Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Wtf?

 

Must have been a Section 1983 action and the defendant officers asserted qualified immunity.  If you are new to this area of law it is kind of like learning algebra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they found out who paid off Kavanaugh's $200,000 debt, yet?


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this is the sort of behavior we should all expect from the New York Times in 2019. They are seeming desperate in their attempts to take down their political adversaries:

 

NYT deletes bizarre tweet referencing Brett Kavanaugh’s ‘harmless’ penis

https://nypost.com/2019/09/15/nyt-deletes-bizarre-brett-kavanaugh-tweet-about-having-a-penis-thrust-in-your-face/

 

In a bizarre series of tweets and retractions on @nytopinion on Saturday, The New York Times cringingly opined on its latest Brett Kavanaugh story, then retracted the tweet, then retracted the retraction, then posted an apology.

 

I read the original article from the New York Times. Overall, this story seems to have even less credibility than the (now refuted) Ford accusations. In all seriousness, for a New York Times article it is downright bizarrely lacking in facts and corroboration. The lack of specifics and detail is so glaring it must be intentional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But while we found Dr. Ford’s allegations credible during a 10-month investigation, Ms. Ramirez’s story could be more fully corroborated. During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.

 

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.

 

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

 

You may to bust out a dictionary and look up the word "refuted." It seems you lack a basic understanding of the meaning of it.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or an examination of this...

 

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

You may to bust out a dictionary and look up the word "refuted." It seems you lack a basic understanding of the meaning of it.

 

It may seem like ancient history - but the Blasey Ford allegation was put under the largest microscope known to mankind. No evidence whatsoever was found to support it, and it remains entirely uncorroborated. Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed and rightfully sits on the Supreme Court. I can't think of a better or more official way to possibly refute an accusation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ram23 said:

It may seem like ancient history - but the Blasey Ford allegation was put under the largest microscope known to mankind. No evidence whatsoever was found to support it, and it remains entirely uncorroborated. Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed and rightfully sits on the Supreme Court. I can't think of a better or more official way to possibly refute an accusation.

 

This is a cute copy/pasta from 8chan.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

But the NYT deleted a tweet! 

When the victim is denying the event ever happened, you dont have a story. Ultimately, all you have is hearsay and if you are writing a story on hearsay, that is irresponsible journalism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Yeah re-litigating the Kavanaugh hearings based on the evidence provided in the NYT article will not be a winning issue for Democrats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eastvillagedon said:

^I'm not sure, are we talking about the Deborah Ramirez incident that the Times wrote extensively about over the weekend. Is that the one in which she has no recollection of? Something that the article failed to mention. 

I'm speaking only of Mr. Shapiro's defense.  It is not a good one. But go ahead and subscribe to his grift tube channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Time to let this one go and stick a fork in it. It is done, he is on the court. More and more info comes out that discredits Ford's account. Time to move on from this.


Ford's account has not been discredited. It's pretty obvious he Kavanaugh lied under oath to Congress. Multiple times. That alone should be an impeachable offense. It doesn't matter how embarrassing his honesty would have been. He lied under oath. How can you trust him to confirm him? The Senate Republicans abdicated their duty and placed him in a position of power after he lied to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

When the victim is denying the event ever happened, you dont have a story. Ultimately, all you have is hearsay and if you are writing a story on hearsay, that is irresponsible journalism.

 

 

I made no comment to the validity of the tweet, only the irony in continuing to ignore much bigger stories to continue the Trump narrative about the media.  I expect the media to make mistakes and issue corrections.  That's been happening since journalism was ever a thing.  That in no way invalidates what they do or why it's important that they do it. 

 

 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:


Ford's account has not been discredited. It's pretty obvious he Kavanaugh lied under oath to Congress. Multiple times. That alone should be an impeachable offense. It doesn't matter how embarrassing his honesty would have been. He lied under oath. How can you trust him to confirm him? The Senate Republicans abdicated their duty and placed him in a position of power after he lied to them. 

