After another drive-by smearing of Kavanaugh’s reputation, the NYT ‘corrects’ its story

After another drive-by smearing of Kavanaugh’s reputation, the NYT ‘corrects’ its story

By Wes Walker

A year ago, the media worked very hard to help Democrats discredit and destroy a Supreme Court nominee named Brett Kavanaugh. On the flimsiest of uncorroborated evidence (which at one point could not even narrow it down to which summer this alleged attack would have happened), a sitting judge who had successfully passed something like six FBI background checks was dragged through the mud and accused of being the worst sort of reprobate.

And the press is now aiding and abetting the Donks in experiencing déjà-vu all over again.

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

On Saturday, the New York Times published a piece by the authors of a soon-to-be-released “tell-all” that targets Justice Kavanaugh. According to the book’s authors, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, “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.”

No sooner had the hatchet job run than the same suspects who attempted to derail Kavanaugh’s career were out in force again. On Sunday, presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren was calling for Kavanaugh to be impeached. “Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him,” she tweeted adding, “Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.”

Fellow presidential wannabe Kamala Harris, who had embarrassed herself during the original Kavanaugh witch hunt posted this:

It wasn’t only Democratic lawmakers who sounded off about the column on Sunday. The Times had something to say about it themselves. Namely:

Talk about getting caught with your pants down!

The Times also published a tweet suggesting they knew all along that they were wrong to have run this story:

“Poorly phrased?” Is that code for ‘our lawyers were concerned we could be on the look for libel?

Cross posted at Clash Daily


For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.