national news outlets published false information this past week about a budget veto override vote that took place in the North Carolina House of Representatives. Thus far only two of those outlets, the Washington Post and GQ, have issued a correction.
The only firsthand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.
Did they also include the fact that Max Stier (the source) was Bill Clinton's lawyer during the Starr hearings opposite Kavanaugh?
That whole story is an exercise in confirmation bias. If you think Bill Clinton's lawyer, relayed through two anonymous sources, claiming an unnamed dude grabbed Kavanaugh's exposed dick and placed it on a named woman who has no recollection of the event ever occurring, as mentioned in a new book for sale by NYT reporters, as reported on by the NYT, is somehow credible you might be retarded.
The ultimate irony is that based on the context of the story, Kavanaugh was sexually assaulted by the other dude.
Why wasn't this accusation ever mentioned in the Ford hearings?
Why do democrats seem to care about these antics when they dismiss what Bill Clinton did as "just a blowjob"?