Michael Smerconish noticed something odd about The New York Times coverage of a new allegation: A sentence undermining the accuser’s story had been deleted.
Days before the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hear allegations of sexual impropriety against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, radio and TV host Michael Smerconish noticed something odd about The New York Times coverage of a new allegation: A sentence undermining the accuser’s story had been deleted.
Deborah Ramirez accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at a party while the two of them were students at Yale. Smerconish noticed The New York Times had removed a sentence in the report on her allegation noting Ramirez recently told former classmates she wasn’t sure if it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself.
“Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” Why is this sentence now gone from this @nytimes story? https://t.co/ufSehglkTm
— Michael Smerconish (@smerconish) September 25, 2018
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) September 25, 2018
Answering the question of how information undermining one of Kavanaugh’s accusers was stealth-edited from the story is a little complicated, and spotlights a problem with internet-age journalism extending beyond this incident. The complication arises from the fact that the language the NYT deleted remains almost intact in a story the paper ran earlier. – READ MORE
[divider][/divider]As an extraordinary series of uncorroborated, lurid last-minute allegations threatens to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court, nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford, the California professor accusing him of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago, are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning.
The proceedings may be upended by late-breaking developments: In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their “first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint.” They conducted a second interview the next day.
On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a “more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford.” GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.
Ford has previously said there is “zero chance” she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.
In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: “Republicans are flailing,” the aide said, according to NBC News. “They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. … Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules.” – READ MORE
[contentcards url=”http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/26/the-nyt-stealth-edited-the-first-draft-of-history-on-brett-kavanaugh/” target=”_blank”]