Brett Kavanaugh

Maybe the Media Mishandled the New Brett Kavanaugh Book Because It's Mostly a Dud

The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation doesn't shed much light on the Supreme Court justice or the allegations against him.

|

Two weeks have elapsed since New York Times writers Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly reported on a fresh accusation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from his time at Yale University.

The information was contained in an excerpt from their newly released book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation. Its rollout has produced one media failure after another, which is probably at least partly the fault of the authors. The book itself is inconsequential and likely to disappoint all those seeking some new, key insight into the man who joined the Supreme Court last year.

The book excerpt first appeared in the New York Times' Sunday Review—the opinion section. Top editors evidently did not think the new information about a previously unreported sexual misconduct allegation warranted coverage on the news side of the paper, "let alone a big one-page treatment," according to Vanity Fair.

Almost immediately, the news side's judgment rang true—to borrow a phrase Pogrebin and Kelly make liberal use of in their book—thanks to the Sunday Review's clumsy handling of the excerpt. The version that appeared in the paper omitted a key detail about the new accusation: Though a supposed witness of the misconduct, Democratic lawyer Max Stier, had allegedly seen Kavanaugh's friends take hold of his penis and push it toward a woman at a Yale dormitory party in the 1980s, the victim herself told friends she did not remember the encounter. Pogrebin and Kelly concede this in the book, but the Times' version left out the important clarification, prompting much-deserved criticism from Kavanaugh defenders and right-leaning media folks.

But even though the Stier scoop left much to be desired, it's easy to see why Pogrebrin and Kelly selected it for prominent promotion: There just isn't much else of interest in their book. Unfortunately, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation tells readers very little that they didn't already know about President Donald Trump's second Supreme Court appointee. Sparse insights into Kavanaugh's time at Mater Dei School, Georgetown Preparatory School, and Yale University do little to justify the book's ambitious title. For all the effort, Education is mostly a tedious retelling of last September's bitter confirmation hearings.

To their credit, Kelly and Pogrebin do approach their subject with a refreshing lack of bias, and are often fair to him. They do not turn Kavanaugh into a monster, and they flatly reject several of the more sensational allegations against him—including those made by controversial celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti through his unreliable client, Julie Swetnick. The book itself generally avoids making unfounded allegations, and the significant amount of reporting is not to be discounted.

Even so, the book's conclusion makes clear that Pogrebin and Kelly come down right where you would expect.

"As people, our gut reaction was that the allegations of Ford and Ramirez from the past rang true," they write. "As reporters, we uncovered nothing to suggest that Kavanaugh has mistreated women in the years since. Ultimately, we combined our notebooks with our common sense and came to believe an utterly human narrative: that Ford and Ramirez were mistreated by Kavanaugh as a teenager, and that Kavanaugh over the next thirty-five years became a better person. We come to this complicated, seemingly contradictory, and perhaps unsatisfying conclusion based on the facts as we found them."

These facts, though, are essentially the same ones reported exhaustively in major media outlets last year, when every journalist worth his or her salt made attempts to determine the location of the house where Christine Blasey Ford was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge. Aside from Ford, everyone allegedly present for the incident in question—Kavanaugh, Judge, friend P.J. Smyth, and notably, Leland Keyser, a close female friend of Ford's—denies any memory of it having occurred. Maybe they are wrong or lying. But neither Kavanaugh skeptics nor Kavanaugh defenders nor even Kavanaugh undecideds will change their minds based on the information in Education. We've heard most of it before.

Pogrebin and Kelly do break some new ground in recounting the tales of Kavanaugh's youth, though again—despite the title—the future justice's teenage years constitute significantly less than half of the book. Here, mundane aspects of adolescence are treated like revelations. Take how the authors describe the environment at Georgetown Prep:

Students could be cruel and combative, and competitive. Tensions sometimes became inflamed on the weekends because of excessive drinking. Many of the Prep boys were also ill-equipped for socializing with girls. An environment with limited sex education, no female students, and just a handful of female educators, some alumni say, became a breeding ground in the early 1980s for a casual brand of misogyny.

Among Prep's alpha males, there was a sense of entitlement—over girls, younger students, smaller boys, public school graduates, and non-athletes. A military-style social hierarchy was immediately evident to freshmen. First-years were treated like plebes, to be picked on and pushed around by the upperclassmen, some of whom had suffered the same hazing rituals. The more diminutive students were sometimes deposited into campus trash cans or stuffed into lockers. The bigger boys and those who had standing because of older brothers or ties to Mater Dei were inoculated.

The above could be a description of any boys high school in the U.S., but Pogrebin and Kelly write as if Kavanaugh was the product of some uniquely violent, misogynistic culture. In reality, it appears from their own reporting that he had one of the most normal upbringings imaginable, and showed completely typical interest in sports, drinking, girls (though he was awkward around them), and male camaraderie. It quickly becomes clear that this information is only of interest because the authors implicitly treat it as circumstantial evidence that Ford's account should be considered credible.

Pogrebin and Kelly are also inclined to condemn Kavanaugh for his hostile and combative temperament during the Senate Judiciary Committee's questioning relating to the Ford allegation. In fact, it is here that they engage in their most aggressive editorializing. They accuse Kavanaugh of "brazenly [violating] his very own principles about 'proper demeanor'" when he thunderously denied the accusations and lashed out at Democrats for scrutinizing him. They exhaustively quote Democratic politicians and left-of-center media folks asserting that Kavanaugh's aggressive temperament was itself disqualifying.

"Above and beyond the accusations of misdeeds, the charges of telling falsehoods, and the theme of heavy drinking sits another, more encompassing, dilemma: Kavanaugh's temperament," they write. "Despite superlative marks from the American Bar Association and many associates, Kavanaugh's usual evenness was absent from the September 27 hearing."

Far from being a "more encompassing dilemma" than potential sexual misconduct, Kavanaugh's anger was completely understandable. It did not remotely constitute some betrayal of principle. Yes, judges should keep an even temperament and a civil tone in their role as impartial moderators, but Kavanaugh was not occupying the moderator role during the September 27 hearing: On the contrary, he was playing the part of the defendant.


Education is largely a dud, which helps explain why its authors have had to make mountains out of molehills. The Sunday Review's mistake was soon compounded by a similar misunderstanding elsewhere in the media. When asked if they interviewed Kavanaugh for the book, Pogrebin and Kelly said they could not agree on the terms of the discussion. "He wanted us to say we hadn't spoken to him," Pogrebin explained.

That's a rather sinister way of describing a common demand made by interviewees for anonymity—a promise that what they say will not be attributed to them, or will be used only for background purposes. It's not exactly clear what the sticking point was, and if Kavanaugh demanded that exact phrasing as a condition of the interview, the authors were right to insist on something more technically accurate, along the lines of Kavanaugh declined to comment on the record. But it's far from established that Kavanaugh did so: As The Washington Examiner's Becket Adams pointed out, the declined-to-comment language may have come from a Kavanaugh representative, and not the justice himself. We don't know whether this representative worked for Kavanaugh personally or for the Supreme Court. In any case, HuffPost led with the maximally inflammatory headline: "NY Times Reporters Say Kavanaugh Asked Them to Lie in Exchange for an Interview."

The book, of course, makes no mention whatsoever of such a lie being requested.

NEXT: Trump’s Civil War Tweet Is Bad. This Other Tweet May Be Unconstitutional.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “”Maybe the Media Mishandled””

    They purposely mislead what the book represents to further their anti-Kavanagh goal.

    Mishandled is a mischaracterization.

    1. “Mishandled” implies the intentions were good but the execution was bungled. What actually seems to be the case is that they intended to find something damning but did not and wrote the article based off on the book as if they did. Yellow journalism is not a bungle.

    2. They lied their fucking asses off. Like they often do.

  2. I expect that at least some of the rush to impeach Trump for his phone call is to make people forget the fools Democrats made of themselves howling for Justice Kavanaugh’s head due to these specious allegations.

    It’ll be interesting if they are just going from one conclusion jump to another.

    1. Pointers on evidentiary standards from the birther-Benghazi-‘lock ‘er up’-‘evolution is a demonic hoax’ side of the aisle are always a treat.

      Carry on, clingers.

      1. Lock her up, lock him up. What difference does it make?

      2. Her Shrillness, Granny Maojackets von Pantsuit should be locked up. Either because she deliberately violated security regulation for some purpose of her own, or because she was too stupid to know that what she was doing as illegal and therefore shouldn’t be allowed out without a minder.

        Obumbles played the ‘Birthers’ like a harmonica. OTPOH, they are certainly nowhere near as silly as the ‘truthers’, with their assertions that the collapse of the Towers HAS to be a controlled detonation (that somehow nobody in either building noticed the setup for).

        And then there’s the issue of Evolution. You do know, don’t you, that there is considerable room between ‘Evolution is a hoax’ and ‘Evolution is proven fact in every particular’ (both of which are the opinions of imbeciles)?

        1. Hillary purposefully mishandled classified information.

          There are numerous regular people who have been sent to prison for unintentionally mishandling classified information.

          There are procedures for handling classified information because some of that information getting to hostile nations can lead to Americans dying.

          1. And/or foreign spying networks being eliminated.

          2. “There are numerous regular people who have been sent to prison for unintentionally mishandling classified information”

            No they’re not. You’re going to have a hard time finding even one. In fact, in a nod to the complexities of handling classified information, the law criminalizes only violations that are “knowing,” “negligent” or the like.

            And we’re just getting started with the difficulties caused by your gross ignorance. You see, virtually all the emails later retroactively classified were SENT to Ms Clinton, and did not originate with her. There are plus-minus 4-6 exceptions, but the remainder were from someone else. So the “mistake” (if mistake there was) over their security status was by another person 99.99% of the time.

            But I bet you’re determined to be stupid right to the bitter end, loveconstitution1789, so you respond, “But they didn’t use a private email account…”

            So? There is no legal/security distinction between a standard .gov email account, or Colin Powell’s AOL account, the private email used by Rice’s aides (I understand Condelessa herself did no email, bless her Luddite heart) or Clinton’s server. They are all considered equally unsecure per the law. Practically, AOL & .gov email has been repeatedly hacked, but that’s not conclusive. So going by your ignorant assertion there should scores and scores of people in jail for sending HRC those messages, yet they’re not. Whew! What a relief you’re such a fool.

            Not to pile on, but I’m afraid your Stupid doesn’t even end there. I don’t claim to have an exact number, but there are surely hundreds of messages/items of information whose classification status is re-jiggered each month – maybe even thousands. Imagine all the jails we’d have to build if you had the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

            But of course you don’t……

            1. It’s amazing how wrong you are. Virtually all state information starts classified at confidential. Hillary knew this. All the retroactive classifications you claim were not retroactive, they were verifications. Hillary knew this. Some of her documents even had paragraph markings with C for confidential. Hillary knew this.

              Reports also talk about hillary leaving her SCIF unlocked, having aides transcribe emails from the SCIF tonher laptop, taking her phone into her SCIF. Having her maid print documents out for her, etc.

              How fucking dishonest are you? I can find you multiple convictions like an ex military person leaving a folder in his gym bag.

              1. Not as “fucking dishonest” as you.

                “Virtually all state information starts classified at confidential” That is so blatantly obviously brain-dead stupid it boggles the mind. There is an entire .gov email system dedicated to handing unsecure and unclassified information. I wonder what the hell you think it’s even for. God almighty, you’re dumb. But I’m going to try and help you. Let’s do the Five Myths of Classified Information :

                Myth One : “Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it:

                The relevant quote : “Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.”

                Myth Two : “It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified”

                The relevant quote : “And while the number of original classification decisions is on the wane, there were still almost 50,000 new secrets created last year — on top of the 2 million created in the 10 previous years. It is virtually impossible to distill this sprawling universe of classified information into usable guidance. There are more than 2,000 federal classification guides, some of them hundreds of pages long. To expect every official to be thoroughly familiar with all the relevant guidance and apply it without error is simply unrealistic”

                Myth Three : “Anything classified is sensitive”

                The relevant quote : “In fact, the classification system is marked by discretion (intended) on the front end and uncertainty (unintended) on the back end. This lack of clear boundaries opens the door to a huge amount of unnecessary classification.
                There are multiple incentives, unrelated to national security, to classify. It is easier and safer for busy officials to classify by rote rather than to pause for thought. Classification is a way for officials to enhance their status or protect agencies’ turf. It can hide embarrassing facts or evidence of misconduct. There are no countervailing disincentives, as classification decisions normally go unreviewed, and agencies do not punish overclassifying. The result is massive overclassification, a phenomenon noted by experts and blue ribbon commissions for decades. Current and former government officials have estimated that 50 to 90 percent of classified documents could safely be released.

                One need look no further than Clinton’s own e-mails for evidence of this problem. In February 2010, Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser e-mailed that he was unable to send her a statement by former British prime minister Tony Blair because someone had entered it into the State Department’s classified system, “for reasons that elude me.” Clinton responded incredulously: “It’s a public statement!” Yet her adviser was unable to access it, let alone send it to an unsecured e-mail address. Clinton also has come under fire for e-mails that referenced the CIA’s “top secret” drone strikes in Pakistan — a program well known to our friends and enemies around the world.”

                Myth Four : “Any mishandling of classified information is illegal”

                The relevant quote : In fact, in a nod to the complexities of handling classified information, the law criminalizes only violations that are “knowing,” “negligent” or the like.

                Myth Five : “Our classification system protects us from harm”

                The relevant quote : Actually, it is our bloated classification system that puts our security at risk. Some classification is unquestionably necessary to keep the nation safe, but overclassification not only stifles public discussion and debate; it also discourages people from following the rules. Officials who routinely encounter innocuous information marked “top secret” lose respect for the system. They are more likely to handle information carelessly or even engage in unauthorized disclosures, believing that little harm will result. The danger is that the baby could get thrown out with the bathwater: A casual approach to classified information jeopardizes the real secrets buried within the excess.

                https://tinyurl.com/yxv7kucy

                I hope I helped add a little fucking grey matter to your propaganda choked worthless empty brain. Because when I see something so imbecilic as “Virtually all state information starts classified at confidential”, it actually makes my teeth ache it’s so fucking dumb…

                PS: There were only three emails whose attachments had little Cs in the text. But they did not have a classified cover or classified header, both of which would be required with a properly classified document. Two of the three were subsequently declassified.

                And THAT’S your big find ?!?!?

                God, you’re dumb….

                1. Poor grb troll. Doesnt know anything about classified information nor court martials of military persons for mishandling classified information.

                  Which sock troll is grb again?

                2. Go die in a fire, slaver.

      3. A treat for you is a day when you haven’t pissed your pants Geezer.

      4. You should shove a .45 up your ass and pull the trigger.

  3. How can Blasey Ford be seen as anything other than a fabulist? Not one major media figure is willing to expose this whole Democrat immolation of Kavanaugh as a total fraud.

    1. lol remember when Reason went on for like two weeks about the accusers credibility?

      Do you editors not see a pattern here? Have you not noticed you’ve been parroting the same bullshit leftist Trump porn fan fiction your beltway journalist friends pump out?

      Nah, it’s the kids who are the problem!

    2. They got what they needed from her. The only place Blasey Ford could get an interview now is on Fox News.

  4. Who the fuck writes the headlines here? It was not mishandled, it was an agenda driven hit piece that contained more evidence supporting Kavanaughs version of events than Ford. The two big pieces of new information that the book detail a concerted effort by pro Ford people to strong arm Leyland Kaiser to change her story and get her to back Fords story. The other piece of information was a allegation that his friend thrust his penis into a woman’s hand at yale, that had no first hand corroboration. They suppressed the relevant details in the Times piece to perpetuate a narrative that further painted Kavanaugh as guilty when the evidence is slanted in his favor. Ford has named 4 people none of whom can corroborate her story or doubt it ever happened. As someone who dislikes Kavanaughs politics this whole smear campaign disgusts me to my very core.

    1. “Ford has named 4 people none of whom can corroborate her story or doubt it ever happened.”

      Yet Trump told us that he thought Ford was a very credible witness.

      1. Are you suggesting that Lyland Kaiser or the three others named are not credible? What makes Ford more credible than Kavanaugh?

        1. “Are you suggesting that Lyland Kaiser or the three others named are not credible? ”

          I’m not really in a position to judge. I assume Trump is. Maybe you think Trump is wrong in his assessment.

          1. I don’t think Trump has credibility in your eyes.

            1. “I don’t think Trump has credibility in your eyes.”

              I don’t see why he’d tell us he thought Ford was a very credible witness if he thought otherwise. Maybe you can help me here.

              1. Because Trump says it it’s true?

                1. “Because Trump says it it’s true?”

                  Essentially, yes, if I understand you correctly. When Trump says self-serving things, skepticism is warranted. When he says something that is not self-serving, then less skepticism is warranted.

                  1. “”then less skepticism is warranted.”‘

                    I don’t think you applied any.

                    1. “I don’t think you applied any.”

                      I don’t need to. I gain or lose nothing whatever the outcome of this charade. Can you say the same?

              2. mtrueman citation fell off.

                That and they constantly call Trump a liar until they need to cite him to support some bullshit Lefty claim.

                1. You want a citation? Read the book.

                  1. The book from the authors who penned the smear in the NYT?

                  2. (1) I dont buy books that Lefties write.

                    (2) why would I read a book thatis premised on a lie? That is fiction and this book is supposed to be non-fiction.

                    1. “why would I read a book”

                      You wanted a cite.

          2. I have a feeling if Trump called Ford uncredible you would use this as evidence of her credibility. Trumps opinion on someones credibility has no merits on the case itself nor should as he’s a fucktard. Ford hasn’t provided a single corroborating detail of her story, all the witnesses she named dispute her account of the party even taking place.

            1. “I have a feeling if Trump called Ford uncredible you would use this as evidence of her credibility.”

              But Trump called her very credible. That’s perhaps the best we can do when time and memory take their toll. I found Kavanaugh’s performance uncredible, and doubt that this was a Clinton conspiracy as Kavanaugh put forward, apparently sincerely. His account of his youth was suspicious, and it was implausible that he had no knowledge of Kozinski’s notorious indiscretions, showing pornography to underlings in his chambers, etc.

              1. So Trump saying she is credible has more weight than the people she named as witnesses?

                1. “So Trump saying she is credible has more weight than the people she named as witnesses?”

                  Both are credible. I have no reason to doubt these people when they say they don’t remember. I also take Trump at his word when he tells us that he finds Ford a very credible witness. They don’t contradict each other so why not believe both?

                  1. You think Trump lies all the time. Why not here?

                    Just because Trump say she’s credible, and he says a lot of things, that doesn’t actual mean she is credible, it’s just his opinion. I have a hard time believing you would side with any of Trump’s opinions unless it confirms a bias.

                    1. “You think Trump lies all the time. Why not here?”

                      I don’t think he lies all the time. I think his support for non-intervention is sincere, if at times muddled. I think his opposition to free trade is sincere, long held and firm.

                      “I have a hard time believing you would side with any of Trump’s opinions unless it confirms a bias.”

                      This is precisely my point. Trump’s affirmation of Ford’s credibility goes against a bias which makes it weightier than otherwise. I tried to make this clear in my previous comment.

                    2. mtrueman and his Lefty buds constantly call Trump a liar until they need something he says to cite as TRUTH!

                    3. “”This is precisely my point. Trump’s affirmation of Ford’s credibility goes against a bias which makes it weightier than otherwise. “”

                      Goes against who’s bias? Trump haters think Ford was totally honest. Trump agreeing does not go against their bias. It’s something to confirm their bias.

                    4. “Goes against who’s bias? ”

                      Excellent question. The who in this case is Trump, the man who put forward Kavanaugh’s name and started the whole affair. He has an interest in seeing this thing going through as smoothly as possible, if only because his name is attached to the candidate Kavanaugh. This interest will inevitably result in bias, as it’s only natural to see things the way we want them rather than the ugly truth. This is the significance of Trump’s telling us that he found Ford very credible. You see his interests would lead him to say the opposite. Of course it’s entirely possible that Trump was simply lying, and in fact agrees with the commenters here that Ford was obviously a liar and possibly a dupe of the Clintons. Who knows?

                    5. MAGA!

      2. The first time ever mtrueman has ever taken anything Trump has said at face value.

        1. “The first time ever mtrueman has ever taken anything Trump has said at face value.”

          Not at all. I don’t doubt Trump’s long held and sincere anti-interventionism and protectionism. As for his assertion that Ford was a credible witness, commenters here have convinced me not to take this at face value, It’s conceivable he could have been lying.

  5. The book should put an end to any talk about Kavanaugh suing his accusers. It strengthens the image of young Kavanaugh as a sexually aggressive drunk. What surprised me was the portrayal of his later career, a much more sober and responsible character emerges. It’s hard to understand what Trump sees in this older incarnation.

    1. ^ received more wedgies than anyone else in his graduating class

      1. Believe me, Kavanaugh will not be revisiting the free wheeling days of his youth anytime soon.

        1. It’s not the spewing of obvious talking points, it’s that you have no idea how the spewing of them makes you sound.

          Most beta kid in the Glee Club not being a mark of distinction.

          1. What spewing are you referring to?

            1. Self-awareness, not your strong suit.

        2. Kavanaugh is a SCOTUS for as long as he wants to be.

          He has already set back Lefty agendas his first year and I am sure it will continue. Nothing like turning a political centrist into a die-hard anti-Lefty during confirmation hearings.

          1. “He has already set back Lefty agendas his first year ”

            Be careful what you wish for. I think setting back agendas is exactly what lefties need for them to make the impact that frightens you so. If it were up to me I’d set the dials back to the days of the diggers and the true levelers. If Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman? (The garden of Eden was much farther back, but still no slouch when it comes to Leftist paradises.)

          2. Poor mtrueman and his fever dreams of what Else Trump, Gorsuch, and kavanaugh have rolled back.

  6. The Trump election has made people crazy, or more likely unleashed latent bias-based poor judgment on the parts of so many (and to quote the president, “on both sides”). Obviously presidential elections have that effect, but for most that has a short shelf life. After a few months, maybe a year, people settle down and accept this person they don’t like is president.

    Not so with Trump. Perhaps it’s only the fact of Trump himself, or the coincidence of Trump and social media and cancel culture. People who should know better just can’t help themselves.

    1. IMO it is something of a perfect storm. You’d have never had Trump if not for a number of fairly recent events involving the media, politics, and the free flow of information.

      The thing that continues to surprise me is the whistling past the graveyard aspect of the people who think that the problem is Trump, rather than recognize that Trump is merely an avatar of deeper concerns.

      But denial is like that.

      1. Yup. Everything currently happening in the USA to set back Lefty P.C. culture and policy is Trump’s fault not that Americans are sick of the P.C. bullshit and fighting back THROUGH Trump.

        1. Lefties say the same stupid shit about the NRA as if that group is not made up of millions of individual Americans who want to protect their 2A gun rights.

  7. I generally agree with the content of this review, except for the part about Kavanaugh’s behavior at the confirmation hearing. Sure, his anger was “understandable”, but so is Donald Trump’s or Bill Clinton’s. What is not so “understandable”, or forgivable, is his claim that the whole thing was a “plot” brought forward by Clinton forces still angry with him over his involvement with Clinton’s impeachment. No one has suggested that it was “the Clintons” who brought Christine Blasey Ford forward, or that her account reflected anything but her own convictions as to what happened, which may or may not be accurate. I certainly didn’t think her account was sufficient to deny Kavanaugh the appointment, (statutes of limitations do make sense), but his boorish attempt to politicize the occasion was deeply off-putting. Judicial he wasn’t.

    1. The book goes into great detail about how the charges came forward. The Clintons had nothing to do with it. Kavanaugh’s appearance before the Senate stretches credulity, denying for example, any knowledge of the sexual improprieties of his mentor, the notorious Judge Kozinski.

      1. He might have heard rumors, but that isn’t “knowing”. Big difference. A judge would not and should not report on hearsay.

        1. He denied any knowledge of the judge’s inappropriate behaviour. And he ranted about how the Clintons were behind the Ford charges.

      2. It is entirely possible that Judge Kozinski did not act improperly in front of Kavanaugh or many other non-victims of his reported actions.

        1. “It is entirely possible that Judge Kozinski did not act improperly in front of Kavanaugh”

          Possible, sure. But implausible unless you can explain why Kavanaugh would not be in on what was ‘an open secret.’

          1. Alex Kozinski was on the 9th Circuit of Appeals 1985-2017.
            Brett Kavanaugh was law clerk for Kozinski 1991-1992, one of hundreds.
            8 Dec 2017 Kozinski was first accused by six women, one who clerked for Kozinski 2006-2007. The other five initial accusers worked with him somewhat before and after.
            After he denied their accusations, nine more came forward with accusations, dating mid 1980s, mid 1990s on up to early 2010s.

            WaPo 8 Dec 2017: “The Post reached out to dozens of Kozinski’s former clerks and externs for this report. Many of those who returned messages said that they experienced no harassment of any kind …. [those with] negative experiences said that they thought his behavior went beyond bad jokes or that they felt personally targeted.”

            The open secret was apparently closed to literally dozens of other clerks or externs.

            1. You’re not under oath when you talk to a WAPO reporter. You can say anything you like.

              1. No you cant dum-dum.

                Its literally defamation to defame someones character and a third party hears or reads it.

