I defy anyone to justify the New York Times running the news analysis piece on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.

The Times issued the following “walk back” below after new revelations emerged on the characters cited in the article.

Editors’ Note says: “An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

However, the Editor’s note is incomplete in the details that would have — in my opinion — forced the paper to make a full retraction.

Here is the amended paragraph:

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier; the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.

First you will notice the editor’s note suggests there is another allegation. However the alleged victim “does not recall the episode” and secondly the person making the allegation refuses to speak.

So how do you cite it as credible?

Secondly, the mention of “classmate Max Stier” offers no explanation of who he is and his history with Kavanaugh.

Stier was on President Bill Clinton’s Whitewater investigation defense team in the 1990s at the same time Kavanaugh was on the legal team of Independent Counsel Ken Starr.

So there is an axe to grind here on Stier’s part.

You will recall that Stier defended Clinton, when a woman accused him of exposing himself to her in hotel room. Clinton’s legal team settled that case for $850,000. Clinton also lost his law license for five year for giving misleading testimony in the case.

Certainly labeling the article a news analyst does not clear the Times of biases. Online it is not mentioned if this is an excerpt of the writers’ upcoming book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.”

However, the piece is in keeping the new agenda of the Times to look at stories from the racial prospective, which along with its left-leaning partisanship is another agenda the paper should examine further.