Oopsie. NY Times Corrects Hit Piece on Kavanaugh

Republicans had their chance. The FBI could’ve done a really good investigation and put this to bed once and for all. But Republicans interfered with the FBI and kept their investigation limited and told them not to talk to most people. Normally, a cover-up, means guilt. And so far, this is been a cover-up

Ford doesn't when or where it occurred. The witnesses that Ford claimed were there have no recollection and even her best friend at the time has no recollection of the event. Kavanaugh and his friend that supposedly was there with him denies it happened. What more of an investigation do you need?

Don't know when, or where, the witnesses you give can't recall and it have over 30 years ago. So you do a house to house search and hope to find evidence?
 
Yes there is,

When the alleged victim disputes that it happened it is in fact very credible contradicting evidence.

Victim DOES NOT dispute, she doesn’t want to comment.
She said she CANT REMEMBER, DUMBASS.

No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.
Liar.

View attachment 279566

Moron, what part of declined to be interviewed do you not get?

We have friends claiming she doesn't remember, but we have officials saying she said it was true.We

I'll go with officials.
What part of you atre a proven liar are you missing.

She never told an official it was true.

No official claims or has claimed she said it was true. We have one comment told to friends which is she does not remember it happening and she will not discuss it.
 
Yes there is,

When the alleged victim disputes that it happened it is in fact very credible contradicting evidence.

Victim DOES NOT dispute, she doesn’t want to comment.
She said she CANT REMEMBER, DUMBASS.

No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.

Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.
It has been quoted and put in your face repeatedly and proves you are a dumb liar.

Quote where it says any officials claim she told them it was true.
 
She said she CANT REMEMBER, DUMBASS.

No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.
Liar.

View attachment 279566

Moron, what part of declined to be interviewed do you not get?

We have friends claiming she doesn't remember, but we have officials saying she said it was true.

I'll go with officials.
What part of there’s no accusation except in the dark minds of you Leftards?

She is not looking to accuse dummmy. Officials said that a witness told them that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in her hand. Victim niether confirms nor denies that account.


What fucking "Officals"?

The only person making the claim is a Democrat partisan asshole and the person that he said he heard that it happen to says she has no recollection. No recollection means that there is absolutely no proof that the Democrat partisan asshole that made the claim got it right. Well maybe in TDS afflicted Moon Bat Land but not the real world.

But keep up the hope Moon Bat.

Trump is going to be impeached any day now and Kavanaugh also.
 
dont-feed-troll.jpg
 
Yes there is,

When the alleged victim disputes that it happened it is in fact very credible contradicting evidence.

Victim DOES NOT dispute, she doesn’t want to comment.
She said she CANT REMEMBER, DUMBASS.

No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.

Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”
 
Victim DOES NOT dispute, she doesn’t want to comment.
She said she CANT REMEMBER, DUMBASS.

No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.

Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.
 
No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.
Liar.

View attachment 279566

Moron, what part of declined to be interviewed do you not get?

We have friends claiming she doesn't remember, but we have officials saying she said it was true.

I'll go with officials.
What part of there’s no accusation except in the dark minds of you Leftards?

She is not looking to accuse dummmy. Officials said that a witness told them that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in her hand. Victim niether confirms nor denies that account.


What fucking "Officals"?

Would it kill you to READ? The officials that were in contact with the claimed witness.
 
She said she CANT REMEMBER, DUMBASS.

No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.

Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.

An the victim says she does not recall the incident. Sounds like denial to me. So the witness has nothing to corroborate his story. So, no evidence, no victim, no nothing.
 
No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.

Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.

An the victim says she does not recall the incident. Sounds like denial to me. So the witness has nothing to corroborate his story. So, no evidence, no victim, no nothing.

lol, no, that is not denial, you are just reading what you want to read instead of sticking to facts.

And witness testimony is NOTHING? Since when? You may also recall he wasn't the only witness remember seeing Kav's dick out at a party.

Kavanaugh Accused of Exposing Himself to a Second Yale Classmate

It stands as evidence untill it is contradicted, which it has not been.
 
