Following President Trump's call for a mass resignation from The New York Times and the authors of the Brett Kavanaugh story, where editors are blamed for a blatant omission, let the turmoil over journalism, the Supreme Court and the Sexual Attacks do not detect signs of fading.
It is obvious that there will be no serious move to punish Kavanaugh based on the erroneous Times story, but many of the 2020 Democrats are still calling for it, and Squad member Ayanna Pressley has a resolution yesterday brought in.
A story that had to be painstakingly corrected runs its rhetoric against its least-loved newspaper. At some point he tweeted that the Times should close its doors ̵
19659003] Trump later changed that, saying at his rally in New Mexico that he "demanded the resignation of all New York Times contributors to the Kavanaugh hate story. And while you're at it, the Russian witch-hunting scam, which is just as wrong story.
Trump called Kavanaugh "a great, brilliant man," and continued, "They took the old gray lady with them. You know, the New York Times, for years the old gray lady, so respected. They have taken the old gray lady and smashed her, destroyed her virtue and ruined her reputation. She can never recover and under the current leadership will never return to greatness. The Times is dead. Long live the New York Times. "
Of course Trump is happy to quote his hometown newspaper if it contains something favorable. But the Times provided a piece of ammunition that left out important information from the book of their reporters. The story indirectly quoted a lawyer who said he had seen Kavanaugh exposing himself at another drunken party in Yale, but omitted the alleged victim who had told friends she did not remember such an incident.
In the meantime, the Times reporters reported Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. The author of "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation" was on the air to defend himself and promote her book.
"There was no attempt to mislead anyone," Kelly told Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC.
As a merit, O & Donnell asked the authors about the critical gap in their newspaper article. They say their design included this language.
Subscribe to Howie's Media Buzzmeter podcast, a reef of the hottest stories of the day.
"It was in progress – in a hurry in the editing process, as you know, to close the section," said Pogrebin.
Well, that did give me some sympathy for them, though I do not understand how an editor might make an explosive charge of indecent revelation against a Supreme Court tribunal, but delete the part about the alleged victim that is not remind. And I have to say, as a longtime newspaper reporter, I never had a story released without looking at the revised version, and sometimes pushed for mistakes that were inserted or important details removed.
Some Democrats use the controversial procedure to still call for impeachment pieces. In the show by Rachel Maddow, Kamala Harris demanded an impeachment investigation and said that the confirmatory hearings were a "fake trial". Maddow did not raise criticism of The Times history or the correction.
Nevertheless, the Democratic leaders have made this clear The idea of impeachment goes nowhere. Jerry Nadler said he was too busy accusing Trump.
Some Democrats complain that the FBI did not take any action last year when Senator Chris Coons wrote a letter about Stier's account four days before the confirmation vote. But the office, which carried out a limited investigation, had little to do, and some committee Democrats knew about the claim and said nothing in public.
A puzzle was solved yesterday when the authors went on "The View".
When promoting Kavanaugh's story, the Times published a tweet that she later dismissed as "clearly offensive."
"Cocking a penis at a party in a drunken dorm may be harmless, but when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez confirmed that she did not even listen to Yale."
Robin Pogrebin quit the ABC -Show to that she has written the tweet. Your explanation?
"I have designed this in order to achieve the opposite effect, namely the expectation of those who would say, 'A guy who pants down at a party when he is drunk is in the spectrum of sexual Wrongdoing. It is not a sexual assault. It is not rape. What's the big deal? "