By PoliZette Staff | September 16, 2019

The so-called accuser of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — a woman who supposedly was the victim of an act he committed against her decades ago — doesn’t recall the supposed assault that The New York Times wrote about this weekend in a salacious, poorly sourced and problematic piece.

Now The Times has made a major revision to its “bombshell” article — even after it deleted a tweet about it, even after it apologized, and even after it revised the story earlier.

The Times suddenly made this significant edit to its story late on Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh — just hours after virtually every 2020 Democratic presidential candidates cited the original article as a reason to declare that Kavanaugh should be impeached and removed from the high court, as Fox News noted.

The update by The Times included a key detail that it had “left out” of its original story: that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall at all the supposed sexual assault.

The Times also noted for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed for its story — and that she has made no comment about the alleged episode.

Can you say “fake news”?

The original piece also omitted the key fact that Max Stier, the Yale classmate who accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of this alleged assault, worked as a defense attorney for none other than former President Bill Clinton.

That’s right: The only first-hand comment in the original story concerning the supposed sexual attack by Kavanaugh came “from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it,” as Fox News noted.

And as Newsweek pointed out, “Conservative critics [have been] pointing out that the non-profit CEO [Max Stier] had, at one point, been a member of former President Bill Clinton’s legal team during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998, while he was working for law firm Williams & Connolly.”

The Times’ revision says the following: “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.”

Too many people for their own political purposes are going out and slandering people connected in one way or another to President Donald Trump — then saying, “Oops, sorry. We goofed.”

Yet those original charges remain “out there” in the public consciousness and are mistakenly, and often purposefully, cited over and over again by those seeking to score political points.

Here’s much more information and reaction below — and share your views.

Smears like this on Justice Kavanaugh make it impossible to deny the mainstream media's bias.

The New York Times left out critical evidence – all to push their own narrative.

It's disgraceful.https://t.co/cWfiqibn1A

— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) September 16, 2019

The ⁦@nytimes⁩ has now fully lived up to its nickname The New York Slimes. The entire smear should have been retracted and the “reporter” dismissed. pic.twitter.com/OkxtRmbKiW

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) September 16, 2019

The truth about the @nytimes readership is that they aren’t upset at all about this Kavanaugh fake news debacle

Times subscribers might be disappointed, but not angry.

They appreciate that their paper tried to libel Kavanaugh. Just sad it failed.

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) September 16, 2019

 

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.