New York Times authors of Kavanaugh article claim the editors removed crucial information

  Over the weekend several of the Democratic Presidential candidates made fools out of themselves (and they were not the only ones) by calling for the impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh based on a spurious hit piece put out by the New York Times.

 It turned out the woman in the story has no recollection of the event described in the article–which relied on the second-hand account of a person with ties to Hillary Clinton–and the paper had to backtrack from the story.

  How could the once reputable paper screw up so badly other than the fact they wanted the story to be true so much that they were willing to run with an uncorroborated story? That is one way, but there are other possibilities; what if the paper did not care whether or not the story was true? What if the paper went out of its way to libel a Supreme Court Justice?

  That is beginning to sound like the case because it is now being reported that the authors of this story claim they wrote that the victim had no recollection of the alleged incident which supposedly scarred her for life, but that the editors decided that was not pertinent information that the public needed to know.

  And liberals wonder why the people no longer trust the mainstream media…or the reactionary, vindictive Democrats for that matter.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium