Reply to new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.

[quote]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.[/quote]

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

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

am I being punked?  Yup. completely punked. The print edition is merely a draft. Please do read it as such and submit factual corrections to our 1800FU*CKYOU. Thank you.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics