[ThunderSleeps]

I realize the NYT is now a full-on propaganda machine for the left, with no ethics, no journalistic integrity... But do you really believe they just pulled this lady's name out of a virtual hat and wrote her into their original drivel? I'll bet she was contacted, and was initially on-board with taking another run at Kavanaugh, and then got cold feet and is now throwing NYT under the bus. Maybe her lawyer explained libel law and counter-suits to her.

Not that getting publicly discgraced is a problem for the NYT, they're a sewer rag now anyway but. I believe she was in on it, in spite of her story now. The NYT wouldn't have pressed forward with this trash that could be so easily torpedoed. This had to have been a surprise to them too.

[KevinB]

From the article:

The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no other comment about the episode.

The only firsthand account concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it. (The lawyer, Max Stier, did not actually provide his account directly; the Times acknowledged that "two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier" had relayed his supposed version of events.)

[rolling_stone]

The NYT wouldn’t have pressed forward with this trash that could be so easily torpedoed. This had to have been a surprise to them too.

nope the woman denied any knowledge in the book..she didn’t backtrack