The NY Times has just another Vox or HuffPo. Zero credibility. They run with a story they know is demonstrably false, let it marinate for a day, and then finally correct. In the meantime, the low IQ part of the electorate has fallen for it and now believes it... .even with the correction. Look at their Presidential candidates. Do they apologize for their evil after being told they were lies? No. They are still trying to run with the story.
That is not true. She testified about it under oath in front of the Senate. What she didn’t do was speak to the NYT about it. Her not speaking to a single media outlet does not mean it was “refuted” or “debunked.”
you're a liar. The woman who 'allegedly' had Kavanaugh's penis shoved in her face NEVER testified. In fact, it was told then that she denied any knowledge of the event.
The Times criticized its publication decision, not the accuracy of the story. The book the Times was reporting on said that several people corroborated Ramirez’s testimony in the week after the alleged event. It also reported that the FBI investigation was even more hemmed in, by a long shot, than previously reported.
The claim that Ramírez “denies it ever happened” is a BIG LIE.
I suppose.... if one believes all her friends are lying. So you'd have us believe a DemocRAT activist over the victim's friends? That doesn't make sense.
Why the retraction if not for the incredibility of the story?
Several of the witnesses on the approved list given to the FBI by the DOJ requested to speak to the FBI. But the FBI didn’t speak to them. Agents said they were ordered not to speak to any witnesses.
Which of her friends denied it?
In other words, if you tell “lies” about the swamp creatures, even if those “lies” are true, don’t complain when those swamp creatures get rape and death threats sent your way.
Because they reported it as fact without independently confirming it. Ramírez told another media source (New Yorker magazine) that Kavanaugh assaulted her and the NYT reported it as if she had told them that. That is the ONLY basis for the retraction.
Under oath to the Senate.
His lies and misogyny were on public display at his hearing.
When you make stuff up, you can prove anything you want.
There were no lies or misogyny by Kavanaugh. All the witnesses she named refuted her version, however, and backed Kavanaugh's version. She was also caught altering her story on several key details in an attempt to massage it into a narrative that may fit.
Several of her friends corroborated her story.
Mediamatters is not a legitimate source. That's alt-left propaganda. Worthless link.
She refused to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee about her accusation and instead told them to F off. Not credible. In addition her "friends" left this statement:
