NYT reporters Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin, authors of the much criticize “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation,” said at event last night that they approached Justice Kavanaugh for an interview but he said he would only talk to the authors if “they not tell people that they had talked to him.”
For some reason, this is a “wow” moment:
Asked by @alikodjakNPR if they talked to Kavanaugh they said no because they could not get past his condition that they not tell people that they had talked to him. Wow. https://t.co/bgZxutqcPM
— Bill McCarren (@mccarrennews) September 18, 2019
Brett Kavanaugh agreed to talk to @katekelly and @rpogrebin for their book – If they wrote that they didn’t talk with him. The authors — who told the story tonight @PressClubDC — refused and walked away from the interview.
— Alison Kodjak (@alikodjakNPR) September 19, 2019
And it’s being spun as Justice Kavanaugh told the reporters to lied to their readers:
Supreme Court justice asks journalists to lie to readers —> https://t.co/jbpvIRiDwi
— Chris Megerian (@ChrisMegerian) September 19, 2019
But this sounds a lot like “off the record” to us:
Uh…it’s called “off the record.”
Good grief. https://t.co/OcKG8EnKdP
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) September 19, 2019
So, how soon until this claim blows up in their faces, too:
There is ~0% chance this happened. He may have said he would only talk to them off the record, which is clearly not the same thing. But these reporters have proven to be unethical and untrustworthy, and it’s not a good look that others keep taking their claims at face value. https://t.co/m0VM8IVfSD
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) September 19, 2019
Or, far more likely, he made talking to them conditional on being off-the-record.
Something a reporter should recognize. And you out your own credibility at risk when you repeat likely falsehoods from those who have been caught omitting and twisting facts repeatedly.
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) September 19, 2019
Yes this means ‘off record’. Good journamalism.
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) September 19, 2019
Any other freaking time you’d call that “off the record.”
— Dan Gainor (@dangainor) September 19, 2019
Alison, did he tell them they had to “write that they didn’t talk with him?” (Lie) Or simply offer to talk on background/ off the record?
That distinction is important, as you know.
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) September 19, 2019
We won’t accept it as fact either:
Given everything surrounding this story, I can’t accept this as fact.
— Doug Heye (@DougHeye) September 19, 2019
Given we’ve been neck deep in BS about this from the start, I’m going to go with the latter. https://t.co/CcML3hlXGt
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) September 19, 2019
This just isn’t believable:
lol sure. a former WH Staff Sec and DC circuit judge and the target of a lot of deeply flawed reporting asked NYT reporters to lie.
this definitely happened as described. https://t.co/LDU18IZU1l
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) September 19, 2019
Keep in mind — in their own words — these reporters said they could not find a single instance of Justice Kavanaugh behaving badly in past 36 years since college. Now they accuse him of asking reporters to lie for him?
Never mind? NYT reporters say on @TheView they couldn’t find anything bad about Brett Kavanaugh in the past 36 years. They praise him ==> pic.twitter.com/Te4KoBiBKM
— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) September 17, 2019
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member