https://www.foxnews.com/politics
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.
Oh yes, that might have been a pertinent fact to include.
Wrote the Washington Examiner's Jerry Dunleavy: "Crazy how the 'one element' that wasn’t included in the original article was the part where the alleged victim’s friends said she doesn’t remember it happening."
The Times did not mention Stier's work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier's legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a "respected thought leader."
The third party allegation comes from a someone who had reason to hate Kavanaugh and want him removed for political purposes.
The Times went on to note in the article that it had "corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier," but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.
So the “corroboration” was only that Mr. Stier reported this to the FBI, not that the accusation was corroborated. The NY Times, along with the rest of the MSM will not have an ounce of credibility after this Trump administration is over. I never thought I would see the NYT’s reputation be worse than The National Enquirer. Who knew the highly respected NYT was really just a drive by tabloid doing the dirty work of the Democratic Socialist Party?
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.
Oh yes, that might have been a pertinent fact to include.
Wrote the Washington Examiner's Jerry Dunleavy: "Crazy how the 'one element' that wasn’t included in the original article was the part where the alleged victim’s friends said she doesn’t remember it happening."
The Times did not mention Stier's work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier's legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a "respected thought leader."
The third party allegation comes from a someone who had reason to hate Kavanaugh and want him removed for political purposes.
The Times went on to note in the article that it had "corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier," but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.
So the “corroboration” was only that Mr. Stier reported this to the FBI, not that the accusation was corroborated. The NY Times, along with the rest of the MSM will not have an ounce of credibility after this Trump administration is over. I never thought I would see the NYT’s reputation be worse than The National Enquirer. Who knew the highly respected NYT was really just a drive by tabloid doing the dirty work of the Democratic Socialist Party?
Last edited:
