Can you say Freudian slip?
That’s about the only explanation that comes to mind after noticing the New York Times made a major error while reporting on the whole Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault debacle.
The story so far: Christine Blasey Ford, a college professor from California, claims that Kavanaugh assaulted her when both were high school students at a party. Ford made her allegations in the form of a letter sent to the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein deliberately kept the letter under wraps until it was politically convenient to spring the allegations upon Kavanaugh just before his confirmation vote.
Ford has refused to participate in any Senate Judiciary Committee investigation, including giving testimony on her own behalf. (RELATED: Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford Wants FBI Investigation, Won’t Testify Before Congress.) Likewise, Sen. Feinstein is also refusing to cooperate on the investigation, demanding, along with Ford, the FBI’s intercession. The FBI has already said it won’t investigate the matter. (RELATED: Here’s Why An FBI Investigation Of Kavanaugh Would Solve Nothing.)
So, the job of investigating has been left to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the media. Liberal journalists are busy trying to contact any possible witnesses who can corroborate Ford’s story. So far the results have been dismal. (RELATED: Another Kavanaugh Witness, Patrick Smyth, Emerges – Denies Sexual Assault Incident.)
Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh, has been named as the party who witnessed the entire assault go down. But he has already denied having any memory of the incident to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Being one of the scant witnesses in Ford’s story makes Judge’s admission extra damaging to the case against Kavanaugh.
The intrepid Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner noticed the New York Times flubbed majorly in reporting on the story. He points out what the Times originally wrote:
One possible witness is a friend of Judge Kavanaugh’s, Mark Judge, who Dr. Blasey said was in the room with Judge Kavanaugh when the assault occurred. Mr. Judge had told the Judiciary Committee that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say, seemingly foreclosing the possibility of an additional witness interview, at least for now.
An earlier version of this article misstated what Mark Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said that he does not remember the episode, not that he does.
The story was up for more than 40 minutes https://t.co/gFTpxpdRxl
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) September 20, 2018
Strange how accidents like that happen, isn’t it? It’s almost like the author wanted Ford to be aware of the incident, bolstering Ford’s story. And it’s almost like liberals hunger for this kind of affirmation for their preconceived notions, despite contradictory facts.
Of course, I have no idea if it’s true or not that the remark was a Freudian slip. But the media has practically been openly rooting against Kavanaugh from the beginning. The more media missteps happen along the way of this process, the less I think they’re genuine mistakes.
But perhaps I’m just too cynical.
