As we told you earlier, The Federalist Mollie Hemingway threw ice-cold water all over that New York Time story on Brett Kavanaugh after she caught the two reporters omitting facts from their upcoming book that “completely undercuts” their insinuation that there was a second incident at Yale:

NYT Reporters’ essay about a supposed second Yale incident omitted their own book reporting that completely undercuts it: alleged victim denies any memory of it. Journalistically indefensible, though gullible additional reporters are spreading it of course. — Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 15, 2019

And we had high hopes that the NYT would address this “journalistically indefensible” situation when we say this tweet from @NYTimesPR:

We would like to address the questions we’re seeing related to a book excerpt in today’s Sunday Review section. — NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019

And we were sorely mistaken. Rather than address what Hemingway called out, they simply explained that this was just a book excerpt and that’s why it wasn’t treated as new or reported on previously:

The book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, is a well-reported and newsworthy account that reveals new details and sheds new light on a matter of significant national interest. — NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019

The excerpt of the book was published in the Sunday Review, a section that includes both news analysis and opinion pieces. The section frequently runs excerpts of books produced by Times reporters. — NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019

The new revelations contained in the piece were uncovered during the reporting process for the book, which is why this information did not appear in The Times before the excerpt. — NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019

Also, a tweet that went out from the @NYTOpinion account yesterday was clearly inappropriate and offensive. We apologize for it and are reviewing the decision-making with those involved. — NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 15, 2019

That’s it? Nothing about this omission that disproves the 2nd incident theory?

Related: