[NutsOnYew]

Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.

So, the New Yorker knew the allegations were crap before they printed the story.

[Alberta's Child]

Kind of astonishing that they'd run that story. That one was even less credible than Ford's -- which is badly filled with holes.

With the Ford allegation, people she named to the Washington Post as "corroborating witnesses" came out with public denials AFTER they learned that they were the "unnamed witnesses" in the Washington Post story.

With the Ramirez allegation, the story was so ludicrous that the denials of the people she named as witnesses were noted right in the body of the New Yorker article.