Now Jill Abramson, the former New York Times executive editor, is defending the paper’s outrageous attack on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Really, Jill?
In an interview with Fox News’ Harris Faulkner, she waved off the (later corrected) failure to note that the “new allegation” isn’t supported by the supposed victim: “It was no conspiracy to leave out that fact; it was unfortunately cut from the piece.”
But that damning fact makes the charge far less than hearsay: The reporters never even spoke to the third party who (supposedly) made the claim that the “victim” herself doesn’t corroborate.
Abramson also said the article had value because it showed that the FBI did only a “sham investigation” of the claims from Deborah Ramirez.
In fact, it talked to her and several other supposed witnesses — and got no corroboration. Abramson seems to think it should have kept working (with the Senate keeping Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote on hold) until it found someone to say what Kavanaugh’s foes wanted to hear.
Meanwhile, in the four days since the Times effectively retracted its attack, there’s still no apology or retraction from Kamala Harris, Liz Warren, Beto O’Rourke, Julian Castro, Cory Booker or Pete Buttigieg — who all seized on the initial story to demand Kavanaugh’s impeachment.
Have they no decency?