In NYT-speak, this means 'chose not to corroborate'.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"I actually understand why Democrat leaders didn't take our stories seriously when the Times reported them in June but are taking them seriously now.

It was by design.

The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite talking to two of my friends.

I gave them the contact information for five friends.

They called the two who I clarified would not know about the abuse but would be able to affirm our relationship timeline, events, etc.

They simply did not call the other three.

I also gave them the names of all my former roommates who remembered him stalking our row house (which was about 5 houses down from his) and waiting for me to return. I gave them screenshots of messages between these roommates and I discussing it.

I gave them the names of other men I dated who might have remembered him following us around the hill and showing up on my stoop after we walked home from dates to confront us. I gave them emails to my landlord urgently ending my lease and moving to an apartment across town and diary entries talking about it - all time marked.

I told them that during pre-marital counseling I had spoken to my ex-fiance about the abuse because I had to explain to him why I reacted with such terror any time he lost his temper. They said oh NO we don't need to bother HIM (or my priest). Besides, I had written about it in my diary in detail, they reassured.

As the weeks dragged on I stopped trying to give them evidence because the amount I had already given them seemed to overwhelm them and I thought it meant they clearly had more than enough to verify my every claim.

My friends might not have known the details of the abuse, but they affirmed that yes, I had told them that he was abusive—long before he ran for Senate.

Besides, they assured, my part in their reporting would be small. I thought my details would only serve to affirm Jenny and the other anonymous woman.

Jenny and I - having never met or spoken - both shared with these reporters terrifyingly similar details of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and cycles of abuse/love bombing. The third unnamed woman in the story did as well.

But tell me again how they “could not corroborate.”


Link: NYT

A lot of silence here on the Left regarding the NYT pretending there was no story here.

I have been asking about this for a while. Most said nothing at all so that they could later on say, "Show me where I supported him". This is why I ask them them to show me where the condemned him....they would not until hi flagged in the pools enough for their party to send the signal out that it was ok to cut bait with them.
Then there was the disgusting guy here who defended Platner, deflected from the issue, and rationalized his actions (thanks for the heads up on that btw - you know who you are).

Ruben Gallego is a two time loser. He sure knows how to pick them. There's more but now it's every man for himself. Party first. Victims way down the list. And what of the Dems here? Honor system boys. Who was all in on this Nazi Commie fake fisherman and his weirdo social sites and his weirdo activities?

Funny how they act like this is the first they've heard of it. I guess it might be true that they hadn't heard of it, since their new sources would not cover it.

(no message)

And there is the important little detail that the claims against Trump were mostly false, created by you and yours.

I did say "usually" though. Occasionally, you get embarrassed enough to back off. Then, the typical patter is that Quest will post asking why everyone cares, as we are not Maine voters. Tyrone will have a link talking about how this is commonplace on the right...and you will fail to call him out on his whataboutism.