Late Sunday, The New York Times ran a story about an alleged second ‘witness’ to a sexual assault decades ago by Justice Kavanaugh similar to the one lodged by Deborah Ramirez who took six days trying to remember if Brett Kavanaugh was the culprit.
The allegation appears in a piece for the Times by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly that they adapted from their forthcoming book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.” It alleged that there was corroboration of an incident in which Kavanaugh, as a college student at Yale, exposed himself to a female classmate at a party.
The Times Editor had to issue an update advising readers that the alleged victim did not even remember the incident taking place. The ‘victim’ wouldn’t even be interviewed.
In an interview with Lawrence O’Donnell, Pogrebin and Kelly claimed the missing details were included in their original article, but “somewhere in the editing process, those words were trimmed.”
They claim the information about the victim not remembering the incident was in their copy but, most likely, was accidentally edited out when they removed the ‘victim’s’ name.
If true, why even tell the story? There is no story if there is no victim. That sounds like a cover-up and it doesn’t explain the other missteps. It’s also the worst cover story we’ve ever heard. The editors are that incompetent?
Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly claim that the qualifier about the other alleged Kavanaugh accuser not remembering an incident at Yale was included in the initial NYT draft but removed. pic.twitter.com/p9wUTnFyM1
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) September 17, 2019
If the editors did remove it, it sure doesn’t make them look good. Accidentally???
The editors!!! OMG this is even worse than I thought. No one’s actually surprised anymore and they will keep doing the same thing over and over because everyone in their leftist bubble is fine trying to destroy good people ideologically opposes to them.
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 17, 2019
These two ‘reporters’ didn’t have a story. They went about writing an investigative piece and came up empty so they tried to make it into something it wasn’t. It was a smear.
The two mentioned that there were seven witnesses to Ramirez’s story, but they failed to mention what kind of witnesses they were in their article.
Byron York at The Washington Examiner has the information about the seven. He sums it up:
Number 1, Ramirez’s mother, based her account on four very unspecific words from her daughter 35 years ago.
Number 2, Appold, based his account on a memory of being told something by a “witness” who could not recall the incident at all.
Number 3, Wetstone, heard it from Appold.
Number 4, Oh, overheard something from someone he doesn’t remember that did not connect the incident to Kavanaugh.
Number 5, Anonymous, is totally unclear.
Number 6 and Number 7, Ludington and Roche, had “vague” memories that also did not connect an unspecified incident to Kavanaugh.
The entire book is a sham. These two writers were trying to sell a book by destroying a man’s reputation because it’s open season on a man like him — white and a constitutionalist. It bolstered the New York Times’ main directive — destroy the right.
The Times also tried to blame it on timing.
“The new revelations contained in the piece were uncovered during the reporting process for the book, which is why this information did not appear in The Times before the excerpt,” the Times tweeted.
It’s one excuse after another but no apology to the man they demonized unfairly with no evidence whatsoever, not even a victim.
This is another means by which they intimidate a Justice and discourage decent future candidates. Perhaps it will cast doubt on his rulings or maybe it’s even an excuse to stack the court.