Last edited:
Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.

An the victim says she does not recall the incident. Sounds like denial to me. So the witness has nothing to corroborate his story. So, no evidence, no victim, no nothing.

Witness testimony is NOTHING? Since when?

It stands as evidence untill it is contradicted, which it has not been.

Without corroboration, you have absolutely nothing.

If I went and made up shit about you and claim a victim and the victim says they have no memory, I have absolutely nothing and this is exactly what happened. You got a big nothing burger. No corroboration, no victim, no crime. Go ahead investigate nothing.
 
Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.

An the victim says she does not recall the incident. Sounds like denial to me. So the witness has nothing to corroborate his story. So, no evidence, no victim, no nothing.

Witness testimony is NOTHING? Since when?

It stands as evidence untill it is contradicted, which it has not been.

Without corroboration, you have absolutely nothing.

Corraboration:

[Ramirez] alleged that during a Yale dorm party, a drunken Kavanaugh exposed his penis and shoved it into her face, causing her to touch it when she tried to push him away.

Kavanaugh Accused of Exposing Himself to a Second Yale Classmate

Will you now move the goal posts and still claim nothing?
 
New York Times Now Admits New Kavanaugh Accusation Is Fake News

"After the New York Times published their latest smear of Brett Kavanaugh, the left began foaming at the mouth, claiming that the article proved that Brett Kavanaugh lied during his confirmation hearing, that he is a proven rapist, etc., etc., etc. Those of us who actually read the article saw it for what it was: another unsubstantiated smear. Well, it looks like even the New York Times is admitting their article was fake news."

If there was any question the NYT is nothing but a yellow rag and is in league with radical-leftist Democrats.

"Despite the update, the damage has been done. Several 2020 Democrats jumped on the bogus allegations and called for Brett Kavanaugh's impeachment. How many of them will backtrack now that the New York Times has conceded the accusation in the article was even weaker than Elizabeth Warren's claim to be Native American?"

Democrats are fucking liars.
 
New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.

An the victim says she does not recall the incident. Sounds like denial to me. So the witness has nothing to corroborate his story. So, no evidence, no victim, no nothing.

Witness testimony is NOTHING? Since when?

It stands as evidence untill it is contradicted, which it has not been.

Without corroboration, you have absolutely nothing.

Corraboration:

[Ramirez] alleged that during a Yale dorm party, a drunken Kavanaugh exposed his penis and shoved it into her face, causing her to touch it when she tried to push him away.

Kavanaugh Accused of Exposing Himself to a Second Yale Classmate

Will you now move the goal posts and still claim nothing?

Ramirez is a separate allegation that could go to a pattern, however the victim doesn't recall the incident and the witness can't be used if their is no victim. The alleged witness is Max Steir a former Clinton lawyer, which brings up a whole lot of questions as to how politics plays into his whole story.

Tough sell. I say investigate and see what happens. The evidence as with Ford is very suspect.
 
She said she CANT REMEMBER, DUMBASS.

No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.

Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.

What "investigators"? There is no investigation going on against Kavanaugh.
 
She said she CANT REMEMBER, DUMBASS.

No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.

Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.
Wrong.

You are lying again.

She did not refuse to confirm or deny.

She stated she had no memory which is in fact a refutation of the account.

The original report has been contradicted
 
No she did not, she refused to comment publicly. But investigators say she did say to them it was true.

Not according to the Times article.

Quote it.

New York Times clarifies article detailing new Kavanaugh allegations
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Again, a witness told investigators that Kavanaugh had his dick out at a party and it was placed in victim's hand. Victim refuses to confirm or deny this account.

Therefore, the original reporting of that witness account remains uncontradicted.
Wrong.

You are lying again.

She did not refuse to confirm or deny.

She stated she had no memory which is in fact a refutation of the account.

The original report has been contradicted

Thank you!

If you don't remember an event, then it is a contradiction. The fact the witness was an attorney for Bill Clinton also makes me suspect of his recollection.
 

Forum List

Back
Top