 

The funny thing here is Brutus just got done lecturing the NYT for making claims they couldn't support.  I wonder if he can support the claim that Ford's story has been discredited.  By who, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YABO713 said:

....Yeah re-litigating the Kavanaugh hearings based on the evidence provided in the NYT article will not be a winning issue for Democrats

 

Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue it was never honestly litigated in the first place.  Republicans certainly didn't do their due diligence. They just wanted to confirm him as fast as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2018 at 9:35 AM, Gramarye said:

 

He was nominated to the Supreme Court on July 9.  The vote to send his nomination to the full Senate for confirmation was originally scheduled for last week, IIRC.  These unsubstantiated allegations were revealed very close to the planned date of the vote rather than the date of the nomination, and in fact were after all planned hearings on the nomination had already concluded.  I know that you think that the term "last minute" is illusory because the nomination could simply be postponed indefinitely, but that's not the way it works or should work, and so the term "last minute" is appropriate.  It is last minute on the political calendar.  Of course in the actual calendar, it's not last minute ... merely 38th year.

 

Wow, I'm shocked to learn this take aged terribly.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

^I'm not sure, are we talking about the Deborah Ramirez incident that the Times wrote extensively about over the weekend? Is that the one which she has no recollection of? Something that the article failed to mention. 

 

Hey, don't be too harsh - they corrected it in the fine print a day later, after everyone had already read it:

 

From the Times:

 

Editors’ Note: Sept. 15, 2019

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 "Editor" should be embarrassed. By all relevant accounts, the incident in question literally never happened. But hey, these folks who work for the NYT want to sell some books!

Edited by Ram23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2018 at 10:13 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Chances are the FBI had already interviewed the parties involved during his prior background check (excluding Ford who will testify under oath) so there is probably not much else for them to glean about it.

 

Turns out the FBI hardly interviewed anyone.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Except there is no proof he is lying. Everything is uncorroborated stories that are he said, she said and the witness accounts tend to favor Kavanaugh.

 

4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I made no comment to the validity of the tweet, only the irony in continuing to ignore much bigger stories to continue the Trump narrative about the media.  I expect the media to make mistakes and issue corrections.  That's been happening since journalism was ever a thing.  That in no way invalidates what they do or why it's important that they do it. 

 

 

It does not make them look good. In the environment we are in, it is more important than ever they try and get things right and actually engage in real journalism instead of hit pieces that are uncorroborated. The first rule in journalism is to have a reliable source, in this case the victim account where possible. This plays right into Trump's hand. If they want to defeat Trump, don't get into a pissing match with him and they need to do their jobs.  This is more than just a mistake. A mistake is you got a fact wrong but the tenor of your story was otherwise accurate. When you run with a story without talking to the victim or ignoring the fact that she does not recall the story, that is irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Except there is no proof he is lying. Everything is uncorroborated stories that are he said, she said and the witness accounts tend to favor Kavanaugh.

 

 

I said from the beginning with the Ford case that knowing the HS/college culture of the 80s, they could both believe their story.   He demurred as soon as she made it clear that's what she wanted.   She, in retrospect, wished she had done so quicker.   The Swetling story also rang perfectly true....if her intentions were very different.  Of course, there is no proof he was there.

 

Meanwhile, CBS may be doing to the NYT what much of the media did to CBS in 2004.

 

image.png.96ff5561c9db1bad27f48b909d41850e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue it was never honestly litigated in the first place.  Republicans certainly didn't do their due diligence. They just wanted to confirm him as fast as possible.

This was overlitigated based on unsubstantiated allegations from over 30 years prior. There was never a way to prove these allegations. Most of them relied on speculation and conjecture. Some of them were hearsay.  None of this is a standard that should be used to determine someone's fete, even in a job interview.  What was done was disgraceful for all involved.

 

Edited by Brutus_buckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

This was overlitigated based on unsubstantiated allegations from over 30 years prior. There was never a way to prove these allegations. Most of them relied on speculation and conjecture. Some of them were hearsay.  None of this is a standard that should be used to determine someone's fete, even in a job interview.  What was done was disgraceful for all involved.

 

So last year, you said we can't determine anything without a full investigation.  Now, a year later, you're saying no investigation should have happened?  I am, truly, shocked your takes have gotten even worse.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It does not make them look good. In the environment we are in, it is more important than ever they try and get things right and actually engage in real journalism instead of hit pieces that are uncorroborated. The first rule in journalism is to have a reliable source, in this case the victim account where possible. This plays right into Trump's hand. If they want to defeat Trump, don't get into a pissing match with him and they need to do their jobs.  This is more than just a mistake. A mistake is you got a fact wrong but the tenor of your story was otherwise accurate. When you run with a story without talking to the victim or ignoring the fact that she does not recall the story, that is irresponsible.

 

This kind of take is possible when you read the sensational headlines and don't learn the context.

 

This "new" allegation started this weekend because the NYT Opinion section was running a story on an upcoming book from two respected reporters.  This upcoming book details some of the allegations against Kavanaugh and the culture at Yale.  It also notes Deborah Ramirez offered the FBI 25 names who could act as corroborating witnesses.  Some even reached out to the FBI on their own.  NONE OF THEM WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI.  In the course of their reporting, the authors came across Max Stier who said he was trying to get in touch with the FBI about a similar incident he witnessed involving Kavanaugh.  In the book, they do note they could not land an interview with the alleged victim of that incident.

 

Things went off the rails this weekend when that story got tweeted out (just a horrendous tweet, btw) and people started screenshotting that particular paragraph of the article about the book.  So the opinion writer omitted a pretty big sentence, yes.  But now, we have conservatives, as evidenced by all the responses here, completely dismissing it because X women couldn't accurately depict Kavanaugh's junk and alleged victim supposedly doesn't recall the story (I do like how we're not supposed to believe the story because the Times couldn't get her on the record, yet we're supposed to believe her friends who didn't go on the record... cognitive dissonance at its finest).  This is, of course, to say nothing about trauma and memory and how some people don't recall traumatic events that happened to them given their emotional or mental state at the time.  It's not unheard of is my point.

 

So, to summarize:

-FBI failed to interview many corroborating witnesses to Ford's allegation

-FBI interviewed NONE of the 25 witnesses Deborah Ramirez offered to corroborate her allegation

-FBI declined to follow up on another incident alleged to have occurred at Yale

 

None of these were "last minute."  These were all known to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI well in advance of Kavanaugh's scheduled vote.  I patiently await retraction from all those who posted about how this was just "pure politics" and a "last minute hit job."  Because ya'll are so principled, right?

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

 

So, to summarize:

-FBI failed to interview many corroborating witnesses to Ford's allegation

-FBI interviewed NONE of the 25 witnesses Deborah Ramirez offered to corroborate her allegation

-FBI declined to follow up on another incident alleged to have occurred at Yale

 

None of these were "last minute."  These were all known to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI well in advance of Kavanaugh's scheduled vote.  I patiently await retraction from all those who posted about how this was just "pure politics" and a "last minute hit job."  Because ya'll are so principled, right?

 

The summary is a bit inaccurate.

1) The FBI attempted to interview people named in Ford's case. Some did not want to speak (of which they had the right) others denied the event happened as Ford described (See Leland Keyser, her good friend).

2) FBI did not interview Ramirez witnesses beyond the initial conversation because her story was not deemed credible.

3) The other "incidents" named in the book (namely the Stier recount, is hearsay and would not reach the level to investigate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Except there is no proof he is lying. Everything is uncorroborated stories that are he said, she said and the witness accounts tend to favor Kavanaugh.

 

It does not make them look good. In the environment we are in, it is more important than ever they try and get things right and actually engage in real journalism instead of hit pieces that are uncorroborated. The first rule in journalism is to have a reliable source, in this case the victim account where possible. This plays right into Trump's hand. If they want to defeat Trump, don't get into a pissing match with him and they need to do their jobs.  This is more than just a mistake. A mistake is you got a fact wrong but the tenor of your story was otherwise accurate. When you run with a story without talking to the victim or ignoring the fact that she does not recall the story, that is irresponsible.

 

Wait, you're trying to say you want an honest, better media that only reports the facts even when they're unfavorable to conservatives?

 

jan.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The summary is a bit inaccurate.

1) The FBI attempted to interview people named in Ford's case. Some did not want to speak (of which they had the right) others denied the event happened as Ford described (See Leland Keyser, her good friend). An incomplete investigation does not equal exoneration.

2) FBI did not interview Ramirez witnesses beyond the initial conversation because her story was not deemed credible. Refusing to interview any one of the 25 people makes it hard to believe the "not credible" label.  Burying your head in the sand when people are trying to contact you with info is a sham of an investigation.

3) The other "incidents" named in the book (namely the Stier recount, is hearsay and would not reach the level to investigate. An alleged eyewitness to a crime committed by a SCOTUS nominee does "not reach the level to investigate?"   LMAO.  What a joke.

 

So during the fall of 2018 you stressed the importance of finding the truth, waiting for all the facts.  And now you're saying the FBI did what they could by interviewing, what, 4 people?  And that the rest - despite eyewitnesses willing to come forward and some 25 people who might be able to corroborate the Ramirez story - is deemed not worth to investigate.  Literally burying your head in the sand to avoid the possible truth?  Like I said, I'm shocked your takes have gotten worse.  Then again, maybe I shouldn't be.  This response was as predictable as the current President losing his **** on twitter.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

So during the fall of 2018 you stressed the importance of finding the truth, waiting for all the facts.  And now you're saying the FBI did what they could by interviewing, what, 4 people?  And that the rest - despite eyewitnesses willing to come forward and some 25 people who might be able to corroborate the Ramirez story - is deemed not worth to investigate.  Literally burying your head in the sand to avoid the possible truth?  Like I said, I'm shocked your takes have gotten worse.  Then again, maybe I shouldn't be.  This response was as predictable as the current President losing his **** on twitter.

The FBI is bound by evidentiary standards in their investigations. They don't go chasing every avenue of gossip like a game of Telephone. The truth is important. The truth is not hearsay. You cant investigate conjecture and speculation. You need more than I saw once at a drunken party in college 30 years ago this happened to a third party. That is not something that meets any standard of investigation. Now, if the victim came forward and said it happened, then you can look to the third party story to corroborate the victim claims. There are certain evidentiary standards that need to be followed in a search for truth. Otherwise, you are not searching for truth and only on a witch hunt.

 

The sad thing is that you don't care about justice and evidence, you solely are looking for any story that supports your position on Kavanaugh without regards to whether or not it has any basis in truth. It appears in your opinion, the truth matters little, if the allegations are there, you need nothing further. That is a scary standard.

 

Secondly - To your misleading points.

1) and incomplete investigation does not equal exoneration. - When you do not have any way to prove the allegations one way or another, the investigation is complete. Do I believe Ford's account, of course I don't. However, Can I be 100% sure she is making it up, no. That does not mean that an investigation could answer these questions. IN this case, you have a he said/she said case from 30+ years ago and none of the witnesses corroborate her story.  What evidence has arisen to warrant further investigation. Just because you were not happy with the results of the investigation, does not mean the investigation was not complete to the best of the ability.

 

2)Refusing to interview any one of the 25 people makes it hard to believe the "not credible" label.  Burying your head in the sand when people are trying to contact you with info is a sham of an investigation. Again, if your victim has a story that proves non-reliable, then you don't need to waste time interviewing other witnesses to try and show a victim who is already unreliable to be reliable. You cant do that with a 3rd party witness. The victim testimony stands on their own.

 

3)alleged eyewitness to a crime committed by a SCOTUS nominee does "not reach the level to investigate?"   LMAO.  What a joke. You have a clear lack of understanding over the authority of the FBI to investigate this matter. They were able to investigate for background purposes only, they had no jurisdiction to investigate the potential sexual assault matters from a criminal standpoint. These were state issues and on local police to investigate. The president could not even give the FBI the authority to look into this from a criminal standpoint. The only thing the FBI could look into was a limited scope background check investigation

 

 

Edited by Brutus_buckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Wait, you're trying to say you want an honest, better media that only reports the facts even when they're unfavorable to conservatives?

 

jan.gif

If you are doing your job and want to engender trust amongst the public. absolutely.

 

If you want to investigate the kavanaugh matter, that is perfectly fair game, but be responsible and report facts, don't create gossip to support the narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The FBI is bound by evidentiary standards in their investigations. They don't go chasing every avenue of gossip like a game of Telephone. The truth is important. The truth is not hearsay. You cant investigate conjecture and speculation. You need more than I saw once at a drunken party in college 30 years ago this happened to a third party. That is not something that meets any standard of investigation. Now, if the victim came forward and said it happened, then you can look to the third party story to corroborate the victim claims. There are certain evidentiary standards that need to be followed in a search for truth. Otherwise, you are not searching for truth and only on a witch hunt.

 

The sad thing is that you don't care about justice and evidence, you solely are looking for any story that supports your position on Kavanaugh without regards to whether or not it has any basis in truth. It appears in your opinion, the truth matters little, if the allegations are there, you need nothing further. That is a scary standard.

 

Secondly - To your misleading points.

