Sounds like the New York Times has almost completely re-written their original story about Kavanaugh’s latest accuser, Deborah Ramirez, without making any sort of editor’s note about the edits and changes made.

How strange.

What makes this look even shadier is the piece they edited out is in regard to Ramirez’s inability to find any witnesses who could or would corroborate her story …

Oopsie.

Now, why would they edit out such an important fact?

Gosh, we’re super confused here … *eye roll*

Shady.

AF.

Wow.

Sean Davis leveled the narrative that the line in question was still there ‘in this other story’:

Give ’em Hell, Sean.

PLEASE indeed.

They won’t answer Sean’s question because if they did they’d have to admit they are trying to control the narrative rather than report the facts.

We see you, New York Times.

Just wow.

Unreal.

Ok, that’s not true. At this point seeing the media’s gross and blatant bias isn’t all that unreal … which is incredibly sad.


Related:

TOO FAR! Jimmy Kimmel’s ABHORRENT and violent joke about Kavanaugh BITES him right in the a*s

Looks BAD! After spending DAYS bragging about Kavanaugh GOTCHA, Michael Avenatti locks his Twitter account

Now WHY OH WHY would they do that?! NYT quickly scrubs source of yearbook hit piece on Kavanaugh