What the?.... "The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party."
So why even present the story. There's ZERO corroboration that Kavanaugh was present? And 6 direct sources saying he wasn't. Ridiculous.
newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
So why even present the story. There's ZERO corroboration that Kavanaugh was present? And 6 direct sources saying he wasn't. Ridiculous.
newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
This is an even worse construct than Ms. Fords sketchy claims.
In this example the SIX people cited by the accuser as present during at the specific incident, each state it never happened. ZERO people corroborate the claim.
In this example the SIX people cited by the accuser as present during at the specific incident, each state it never happened. ZERO people corroborate the claim.
Just to be clear. Prior to publishing the story, the New Yorker was unable to find a single person to corroborate the claims made by the accuser.
Not one.
ZERO.
However, they found 6 who refuted the story.
SIX!
Who refuted.
Yet they still ran the story.
Not one.
ZERO.
However, they found 6 who refuted the story.
SIX!
Who refuted.
Yet they still ran the story.
No.
STOP.
THINK.
I'm serious.
Think about this:
*A person makes a claim
*No evidence supports the claim
*All evidence refutes the claim
*Yet the media publish the claim as valid.
If this isn't textbook liable. [malicious intent] I don't know what is.
STOP.
THINK.
I'm serious.
Think about this:
*A person makes a claim
*No evidence supports the claim
*All evidence refutes the claim
*Yet the media publish the claim as valid.
If this isn't textbook liable. [malicious intent] I don't know what is.
