As you might be aware, a New York Times article from Sunday has since been amended to include the not-so-small detail that the alleged victim does not recall any such incident. That update nukes the whole NYT article that some Democrats are trying to use to gin up “impeach Kavanaugh” support:

We report tonight the real bombshell: Christine Ford’s close HS friend (who Ford says was at the party when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her) said Ford’s story is not believable and told the FBI Ford’s allies pressured her, threatened her with a smear campaign to say otherwise https://t.co/GQhBTXHcze — Jan Crawford (@JanCBS) September 17, 2019

But the authors of the Times’ article that has backfired also wrote an anti-Kavanaugh book, which is, ironically, where Mollie Hemingway spotted the HUGE omission from the article in the Times. For some reason, the NYT’s WH correspondent Maggie Haberman wanted to highlight that for any media pointing out the omission from the Times’ article:

that information was also said to the same NYT reporters https://t.co/86yArtDf96 — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 17, 2019

Er, yeah, and that’s the problem:

Weird that it was in their book but left out of their big article! https://t.co/cmckcusZL2 — Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) September 17, 2019

Strange, right?

And they buried it. — EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) September 17, 2019

lololol “we had this news, too. we just chose instead to highlight our retreading of the New Yorker’s Ramirez coverage, offering nothing new despite packaging it that way." — T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) September 17, 2019

love to act indignant when a competing newsroom exercises better editorial judgment — T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) September 17, 2019

Buried the lede so far that it was never even in the story. https://t.co/nmCEAdMoLV — David Martosko (@dmartosko) September 17, 2019

And then…someone on the Times went out of their way to bury it. That is PRECISELY the problem. https://t.co/AqW0IffbF8 — Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) September 17, 2019

Right?

They certainly didn't seem to think it was very important. — Hey, guys (@jtLOL) September 17, 2019

And it would have stayed buried without @MZHemingway . — Pouncing Coder Brad (@bradcundiff) September 17, 2019

That’s very likely.

funny that it was in there book and they left it out of this dumpster fire of an article. WHY? Who made them do that? — Blackbeard (@SidtheKidd87) September 17, 2019

Wow! This dumpster fire is burning so hot even Maggie can't ignore it! — Jack Daley (@RealJackDaley) September 17, 2019

This tweet is something! These people have ZERO self respect and NO RESPECT for YOU. https://t.co/X1VDxpyKYh — Becca H (@LadyOnTheRight1) September 17, 2019

… "We had it. Just didn't care to report it." Cool, cool. https://t.co/S2eziq4642 — Josh Howell (@16jhowell) September 17, 2019

That makes it … worse? https://t.co/ZUk92i3Brh — Ken Smith (@smithkl42) September 17, 2019

Yeah, that explanation from Haberman certainly isn’t the defense of the NYT she thinks it is.