new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Christine Blasey Ford, Kavenaugh’s first accuser (attempted rape, if you recall). Her life will never be the same because of crazies like you. Meanwhile, her attempted rapist sits on the Supreme Court. I would’t say that his life is in ruins. But you know that - and you enjoy that she will punished forever for being a victim of entitled male aggression, misogynism, and sheer stupidity from right wingers who refuse to even consider that the deeply flawed people that they admire could be sexual predators, conmen, and traitors. If you people weren’t so loathsome, I’d almost feel sorry for you.

The poor woman. Why won't everyone believe her without due process.

[Anonymous]

interesting

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/max-stier/

5. Stier Has Been at Once Identified as Both a Reliable & Non-Partisan Witness & as a Former ‘Clinton Lawyer,’ Partisan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:interesting

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/max-stier/

5. Stier Has Been at Once Identified as Both a Reliable & Non-Partisan Witness & as a Former ‘Clinton Lawyer,’ Partisan

Complete nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a real person with a family. With young daughters. I think it's just gross how people talk about him on DCUM.

Too bad he didn’t much care for how other people’s young daughters were treated. No ill words or actions should be directed to his children. At the same time, he is morally and ethically bankrupt and doesn’t belong in the SC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

such a teeny weeny omission...by such esteemed journalists...we're all SHOCKED at the oversight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he did come forward. he contacted the fbi and asked to be interviewed. he wasn’t interviewed. this is what we all meant when we said the fbi “investigation” was bllsht

The investigation was working within very narrow rules.

Still, now we have 2 men on the bench who abused women and lied about it during their confirmation.

Rather, we have 2 men who were smeared by the Democrats with no proof or corroborating evidence and successfully defended their reputations, honor, and integrity.

As a Republican, I will never forget what you have done to these two men.

That’s okay. We think of their victims and the pain they went through due to Thomas’s and Kavanaugh’s actions and at the hands of the GOP.

I’m just positive you mean their “alleged” victims. Right?

You're making such a big deal of a small omission.

[Anonymous]

The victim doesn't recall the incident? Who was the genius who came up with this plan to ensnare 6 Democratic presidential candidates?

Remarkable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gee. And, Max Stier defended Clnton. And, his wife was nominated to the US District Court in 2016 by Obama and her nomination expired. No bias here. None at all.

You already said this a few pages ago. Bretty was just another Repo attack dog, not some lily white prince doing the lord’s work.

But it's okay for DCUM posters to repeat negative comments about Republicans and conservatives?!

[Anonymous]

This is simply unacceptable. First, that they failed to include this information in their article and second, that it took the entire day to issue this correction.

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 supposed 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 first-hand 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."

The update came only after The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway, who reviewed an advance copy of the book, first flagged the article's omission on Twitter -- prompting other commentators to press the issue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyt-kavanaugh-bombshell-goes-bust-after-2020-dems-use-it-to-call-for-impeachment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

such a teeny weeny omission...by such esteemed journalists...we're all SHOCKED at the oversight!

The thing is when I read this story, I thought, "give it 24 hours before they reverse". I can honestly say my heart rate didn't even fluctuate when I read this since the humiliation of the once venerable institution of journalism is complete. I wish the President would find such grace, be less publicly reactive and trust more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is simply unacceptable. First, that they failed to include this information in their article and second, that it took the entire day to issue this correction.

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 supposed 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 first-hand 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."

The update came only after The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway, who reviewed an advance copy of the book, first flagged the article's omission on Twitter -- prompting other commentators to press the issue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyt-kavanaugh-bombshell-goes-bust-after-2020-dems-use-it-to-call-for-impeachment

First of all, we don't trust your source. Secondly, those esteemed NY Times journalists required sufficient time to ponder, reflect, and make the necessary corrections. And, of course, the time allowed for adequate spin and outrage during the delay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

such a teeny weeny omission...by such esteemed journalists...we're all SHOCKED at the oversight!

The thing is when I read this story, I thought, "give it 24 hours before they reverse". I can honestly say my heart rate didn't even fluctuate when I read this since the humiliation of the once venerable institution of journalism is complete. I wish the President would find such grace, be less publicly reactive and trust more.

+1 PP here. I agree.

[Anonymous]

I'd hate to be associated with this story. The New York Times went after a Supreme Court Justice and missed. I can't wait to hear what the other justices think about this expression of freedom of speech.

[Anonymous]

Another in a list: National Enquirer, NY Times, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

But it's out there on social media and that was the goal. This update/change is simply to avoid a lawsuit. This is classic liberal journalism.