                1. I’ve already told you that you can put this foolishness to rest. There will be no lawsuit. The last thing Kavanaugh wants is a re-hashing of his days as a young sexually aggressive drunken student.

      3. Nothing to do with it… except for the Clinton lawyer who faced kavanaugh in the Clinton impeachment that was one of the apparent yale witnesses. And besides Fords lawyers who had Clinton ties.

        1. “And besides Fords lawyers who had Clinton ties.”

          Try again. Ford was talking about this long before she had lawyers. What convinced you that the Clintons were behind the scenes all along pulling our strings?

          1. Was she? Before she retained a lawyer, certainly. But we have no clue who she was talking to or when since she conveniently scrubbed all social media before coming out with the accusations.

    2. If Kavanaugh is innocent, he knows that Ford made this up. It is entirely reasonable for him to assume the entire thing is a fraud to take revenge for his involvement in Clinton’s impeachment. That is as reasonable of an explanation for Ford lying as any.

      You really are dumb Alan. You are just not very bright.

      1. I can see why Kavanaugh may have thought that, but the truth is that he was going to get slimed regardless because he was lined up to take over Kennedy’s spot, and could potentially tip the balance of power towards making abortion completely illegal again (which is all these Supreme Court fights have ever centered on). No one pulled this shit on Gorsuch because he took over Scalia’s seat, so it was a wash.

      2. ” It is entirely reasonable for him to assume the entire thing is a fraud to take revenge for his involvement in Clinton’s impeachment.”

        Assuming is one thing. Saying so out loud in the Senate without evidence is another. A judge should know this.

        1. No it is not. One of the biggest points that the Democrats made was that we should believe Ford because there was no reason for her to lie about such a thing. Well, Kavanugh gave them a reason why she would lie. Giving them that reason was necessary for him to defend himself. He had every right to do it. If the Democrats didn’t want Kavanaugh speculating on her motives, they shouldn’t have required Kavanaugh to provide a motive in order to defend himself.

          1. “He had every right to do it. ”

            I’m not disputing Kavanaugh’s right to insist that he’s the victim of a conspiracy perpetrated by the Clintons. He shares that right with every red-blooded American guy.

            1. then what “should a judge know”? You don’t seem to be saying anything if you are not disputing his right to defend himself.

              1. A judge should know that dragging the Clintons into this without a scrap of evidence will jeopardize his credibility.

                1. Again, if that was what he thought was the motive and they demanded he give one, he was right to do it.

                  You really don’t seem to understand how this works.

                  1. “if that was what he thought was the motive ”

                    I doubt he thought that was the motive. You should be more skeptical about what politicians say. Don’t let the wigs and black robes throw you off.

                    1. “”You should be more skeptical about what politicians say.””

                      Says the guy that believes Trump.

                    2. “Says the guy that believes Trump.”

                      You’re being obtuse. Someone with impeccable spelling such as yourself can’t be as stupid as you pretend to be. Drop the pose. It doesn’t fool me.

                2. I’d think naming 4 witnesses who say they dont remember anything of the sort is far more disqualifying than someone stating a motive for making things up.

                  1. But you give a shit about the outcome of this charade. It makes you biased and the rest of us, who have no dog in this race, can only question your judgement.

                    1. Like you’re not biased.

  8. >>>Take how the authors describe the environment at Georgetown Prep:

    they describe the environment at every high school ever and pretty much the rest of life in general …

  9. I have to say, the question about Kavanaugh’s character in the hearing is absurd. Given the level of inquiry the man sustained, which made a mockery of both him and his professions, any rational human being would lose their temper.

    I am reminded of the Council of Nicea, where Saint Nicholas punched another bishop, Arius, in the face. That’s right. Even Santa Claus lost his temper, to the point of violence. When actual saints fail your test of character, you have to wonder whether your standards are reasonable.

    1. “”Even Santa Claus lost his temper, to the point of violence.”‘

      Well, Santa had to revise that to the “naughty list” after his mandated anger management training.

  10. “… the new information about a previously unreported sexual misconduct allegation …”

    Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, “Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not”, The New York Times, Sunday Review (Opinion), 14 Sep 2019.

    The article is mostly about Brett Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez at Yale in the 1980s which was reported widely Sep-Oct 2018. So that threw me off, until the unreported allegation mentioned briefly in passing, Max Stier’s claim that Kavanaugh was involved in another penis incident with a woman.

    Pogrebin & Kelly did include in the article that friends of the woman say she denied having memory of the alleged incident. That was left out of the first version of the article by their editor. Then it was added with an editorial note 15 Sep that makes it sound like the editor added that information from the book.

    Omitted on both versions of the article tho’ was Max Stier’s possible connections and causes for animus toward Trump:
    _ 1995 Stier was part of Pres. Bill Clinton’s defense team in the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal as a member of the Williams & Connolly firm of Washington D.C. (Kavanaugh was on the opposing team.)
    _ 2016 President Obama nominated Stier’s wife Florence Yu Pan to become a federal District Judge; that nomination expired with the end of the 114th Congress. Jan 2017 President Trump did not renominate her.
    Stier worked for law firms that did work for both Ds and Rs so defending Clinton may have just been part of the job, but leaving that to be found by others was as botched as the rest of this release.

  11. “To their credit, Kelly and Pogrebin do approach their subject with a refreshing lack of bias, and are often fair to him.”

    Goes on to list biased attacks and overlooks the lies that the authors and NY Times Editors wrote for the opinion piece.

    1. I thought this comment was completely absurd as well. To say they “believe he did it as a person” or describe his high school, which could be almost any all boys school, as a sexual predator’s breeding ground shows an incredible amount of bias.

      AND you didn’t even talk about how they constantly assumed Kavanaughs motivations for things they had no idea about.

      Lack of bias my ass

  12. Question: Does anyone know of case law which analyzes whether claiming something is “corroborated” is a statement of fact or an opinion?

    In the NYT article, it states that “at least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh became a federal judge.” Byron York and Allahpundit then did a pretty good job of showing that you had to stretch pretty hard to claim seven people “heard about the Yale incident…”

    I’ve flip-flopped a couple times on whether I think that can be taken as a statement of fact. Benefit of the doubt should always go to the speaker IMO. But I wasn’t able to find anything searching case law. If someone has a good lead, let me know.

    1. No case law, but start with a dictionary def:
      Noun corroboration

      The act of corroborating, strengthening, or confirming; addition of strength; confirmation
      quotations
      1857, Herman Melville, The Confidence-Man, Chapter 23:
      Fallacious enough doctrine when wielded against one’s prejudices, but in corroboration of cherished suspicions not without likelihood.
      September 16 2016, Jonah Goldberg writing in the Baltimore Sun, Hillary’s health is a valid issue:
      Social media lighted up with corroborations that lower Manhattan was the meteorological equivalent of the jungles of Borneo.

      —————————————–
      A lot of people believe Area 51 contains space aliens and UFOs. They can get multiple persons to offer corroboration of that belief and corroborate a long history of that belief. I don’t think corroboration rises to the level of PROOF of fact or that a corroborator can be called a WITNESS to fact.

      You can corroborate when you heard someone talk about an event but that does not prove the event. Ford may have talked about a party in the 1980s for decades and dozens of people may have heard her mention it, but she herself did not name Kavanaugh to anyone until after Kavanaugh was nominated for SCOTUS.

  13. “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation doesn’t shed much light on the Supreme Court justice or the allegations against him.”

    But that’s not the point.
    The point is a bunch of far left idiots got to engage in their infantile antics during their anti-Kavanagh hearings so they could show the world what a bunch of stupid, self-centered and clueless assholes they are.

  14. How can Blasey Ford be seen as anything other than a fabulist? Not one major media figure is willing to expose this whole Democrat immolation of Kavanaugh as a total fraud.
    خرید تجهیزات شبکه

  15. The Progressives play for keeps, That which they can not control they seek to destroy, and are truly dangerous. When will libertarians, not to mention the Never-Trumpers realize this. YES Trump is an asshole, buy my God, consider the alternatives………

    Trump will be gone in five more years, but if we let the Borg win, The Republic is doomed.

    1. How the fuck did Progressives win this?

      If he wasn’t a rapist then he could have had a non-sham hearing to exonerate him. Republicunts play for keeps. It’s all they do. You think they give a shit about abortion? The ones who actually fuck women pay for abortions all the time without blinking.

  16. Thank you for sharing. Your article very well, I will follow you. Continue to update.
    https://movieboxprofession.com/

Please to post comments