Who has paid for Judge Kavanaugh's elaborately staged preparation for his tv ppearance at confirmation hearing? Any estimate or knowledge of cost?
More interesting and entertaining calls would be ones made by keith ellisons ex girlfriends.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but if the nominee had been black, gay, or transsexual, and a similar request had been made by Fox News, would the Times have attacked it as bigoted harassment of a qualified nominee? The recent, virulently angry Times editorial denouncing John Faso as a "quisling" (really, readers, look it up!) for criticizing his Democratic opponent Antonio Delgado's use of the N-word causes me to wonder.
1
The horror, the horror! The New York Times found nothing on Brett Kavanaugh's wife! What now will the DNC and DMIC: Democrat Media Industrial Complex do during Kavanaugh's hearings?
Another day, another win for the POTUS, another loss for The New York Times; I guess some never tire of losing.
1
Too bad Blockbuster is out of business. You could give Kavanaugh the "Bork Treatment" and check to see if he's rented any naughty movies.
1
Hello! NY Times Omsbudman! This is why your position exists!! Please address the issues raised by these hundreds of comments!
1
This didn't pan out very well, did it? Better get back to the fake "Russia, Russia, Russia!" meme.
15
Like other commentators I too would like to see an article about the extent of the vetting the Times did on the families of the Supreme Court nominees of Obama.
11
This is theater. Inoculating themselves before the upcoming "Trump is instigating violence against the media" push. You bring the hatred upon yourselves. Stop blaming external nefarious actors for your loss of public trust.
11
This reminds me of a quote by Jim Rutenberg of the NYT explaining that hating Trump is an adequate reason to throw out journalistic standards in favor of the relentless bias we are now seeing:
"... if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career."
It's not about Kavanaugh's wife. It's about the creepy, hostile, politically-motivated stalking of anyone associated with Trump and the desire to inflict misery on anyone who disagrees with your agenda.
19
It's the duty of good journalism to investigate everything because the issues are so larger and I commend the NYT for doing so. However, you never do it when it comes to democrats or left leaning judges. Be fair and I'll re-subsribe.
14
Can we request info regarding the lives of the journalist and editors of those who like portray themselves as 'working on the public's behalf'? All while profiting.
12
I don't think Kagan and Sotomayor have actual husbands. I am sure, however, they have "life partners." Were they questioned as to their partner's credibility? I seriously doubt it. I don't recall ever seeing any report as to who they are. Your feeble effort to justify going after Kavanaugh's wife has not worked if the other comments are any indication.
17
That’s it. This is outrageous. I don’t need to add to the sentiment of the 100+ other commenters here who point out the Times never “investigated” the partners of Obama’s Supreme Court appinteees.
It’s just day after day of endless anti-Trump front page bias. Form unbiased reliable sources of the news I’m now forced to go to places like Reuters or AP. Even the British Daily Mail does a better job.
For now on just go ahead and list the party affiliation of each and every reporter here right below their byline. That would at least be honest.
17
NYT again proves itself the best argument against freedom of the press. When you show bias, it is very easy to argue that some control is needed....
The argument goes..just as social media outlets are making efforts to root out users they deem unacceptably skewed and dishonest, perhaps some government agency needs to look into skewed and dishonest main stream media..
After that it is a quick rush to close up all opposition. Press is a fundamental freedom but it depends on a public perception of evevn handedness. Every obvious incident that works against that perception is a step toward darkness.... knock it off, NYT
12
"We had to try." We had to try? What does that mean? Because it sounds like your saying, "We had to try to do everything we could to find something that will stop this nomination."
I'm sure many are very curious. Did you dig into the backgrounds of Ginzberg's husband? Or Breyer's wife? Did you "have to try", when the nominees were liberal?
Oh, I almost forgot. This is the paper that hired Sarah Jeong.
19
So why wasn’t the title “wife clean as a whistle”
15
I recall an instance in the past involving a left-wing nominee where the political views and activities of the spouse where expressly declared off limits because a nominee was not responsible for the views of their spouse, and that the nominee was a separate person.
17
did you 'look into' mrs obama's $350,000 per year job as vice president of community activism for the hospital that obama gifted with tax dollars? why not?
14
No interest in Bernie Sanders wife. RIGHT?
13
NY Times attempted a cheap, biased inquiry. And now frontloading an explaination in an attempt to appear transparent.
Either do it because it’s right and shut-up or have some integrity and decency and don’t dig on spouses or children.
11
The NYTimes doesn’t seem to realize that very few people around the country really care what they think or say. They have proven themselves totally unworthy to be called an honorable journalistic institution. They lost that Lon long ago.
Kavanaugh will be confirmed whether they like it or not.
8
The NYT and any other form of media has no right to investigate the wife of a Supreme Court nominee. She isn’t gong to be a justice. He is. She is a private person and unless she was a card carrying member of COUSA or a member of Al Qaeda, there is no reason to dig into her past, period. Total invasion of privacy.
8
So, can I assume you also investigated the spouses of previous Democratic nominees? Or is that level of journalistic dedication reserved for those you oppose?
6
I’m sure you have done the same for Kagan and Sotomayor as well right? You dug through their trash and sought records from their family members and significant others? Right?
8
Sounds like fishin' to me.
4
Like wrapping week old fish in today's newspaper, this appears to be nothing more than a vulgar apologia, intended to excuse an action the actor, in hindsight, knows to have been way over the line. You need only to look at the daily content of your newspaper to see that you reserve this kind of treatment for persons of a certain persuasion. The very writing and publishing of this reveals the true character, biases and ruthlessness of its author/s.
9
The NY Times is just fine about doing 'opposition research' on behalf of the Democrat party for which it stands.
However, when legitimate political campaign staff - of the Republican persuasion - see: Donald Trump Jr. - does the same, it becomes fodder for political persecution of the Republican POTUS.
8
Since the NY times has not done this ever in the history of appointments to SCOTUS and only did it in the climate of being the anti-Trump newspaper why lie about your reasoning. Why attempt to obfuscate the truth when it is so easily seen by even a casual observer?
12
So how much investigation of Merrick Garland's wife Lynn was done by the Times? Did you investigate her ties to the military-industrial complex? Or is investigation only for Republican nominees?
10
The fact that you need to provide rationale for this tells us that you know it is wrong!
11
All this is , is a hack job by political hacks who wouldn't know how to be unbiased if their lives depended on it.
9
The purpose of Democrats being in politics at all is to circumvent and to prevent the law from jeopardizing their perversion and unconscionable lifestyle. Democrats pretend to be bias in this desperate pursuit.
2
The purpose of Democrats being in politics at all is to circumvent and to prevent the law from jeopardizing their perversion and unconscionable lifestyle. Democrats pretend to be pious in this desperate pursuit.
6
Thank you for allowing comments!
Can normal people request info about Supreme Court spouses?
How much money did NYT spend on this...
9
That rationale might have made sense if you didn't wholeheartedly agree with McCabe's assertion that the fact that his wife had accepted $685,000+ from a Clinton subordinate had no bearing whatsoever on his ability to oversee the investigation into her improper use of a personal server to conduct official State Department business and house top secret documents.
Completely throwing out even the pretense of objectivity is ruining the credibility of the news industry. It's past time that the news media recognizes that it has become a mouthpiece for the left, and brings some balance back into its reporting.
It WAS right to check into Kavanaugh's wife's background. But is was ALSO right to condemn McCabe for not stepping aside due to a blatant conflict of interest, which the media failed to do. The pro-liberal bias can be overlooked sometimes, but you should at least make a token effort when it's something that blatant. McCabe thought Clinton would win, so his self-serving actions would never see the light of day. Thanks to the efforts of media outlets like the NYT, WaPo, etc., it nearly didn't. We expect you to report corruption, bias, injustice wherever you find it, not just when it involves conservatives.
40
In other words, you will use any means possible to rake much on a Republician court nominee. Did you give the same treatment to Obama's two Supreme Court candidates? No, I didn't think so.
43
@Robert Wilke A fair question @steveeder and @benprotess. Did the New York Times treat Pres. Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominees’ spouses the same?
5
@Robert Wilke they apologized for not finding dirt! The only reason we saw this story is cause they didn’t want another paper putting out a story on them digging
5
Did u go thru the kids emails and school discussions with classmates and teachers, could be something there that u overlooked. And don’t forget the neighbors, newspaper delivery man, and post office delivery!
28
Couldn't you even find the unauthorized use of email in the office account of Mrs. Kavanaugh? Maybe she asked the kids' pediatrician about an appointment, and that wouldn't be strictly business. Come 'on, boys, take a closer look! You know how to play this game.
20
Dear NYT, have you ever looked into any other US Supreme Court nominee's spouse's records? If not, I don't want you to start now and I don't want to hear about anything you find. Where would you draw the line, at a second cousin twice removed?
49
Please tell us to what lengths you went to search records regarding the Obamas, especially Michelle
50
@David6
They were the ones helping to make up the false stories FAVORING Obama in the first place!
4
We’re you guys this thorough in your background check of Barack Obama or did you conclude your readers already knew enough?
45
President Hillary Clinton nominates someone for the court. The nominee's spouse is on a homeowners board. The New York Times would not request to review the spouse's e-mails.
Let's be honest.
40
I remember when the NYT went digging through the private lives of Elena Kagan and Sotomayer. Wait, no I don't.
48
Will the NYT ombudsman please respond to the many comments regarding the investigations (or lack there of) into family members of SCOTUS Justice nominees of Pres. Obama.
41
I'm sure you gave equal treatment to Sotomayor. /s
34
Does anyone doubt that the New York Times wasn't quite as exhaustive when it gathered data on Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan?
36
@Ewie
In a word, no.
5
This is where Bias rears it's ugly head, and the term "fake news" comes from.
They did not dig through Elana Kagan's or Sotamayor's trash, or examine their spouse's emails etc.
Media organizations are little less than op-research and marketing firms for the DNC. Deomcrat operatives, their spouses, and kids permeate their news staffs, and show limitless bias in their attitudes.
Take a good, hard look in the mirror NYT.
46
Strange. I searched for all the information you sought regarding Kevin Noonan, Sonia Sotomayor's ex. came up with "sweetheart". Nothing about their divorce. No FOIA requests. If it is so important to know about Ashley Kavanaugh, whose husband has an even more extensive log of judicial decisions and opinions to peruse than Justice Sotomayor. Spare us the self-righteousness. You went dumpster diving.
48
Hey, NYT's, I'm still waiting on all those secret emails about Benghazi stinger missile buyback gone wrong, the pay for play to an enemy of the U.S. Uranium One deal, the back door illegal cash deal with terrorist state Iran... But by all means, let's micro focus and attempt go after a guy's wife, who is not running for any office or nominee position.
37
I find it impossible to believe that the NYT would have done the same with a Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or a HRC nominee!
Dennis
34
From reading the comments of the first dozen responders, I have surmised that you had better start covering your rear. It appears your readers are not impressed with this type of investigation of Mr. Kavanaugh and his wife. I certainly am not. My suggestion is that you start performing like true journalists, or expect to lose quite a few readers.
40
Did you guys demand all records on kagan's and sotomajor's significant other? What about RBG's?
34
Did the NYT make requests for information about the spouses of
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor?
33
Will the NYT ombudsman please respond to the many comments questioning the apparent double standard of NYT investigation efforts into SCOTUS nominees (and family) by different the political parties. (2nd request. The 1st request does appear in the list of comments)
40
Did the Times search the garbage cans of Justice Sotomayor or Kagan like they did Judge Bork? If not then we have a double standard and an agenda at work at the NYT's.
35
I'm sure the Times conducted this oppo research-style investigation of all of Obama's SC picks, too...right?
29
Interested in any emails other she-who-cannot-be-named.
16
Another failed fishing expedition in an attempt to smear a potential SC judge and his family to pursue your political agenda. Very classy and the excuse of ‘we have always done it’ does not fly.
29
@Steve pacini they could have put a story out about her doing her job right, but instead apologized for not finding any dirt!
2
Remember all the in depth stories and research on Elena Kagan? Remember the extra effort the NY Times put into vetting the person, who is without argument the least qualified justice to ever be put on the court? Yeah, me neither.
31
Is digging up records about a nominee's wife SOP? How exactly do you determine a nominee's judicial philosophy by examining his wife's email?
26
The answer to why is because you found nothing on Judge Kavanaugh. Being the obedient serfs of the DNC you went after his wife. You never dug into the details of the Clintons this way. You never dug into Obama's background this way when he was running for office. You fawned over Democratic nominees to the court without digging for details. You also are doing your best to try to keep decent and honorable people away from public service if they don't follow your political ideals to the letter because they know what you will put them through. Then you don't understand why much of the country sees right through you.
36
I must admit that I was skeptical of the Times when I heard that they were asking for info on Ashley Kavanaugh, but now I see that it is routine. I was not watching closely when President Clinton made his nominations and therefore must have missed the reporting on the request for those nominee's records. My bad. I also noted that at the end of the article that you mention that one of the authors of the article, Ben Protess, has experience covering white color crime, among other things. Might I suggest that you assign him the task of piecing together some of the shenanigans that the FBI and DOJ were involved in during the so-called investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of the illegal email server, and if he has time maybe he could check into the "collusion" involving the Clinton Campaign, DNC, FBI, DOJ, etc, in their attempt to frame the President with fake intelligence from Russia. This is what I and others really want to learn more about.
30
"But when it comes to reporting on a potential Supreme Court justice, we had to try." Did the NY Times seek the same level of granularity for the spouse of Sonia Sotomayor and/or Elana Kagan? If not, why? After all, "you had to try". It should matter who nominated them, or does it?
29
Nobody is buying this, not even the people on your team. You were trolling for trash on Kavanaugh because he's a conservative, and he's Trump's guy. It turns out Kavanaugh was too clean, so now you're searching for a way to trash his wife. C'mon, guys, can we restore a little honesty here? When you're muckraking, just say it. Be bold. Be proud. Be shameless. Then again, if you're not proud of what you're doing, then make a change.
29
Please send me the link to your article about open records request regarding the spouses and adult children of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.
29
Is this the same location you would have placed an article with negative information?
22
The glaring omission by this article is that it does not address the obvious question: In the past did you investigate the spouses of other nominees, and if so, which ones? The question is so obvious, it seems likely the authors anticipated it but consciously decided not to answer it.
In addition to insulting the reader, this failure invites her to assume the worst. With the elimination of the position of Public Editor, The Times appears increasingly to ask us to just trust it to do the right thing, while acting in ways that undermine our trust.
You can do much better.
28
I old enough to remember when The Times asked for all the records of RBG, Roberts and Thomas's spouses.
Oh, wait, you didn't do that.
Why?
23
Who's "Hot Buttons"? What are these in professional journalism? Please give us a list of them that must be investigated when any are associated (by whom?) with any public figure.
15
Pathetic excuses, front loaded to “apologize” for an inquiry that, if directed to a liberal judge’s spouse, would be deemed out of bounds. Do the inquiry and shut up, knowing it was proper (which it wasn’t) or be upright and don’t do it.
19
Hmmmm, wondering if the Times did similar things for President Obama's candidates. If not, why not?
22
You're digging dirt on a political opponent. Have you done the same thing when Sotomayor or Kagan where nominated???
24
The fact that you have to explain yourself indicates you now recognize your behavior was unseemly.
29
@Dave C Correction: they were made to recognize same.
4
Could the Times provide a verifiable list of the same inquiries for Obama appointees please?
23
Funny, I don't remember any NYT cutting edge investigations into the partners of Sotomayor or Kagan.
29
@BPatMann
Both Sotomayor (AKA "Wise Latina") and Kagan believed in a creative interpretation of the Constitution. Not what the document explicitly states, but what they decide it really means.
9
Does the media vet its members and their families with any of the zeal and intensity they devote to a SCOTUS judge?
The news media every day, all day, communicates a consistent theme very positive to a particular political philosophy .and influences how the population views world and local events.
Journalism as we know it id dead.
Compared to a potential nominee for the Supreme court, who essentially is guided by a document called the constitution, the influence of media members, over the population is without a doubt more pervasive and global than a court judge.
What do we know about them ?
What are the qualifications for their positions?
8
It's shocking how little objectivity the media actually has, especially when anyone related to the GOP is involved. It never fails to justify its behavior, albeit with high-mindedness and clear articulation. Still, not buying it but nice try.
17
Who watches the Watchers? If you are to sit in ultimate judgment of public figures, you too should be subject to the same public scrutiny.
15
Sure. It's perfectly reasonable to think that Kavanaugh, or any other judge, emails his wife at her work to discuss his judicial philosophy.
Just be honest (for a change) and admit you were fishing for something negative to use against him.
22
The only question that needs to be answered is whether the Times took the same investigative procedures when obama's two appointees were being considered. Did the Times seek email records or interview associates of the spouses or friends of Kagan and Sotomayor ? If the paper did such investigation, that would indicate fairness. There remains the question of whether such methods are appropriate, but that is a question of ethics and not fairness.
21
The sad reality is our American Congress has abdicated it’s responsibility to make law as it is charged to do by the Constitution. The void has been filled by the judicial branch of government.
We now have a federal government which operates at the whims of judges and the Executive Order. The fourth estate has become a mouthpiece for the progressive Democratic Party and does its bidding with no consideration of the ethical or professional aspects of the means used to that end.
I have lived long enough to see Americans go from a moral, high character, majority to a small minded, ignorant, violent majority.
Once the qualities of distrust, and suspicion were aimed at foreigners not other Americans.
8
Maybe you can answer this? What office has she been considered for appointment that is relevant to her husbands pending appointment?
33
I'm sure this was done to the nominees of the previous administration as well. Complaints of bias would have merit if the NYTimes treated this president different than the previous president.
10
Can you please confirm if you followed this same procedure with the liberal justices on the Court?
22
Disgraceful. What does Mrs. Kavanaugh’ s work product have to do with her husband’s judicial leanings? Did you also try to dig dirt on spouses and associates of Kagan and Sotomayor? Never mind - I already know the answer to that question.
25
Curious that you felt the need to publicly explain your investigation.
21
Anyone with an IQ above 15 knows that this was just part of the Times ongoing war on Trump. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." and "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate." So according to one of our greatest founding fathers, it is in the best interest of the state that the people be well informed, Therefore, since the Times and the rest of the mainstream media spend 24/7 doing their best to misinform the people about Trump, that really would make them an enemy of the state in the eyes of Thomas Jefferson.
25
Your reason is to defeat the nominee at any cost. You cannot accept a Justice who is guided by the constitution.
22
I'm guessing someone at the Times threatened outing the paper on this and they figured this was the best way of preempting it. Draft a high-minded and, yes, mealy-mouthed justification for their actions.
28
It always amazes me how thorough the MSM becomes when there is a Trump-related "cause" --- real, or imagined. Kavanaugh went through hearings before and has since been on the bench for THIRTEEN YEARS! Now, all of a sudden, there are requests for documents, and info from his wife, dating back to his time in the Bush White House. Did his prior history change during the last THIRTEEN YEARS? Was he not properly vetted THIRTEEN YEARS ago? Didn't the MSM criticize the Trump Administration CONSTANTLY for lack of proper vetting?
This whole thing is a sham, and anyone with a functioning brain knows it.
28
I have no problems with the requests. In fact, I think it shows due diligence, however the NYT does not show the same zeal for investigating candidates that share their same philosophy. I want EVERYONE to be treated skeptically. Not just Republicans.
9
@darylreece
Here lies the problem with not just the NYT but the other major players in the so-called 'Fourth Estate', the outright bias against Conservatives.
DJT is wrong to label the news "Fake News" when he should label it "Biased News"!
Dennis
3
I salute the Times' journalistic efforts, and eagerly await the fawning Sunday Magazine article about her: what a wonderful, gracious, beautiful lady Ashley Kavanaugh is; how she balances motherhood with her work responsibilities; what a great job she does as town manager; the lovely home she keeps; how, nevertheless, she remains down-to-earth, humble, and centered--etc. Haven't I read a variation of that article about the working spouse of nearly every newsworthy Democrat for the last thirty years?
Oh, wait, I forgot: Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump, so Ashley isn't eligible for that treatment.
Sorry you wasted your time reading her emails.
24
Let's review, James Comey's "amazing spouse," Patrice Failor, was pictured at the anti-Trump "Women's March" and wanted Hillary Clinton to win "really badly." But somehow we're told in this case there's an imaginary firewall between Comey's wife and daughters' fervent beliefs and James Comey's ability to be objective.
21
As I recall, the AP asked for emails of the spouse, but the NYT asked for specific "loaded" words. Doesn't sound neutral to me.
13
Do you forget that when Senator Obama was running for President, the NYT and other MSM intentionally avoided examining who he was, his life, who he listened to, who his inspirations were, and what he was all about? In that case, you didn’t want the people to learn anything negative about him. I’m for deep media scrutiny on EVERY elected and appointed official, not just the ones you want to help defeat.
24
It's really very sad, how the dnc/socialst party continues to throw anything and everything at the wall...and time after time, nothing sticks. Hey, you know, I would be upset as well, when I came to the realization that people that I know/love...lied to my face about how they voted...
17
Has the Times requested and pored over publicly available emails sent by the spouses of previous Supreme Court nominees? Or is Mrs. Kavanaugh the first to be treated in this manner, and if so, why?
23
For which previous SCOTUS nominees did you do the same, and what did you find?
23
unprofessional act, and wimpish justification.
serious lack of standards.
17
Request all records? Just like you did with Obama? We still haven't seen his college transfer application, but at least Obama was actually running for office. The wife of a USSC nominee is not running for office so I wonder why the in depth research into her?
33
A failed fishing expedition. When is the article about Ashley's success as a town manager due to run ? You've done the research, why waste it? Oh, right it doesn't "fit the print".
32
Glad to see that the NYT found nothing of interest. Now you will undoubtedly be going all-in to support Judge Kavanaugh. I'll look forward to your editorials in support of this outstanding judge.
24
@Berkeley
I loved this response the most, as it hits the NYT square on its mouth. There was nothing there, so is the NYT going to now actively support Judge Kavanaugh?
4
@Berkeley - don’t expect the shameless oppo research to end any time soon. This instance of fakery will be gone with the wind of the next news cycle
2
You “had to try’ to get his wife’s business records? Since when?
30
@BurbankBob
Hoping for anything which could point to 'guilt by association'.
1
"(W)e aim to shed light on important people in the news — particularly public officials...
Admirable. Now please shed light on Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and Franklin Raines. We could really use some serious investigative reporting on the self-dealing, corruption, and mismanagement by these people.
When can we expect this in-depth reporting of them and their families?
28
As a former city manager turned lawyer I am absolutely appalled by this obvious attempt a dirt digging done under the veil of attempting to gain insight into the nominee. The proposition that a spouse's work emails (especially as a town manager) would provide an insight into a nominee is spurious at best and laughable at most. I certainly encourage newspapers to engage in investigative, however, they have wasted a municipality's already limited time and money on a chase for something they knew didn't exist. I certainly expected more from the Grey Lady. With the massive drop in subscriptions (mine included years ago) and the plummeting ad revenue, it is obvious the NYT is doing everything they can to stay relevant.
24
Amazing - caught with hands in the cookie jar ... again and again
19
Please share your findings on the relatives of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
18
"We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise."
It would be interesting to read your comments on the comments below...
19
The Times long ago gave up its facade of unbiased “news” reporting in favor of advocacy journalism which sees itself as a mechanism for advancing “change” in society. More disturbing is it’s utterly tone-deaf attempt to justify its behavior when caught, such as in this so-called “investigative” mis-step and explanation. “We had to try” to dig up dirt on a spouse of a Supreme Court nominee. Oh really? Shameless.
21
Keep digging and no doubt there will be an item which can be enhanced, embellished, or edited in a manner to produce the desired outcome.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria.
28
@Midwest Resident I wonder if there is a Russian neighborhood in Chevy chase that received preferential plowing service...
2
The press displays faux outrage at POTUS for calling them the "enemy of the people," but what the press doesn't understand is that the people who support POTUS already knew the press is an evil, biased, twisted, monolithic cabal of liars - long before DJT ever even ran.
It's just that POTUS is directing what we believe at the press in a way they can't ignore because he has a bigger megaphone than they.
All that to say, this lame attempt at mitigating what we already know to be slimeball tactics by the propaganda arm of the DNC isn't fooling anyone, and it's one of thousands of examples why the so-called press is in fact the enemy of the people.
36
The NYT has already shown its hand in its attitude towards DJT, so...wheres the big surprise? I agree with the last 51 people who have posted here...it would be public record they had gone diggin' for dirt, and they wanted to get out in front and minimize the backlash. Please, someone..correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't recall a similar fishing expedition on either Kagan or Sotomayor.
21
Let’s be clear. The NYT went on a fishing expedition for potentially embarrassing information about a spouse.
53
It's obvious why the NYT did this. So don't try to white wash it.
48
There is old word for this: mealy-mouthed. Exactly what journalistic standards do this represent?
45
It doesn't seem as if many people accept this justification at face value. They do not seem to buy the premise that the NYTs was an unbiased, objective, and trustworthy source.
Most would like you to back up your statements with some facts concerning this being standard procedure.
Add me to the list who would like seeing your justification go beyond the "just trust us" level.
I figure the NYTs is getting heat on this and so tries to mitigate it here. If you cannot or will not back this up with the requested list, you have created a new rule in "journo"lism where the wife of the person you report about is fair game. Like you all gave the world here.
43
@Lex, the NYT did this before after George Bush nominated Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. It was reported that the NYT consulted adoption lawyers on how to get into the sealed adoption records of the Robert's children. All justices to such an important position need to be investigated. But pulling their adopted children into the fray is going way too far.
10
@Brian Putting forth another Republican nominee as evidence of impartiality hardly bolsters their case.
Problem is we are told spouses of Democrats in the FBI should be off limits in questioning their husband's motivation while investigating Trump.
41
It seems odd to expect that insight into a nominee’s judicial philosophy could be gleaned from the work e-mail account of a spouse. Annalyzing judicial decisions by the nominee himself would be a surer route.
35
This is another example of "advocacy" vs. fair reporting. It is very clear that the intent was to derail Kavanaugh's nomination by any means available. If the goal is fair reporting, then the fact that Mrs. Kavanaugh's e-mails were entirely above board should be prominently reported and featured. Over the years, it is obvious that the press / media have favored liberals / democrats and have sought to discredit conservatives / republicans. I recall the relentless attacks on Reagan during his first term, etc. One of the reasons the press / media finds itself under criticism is that there is a widespread perception that there is no even-handedness when it comes to reporting. Even the choice of adjectives in stories betray the political leanings of reporters / newspapers. My solution ---just be fair and neutral in reporting, stick to the facts and don't wear your political leanings on your sleeve. Let Congress do its job in vetting court nominees and don't launch invasive investigations whose sole purpose is to discredit republican nominees when the same investigations would never be launched into the nominee if a democrat / liberal president were in power. The bias is obvious and unhelpful.
49
I think we should have the right to go through reporters financial records and all communications in order to ensure maximum transparency.
52
@Rob /Even if a Democrat appoints them?
1
@Rob reporters don’t have “finances”, that’s what fuels their SJW zeal
1
"But when it comes to reporting on a potential Supreme Court justice, we had to try."
Of course you did. But you left out a key qualifier. The excuse for your spousal email request should read:
"But when it comes to reporting on a potential REPUBLICAN-NOMINATED Supreme Court justice, we had to try."
56
Oh, please. The Democratic "scrutiny" of Kavanaugh is pure partisan posturing. He's a great judge and will make an excellent Justice. The problem Democrats have with him is that he's conservative. Like they wouldn't have nominated a liberal had Clinton won. Elections have consequences, as a certain someone once said...
39
Trying to save face, the Times got caught. Having been a conduit of illegal leaks and phony poorly sourced information about the President , the Times tried to claw its way into the personal life of a Supreme Court nominee. Have been so concerned about a judge because he might obstruct the liberty to murder babies, the Times has trampled over the rights of those they don't like politically.
The Times has no right to think it reports from a position of moral superiority . It has not acted with neutrality simply trying to keep the public informed. Instead it has chosen to participate in the greatest political scandal this country has faced. It has openly tried to undo an election and in my opinion has no right to claim any of the protections of a truly free press.
if the Times cared about the rights of individuals it would have serious concerns about the Mueller investigation. If it cared about Justice it would have been concerned about the obstruction of it in the Hillary Clinton email and pay for play scandals.
If it truly wants to be the protector of freedom in this country it shouldnt side with a political movement bent on taking those freedoms away when political beliefs trump the constitution. Manafort was put in solitary confinement on a tax case.Spies were put in the Trump campaign. FISA court abuse was rampant.yet the Times wont report it. Very sad.
62
Why is it that reporters put this kind of nonsense out while thinking they are 'educating' us? Serious question.
38
@Russ Wilson They are.. just not about how to teach, what to, or who the student body is. They're a classic tell!
They're an example of people who deny the truth but can't stop telling us what it is.
4
Because they are children who have been told all of their lives by pandering adults that they are wise and important. The Democrats love to tell us that we can learn from the children even though the children are just that, children, and then the children grow up into insufferable adults who think they have some monopoly on the truth.
5
My mind immediately races to the image and dialogue of the "combing the desert" scene from the film, "Spaceballs." Specifically, I'm picturing the exasperated declaration of the last two men who are asked if they have found anything.
9
Out of sheer curiosity, if the search had yielded distasteful or bigoted statements toward a particular group of people, would that have been "newsworthy"? I'll be browsing through Sarah Jeong's public twitter feed and awaiting an answer.
43
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams, Second President of the United States)
The man has proved himself a prophet.
22
@Jay Cole Thank you. The Constitution, written by men who understood the natural law, its Creator and the character, or lack of it, of man, defends the ordinary sinner from the enlightened bureaucrat.
Here's one for you: can you have an opinion about what an opinion is? Thanks
3
I think it's time we started investigating these so-called "journalists." That way we can decide whether we should believe what they say or if we should ignore them.
For instance, did they donate to Hillary? Have they censored negative news about her? Have they lied about Trump? Do they incite violence against Conservatives?
43
@RLABruce I agree and cant believe this concept has not gained traction. You could develop and entire scandal series by doing investigative journalism on 'investigative' journalist. This is way overdue
8
Are you ever going to answer all the reader questions asking whether the Times did the same thing regarding Democratic nominees? I also find it interesting that the two authors do not appear to normally cover judicial matters. They are "investigative reporters" who focus largely on Trump's private business affairs. What do they know about the investigations the Times normally undertakes of judicial nominees?
52
@Realist
If only they investigated the behavior of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton before the election vis-a-vis Trump with half the rigor they expend now, we would not need Senators to do their investigating for them.
11
Here are quotes from a sitting Scotus Judge made before being nominated for and appointed to the Supreme Court.
These show a disrespect, even a disregard, for the Constitution which all Judges swear to uphold by claiming that personal experiences,gender, color and national origin override Constitutional law.
- “Yet,because I accept the proposition that... "to judge is an exercise of power" and because... "there is no objective stance but only a series of
perspectives-no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," ….
- I further accept that..... experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.
-The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
- enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.
-Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences… our gender and national origins will make a difference in our judging.
-Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
-I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging.But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latinaheritage.” End quotes.
"A Latina Judge's Voice" -- an address by Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Source: Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Volume 13 Number 1 (2002) Symposium 2002
This individual should never have been seated on the Supreme Court.
49
@Patrick49
The "wise Latina" phrase alone should have eliminated her from any courtroom.
"But when it comes to reporting on a potential Supreme Court justice, we had to try"? It sounds to me like your foray through Mr. Kavanaugh's Town Manager emails account was entirely successful. As one would expect from such an exemplary couple whose husband has held Supreme Court asperations (and the academic and judicial record to make those aspirations realistic) his entire adult life, you found nothing derogatory. That is good news for America, is it not?
35
Yes. As journalists, you should request all records. Just curious, have you ordered same records of other nominees? Or do you feel slight bias when it comes republicans vs democrats?
114
@Stun
You know there is no chance they checked the e-mails and other records of Sotomayor's husband or Kagan's husband.
8
Just curious: If the actual results were within the range of your expectations, but disappointing to you (because no insights or otherwise salacious front-page news), what was within the range of your expectations that would have met your fondest hopes? Maybe an exchange with Peter Strzok?
86
Thank you for this disclosure. It is interesting to note that you indicate that your frequently request records and that the results lead to nothing.
Now in the interest of those that want to understand your motivations, please publish a list of public record requests the New York Times performed with respect to the following as it pertains to either the individuals and/or their significant others (spouse, companion and/or family members) Please also provide information (dates and to which agencies) when these requests were made.
1)Sonya Sotomayer
2)Elena Kagan
3)Loretta Lynch
94
@Full Disclosure
Let's add Bernie Sanders to that list. We now know, but didn't during the presidential campaign, that she has an unethical-at-best, criminal-at-worst work record.
5
Let's face it, the only reason you dug through his wife's records was because he was appointed by a Republican President not a Democrat one.
81
Pretty doubtful you did that with all previous nominees. Otherwise you would have mentioned it.
66
I think the main question is. Did you do this previously, and is it a standard policy of journalists to do so?
I'm guessing the answer is no, and therefore it's wrong.
102
If you are looking for more dirt on Mr. Kavanaugh and his wife try contacting his veterinarian to see if Mr. Kavanaugh beats his dog, contact his pizza delivery person to see if Mr. Kavanaugh gives a proper tip, and check with his neighbors to see if he waters his lawn on the wrong days.
If you are not looking for more dirt then leave his wife out of it and look only at his past judgements and writings.
63
@Carlos Gomes
Please don't give them any more loony ideas - they'll do it in their TDS zeal.
Let's hop he never put his dog in a cage on top of his car.
3
Please detail what similar digging was done to uncover information about Kagan and Sotomayor. Most of us know there was none.
67
I understand the importance and value of investigative journalism. But I do not understand, nor do I support, what seems more like opposition research. Investigating the man’s wife just because you’re able, as she held public office, feels cheap and beneath such a respected publication. If some salacious bit of information came from the emails only involving the wife, you would attempt to link her actions to him. More guilt by association - followed by mob-justice - which is absolutely rampant in our society today. We need to do better. It is imperative to the future of our society and our republic that we do better.
103
Could you let us know the other spouses of nominees emails you dug through? I'm going to bet it's none.
73
I have just one question-- was your research into Justice Kagen and Justice Sotomayor as in-depth and invasive???
60
Yes, I understand. It would be interesting to see the articles published about Ruth Ginsburg's husband during her nomination process. Can you advise what efforts were made in that regard? Thank you.
88
Yeah, had to try and find dirt, any dirt, on a nomination you desperately want to prevent.
Didn't work, did it?
I'm sure if you can't find anything, and I'm sure you won't, then feel free to manufacture something.
58
"Using a Public Records Request to Learn More About Brett Kavanaugh"
In other words: let's see if we can, hopefully, dig up some dirt.
72
I really don't recall this type of digging about RBG or Obama's two appointments. No family trees shaken, no prior written government documents culled through by teams of reporters. No interviews of individuals opposing the candidates. Just a celebratory type of coverage. Mostly puff pieces.
Character assassination seems on their minds NOT his qualifications or judicial temperament. Left fawned over Obama's picks while attacking (not vetting) both of Trump's selections.
Since the media is all liberal and leftwing they really don't like Conservative S.C. appointments. Conflict of political interest should be noticed by the public. There reporting is NEVER fair or evenhanded.
99
Odd, the left didn't even go to these extremes during the Souter hearings...
89
@Dave. The NYT never even vetted Obama to any degree besides doing puff pieces on their favorite candidate.
That information vacuum was filled by nutty as well as reasonable questions. His photos with Farakahn were hidden as well as how he paid for his apartment and education during his time at Columbia. Simple things but ignored by the NYT and others.
But now it is necessary to vet a mans wife? Obama's mentor a KNOWN Communist Frank M. Davis was glossed over. His association with Bill Ayers was excused as a acquaintance. Yet these things were ALL obfuscated or dismissed as NOT important.
The NYT got what it wanted - a very liberal POTUS. His total failure as President in many areas can be traced to his lack of any experience and poorly thought out programs.
His utilization of gov't agencies for [political purposes is now becoming public knowledge. One of the worst Constitutional crises is now facing us. Trump was probably illegally investigated and surveilled based on NOTHING.
But you already know this.
8
You’ve become vultures and have taken the philosophy that the ends justify the means. They don’t, and you should know better. What next, looking at his children’s school records? Society may be degrading rapidly but it’s your job to be a beacon of light to a better way, not a torch heading to the riot. Try to do better, if not for the sake of the rest of us of then for your own sake.
67
@Edmund Purcell Well written.
3
Could you be a little more consistent with this regardless of party affiliation? Everybody knows there have been “untouchable” things in certain Democrats and their children, why not air it all and let the public draw their own conclusions. This might gain some trust back.
67
I’d be interested to know the due diligence you did on other candidates’ spouses—if any.
100
I'll bet their were tears in the news room. No dirt on the nominee or his wife, yet darn! Who is looking at his children and what information have they uncovered? Don't remember this kind of investigation on Sotomayor, Kagin and Ginsberg?
93
TL; DR: We went digging for dirt on a man's wife in a desperate attempt to torpedo his nomination. We didn't find anything. Now we're taking heat for it and need to try to make it seem a virtuous exercise of journalistic integrity.
80
Since the GOP in Congress is holding back official records we can not really know with a certainty all of his legal thoughts. More partisan politics denying Americans vital information, shameful and approaching treasonous.
1
@andrew ensign nonsense, as he has already went through a confirmation process for his current job on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
As was noted recently out west in the LA Times, it's about stalling. Nothing more nothing less. The tactics by the Democrat party and the media is working in tandem against all things Trump, even spouses of possible Supreme Court justices.
Meanwhile we are told FBI agents with a spouse running as a Democrat in Virginia who got a campaign contribution from the sitting Virginia Governor, as a nothing burger. Hypocrisy 101.
25
@andrew ensign Brett Kavanaugh's legal opinions and decisions are matters of public record and completely available. What else would be necessary. Or is this just another fishing expedition?
10
@ElGato Let's not forget Bruce Ohr's wife who works for Fusion GPS and was a go-between with Christopher Steele after the FBI stopped using him as a source due to his leaks. Where was that investigation? (I did a quick google search...nothing came up for the NYT.)
So, tell us about all the public records requests you filed concerning Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Or, for that matter, Judge Garland after President Obama nominated him.
105
Sounds horribly embarrassing, especially when the e-mails leak... But legal... And fair too, assuming you dug into the husbands of Kagen and Sotomoyer similarly... Here in CA I’m wondering what the background of our US Senator’s driver is who spied for two decades for the Chinese while she ran the Intelligence committee... Who is this guy, who are his relatives and friends
72
@Neil They don’t have time for that. Too busy trying to find dirt on the Kavanaugh family. I hear their daughter operated a lemonade stand without a permit.
6
@Neil
Kagan never married. Sotomayor did marry, but briefly, ending in divorce. I wonder what that husband could have told us.
6
Well, I hope in whatever you find, you give Ashley Kavanaugh as much context and consideration as you gave Sarah Jeong. I am not optimistic about that, however.
77
It would be useful to understand what inquiries were made by the New York Times with respect to each of the most recent 20 nominees, specifically which keywords the researchers were interested in.
71
Maybe the public should get the records and emails on the news reporters to see how they spin the news to fit their twisted minds. Wonder if the Drudge Report would publish the emails and records. Now that would be real news.
81
@Jim Bowen. Great idea. The professional journalists and editors of the major newspapers such as NYT, WP, WSJ, should all be vetted thoroughly. The people have a right to know about their private lives and the extent of any biases they may have developed.
24
Fine. Please share with us the records requested regarding Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.
64
Nice attempt at hiding behind the duty of the press to excuse what you are really after: dirt on Trump's Supreme Court nominee.
Pulling the spouse in on your attempt to discredit Kavanaugh is disgusting. But, what else have we come to expect from the American media?
63
The news media should just "keep quiet'. We have representatives in Congress that we trust a little bit more than the liberal media. There is a process in place and it will be followed.
20
“But when it comes to reporting on a potential Supreme Court justice, we had to try.”
Please provide proof that you did the exact same thing when Kagen and Sotomayor were nominated..........
111