1) and incomplete investigation does not equal exoneration. - When you do not have any way to prove the allegations one way or another, the investigation is complete. Do I believe Ford's account, of course I don't. However, Can I be 100% sure she is making it up, no. That does not mean that an investigation could answer these questions. IN this case, you have a he said/she said case from 30+ years ago and none of the witnesses corroborate her story.  What evidence has arisen to warrant further investigation. Just because you were not happy with the results of the investigation, does not mean the investigation was not complete to the best of the ability.

 

2)Refusing to interview any one of the 25 people makes it hard to believe the "not credible" label.  Burying your head in the sand when people are trying to contact you with info is a sham of an investigation. Again, if your victim has a story that proves non-reliable, then you don't need to waste time interviewing other witnesses to try and show a victim who is already unreliable to be reliable. You cant do that with a 3rd party witness. The victim testimony stands on their own.

 

3)alleged eyewitness to a crime committed by a SCOTUS nominee does "not reach the level to investigate?"   LMAO.  What a joke. You have a clear lack of understanding over the authority of the FBI to investigate this matter. They were able to investigate for background purposes only, they had no jurisdiction to investigate the potential sexual assault matters from a criminal standpoint. These were state issues and on local police to investigate. The president could not even give the FBI the authority to look into this from a criminal standpoint. The only thing the FBI could look into was a limited scope background check investigation 

 

Gee, if only the Senate Judiciary Committee could investigate or have another 3rd party investigate more thoroughly then we wouldn't be left with, "welp, they did what could...put him on the bench because the FBI didn't find enough evidence to press charges!"  At least you are honest that the investigation was a sham and did not get to the truth.  Why you then suddenly decide there shouldn't have been a pause in Kavanaugh's vote or a more thorough investigation is a bit bizarre.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is that if an investigation does not confirm your predisposed prejudices, keep going until you can turn up something that fits your narrative. Even then, if you cant find anything, then treat uncorroborated rumors as fact because they fit your narrative  better than the truth and facts.

 

You clearly wont settle for anything that does not result in a finding that fits your narrative, even if you have to make it up.  Even the low standards of investigations have standards. Given that the investigation did not provide anything to support your prejudices then it is a sham in your view.  Next time you claim you actually care about the facts, we can remember that this situation proves otherwise.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, if your victim has a story that proves non-reliable, then you don't need to waste time interviewing other witnesses to try and show a victim who is already unreliable to be reliable. You cant do that with a 3rd party witness. The victim testimony stands on their own. 

 

Who determines it was non-reliable?  No one bothered to interview her or anyone else.  Do you suddenly not remember this?

 

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 10:38 PM, DarkandStormy said:

 

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 3:27 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, trying to get someone to corroborate the stories and the facts is important.

 

Trying to get someone to corroborate the stories and the facts = important.  The FBI interviewed, what, four people?  Not a single person of the up to 25 who could corroborate some or all of the Ramirez allegation was interviewed.  I get the FBI background check is limited in scope, but come one.  You don't think the Senate Judiciary Committee could have interviewed some of them?  Had a 3rd party do it?  And now you're saying, "well, the investigation was complete, so Brett is good!  Leave him on the bench, no questions asked."  You said yourself, just last year, that trying to corroborate (or, heck, even invalidating) some of the stories and facts is important.  The story in front of you shows the investigation to be incomplete.

 

I mean, we all know you aren't a serious person but for pete's sake, just own it.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The New York Times’s travesty of journalistic ethics

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-the-new-york-timess-travesty-of-journalistic-ethics/ar-AAHrKnQ

 

The story, since modified to include crucial information, was an adapted excerpt from a book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” written by two Times staff writers, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. In it, the authors reported allegations by a Yale classmate that Kavanaugh was at a “drunken dorm party” where “friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

 

Setting aside the logistics of such a feat, more eye-popping was the omission from the original Times piece that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed for the book — and, according to friends, doesn’t remember any such incident .

 

Such an oversight is inexcusable.

 

The Times added these details to the story after they were flagged by the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, who had an advance copy of the book. The Times writers, who said the details had been in the excerpt’s initial draft, made media rounds Monday and Tuesday to explain the omission, and essentially blamed editors, who, they said, “in the haste” of trying to close out production, had deleted the reference.

 

The facts that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed by the authors, and apparently told friends that she doesn’t recall any such incident, amount to the very definition of a non-story. For the record, The Post learned of the accusation last year but declined to publish it because the alleged witnesses weren’t identified and the woman said to be involved refused to comment.

 

===========================

 

It says something when the WaPo is giving props to The Federalist for forcing the NYT to issue a major correction or clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...