the president names a candidate for consideration to the senate for a spot on the supreme court. customarily the applicant's history is examined by another branch of the administration the fbi usually the f b i gives the candidate a clean bill(you know you have to please the guy that gave you your job makes sense?). if the senate has a majority of the presidents party then it is an open and shut case - the senate approves no matter what the opposition party has to offer because they are obviously just biased and generally bad people and definitely not to be trusted.
do i have too little faith in what i am witnessing. is anyone else aware what might be is an obvious flaw in this system which i have described?
1
Guess the Times will never learn, here we read the same old same old. Why doesn't the Times just publicly acknowledge that its world view is centrist at best. and that its primary political interest is in preserving status quo...
Wall Street, Big Corp, tax relief, are all NYTs most favored arenas. What is wrong with the Democratic party leaders is what is wrong with the New York Times; the preservation of advantage and privilege.
1
I have a relative who lives in Uruguay and visits us sometimes in summer. He isn't familiar with US politics or,in this case, our problems with the Supreme Court.
We were watching TV one day and the face of Brett Kavanaugh appeared in the screen. My relative commented immediately,
"that guy is a drunkard", pointing to Kavanaugh's rosy cheeks.
If that's the quality of our High Court appointees we're in for many problems in the near future, with another nomination of a sectarian woman nominated only to help in reversing Roe vs. Wade.
1
I remain amazed how the entire news media and all others were so distracted by the "Me Too" movement's efforts that sadly paralleled the Clarence Thomas hearing--with an identical candidate response and outcome--while everyone completely forgot to challenge him on how he arrogantly broke the criminal law of Maryland and Virginia while drinking underage--over and over again. No one asked the Supreme Court nominee about his foundational disrespect for the law.
3
The article about the Democrats proposed legislation to reign in
Police violence should have been on the front page today! It is very important and there must be pressure applied to Mitch and the Republicans to implement this bill!
1
Mr. Dao does not reveal who wrote and posted the offensive tweet. Is this not known?
1
This non-piece is just Dao being defensive about his poor editorial decisions, rather than accepting responsibility. "Mistakes were made."
6
@EB Kavanagh is guilty and doesn't belong on the Supreme Court, regardless of Dao's editorial mistake. Other victims who attended college with Kavanagh were blocked from testifying.
4
I believe and hope he will be impeached for lying to the Senate.
5
@Fancy
Impeachment doesn’t work. Instead…
Pack the Court
A Public Editor independent of the Times should be responding to readers' questions.
"As for news analysis': That is the label we attach to pieces by Times news reporters to underscore that they are not part of the Opinion section."
I thought "news analysis" was the label attached to articles that are not straight news reporting.
4
I am grateful for their new book and new accusations against MR. Kavanaugh. The vetting of potential Justices,has been in place for 100yrs, until Trump, and Mitch McConnell, Trump, Mitch and the VP, used, threats twisted arms, anything they had to do to get this unfit candidate through. It is with great honour that I say Voting Women in the midterms, "wiped the floor" with Mitch and his old white cronies. FBI investigations were shut down by Mitch and White House lawyer. Deborah Ramirez was not of the Kavanaugh elites, in school, making her the prime target of Kavanaugh Penis.
4
So many comments here misconstrue what that article is about, and seem to take away that the other woman (than Ms. Blasey-Ford) with an allegation about Brett Kavanaugh's conduct didn't actually remember the incident. That is what friends say about a THIRD woman, not what that woman herself has said because she is unwilling to talk about the incident. That third woman's unwillingness to talk does not indicate to me that it did not happen, it indicates to me she doesn't want to be seen as a victim or as victimizing Kavanaugh.
A teenager at an alcohol-fueled party might well forget as a result of the alcohol or as a result of willfully or subconsciously putting that sort of culture behind her. It is not at all surprising a guy would recount behavior like that while a woman would not.
But the actual story was about Deborah Ramirez's experience.
"Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.
"Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her 'credible.' But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. '“We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,”' Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. 'It was almost…apologetic.'"
19
Reply to @Ken: To say Kavanaugh is intelligent is to allow the good ole boy's club to control who pulls the levers of power. If our citizens to not start participating in the vetting, voting and the overseeing of our elected officials, we soon will have no democracy to hold in high esteem. Our journey down the road of fascism is rapidly replacing the democratic constitution that was authored to protect us from tyrants. Vote the republicans out on Tues. Nov. 3, 2020. Caste the ballot for democrats and democrats only.
22
Whatever we know about Kavanaugh's behavior is compounded by his childish, name-calling tantrum at his hearing with Dr. Blasey-Ford. That defensive hysterical outburst convinced me conclusively that this man doesn't have the temperament to serve on the Supreme Court. Too volatile. Much like his President.
10
So a group of young people gets together and eggs one another on to drink to the point of total incoherence. What are the odds that many of them will do and say things that they will definitely not be proud of later? How about we recognize this as the foundation of a very significant percentage of the drama and trauma that comes out of these situations. The media and our political culture make it very difficult for any high profile person to acknowledge any sort of misconduct in these circumstances from their past; or to point to extreme intoxication as the root of the misconduct. We punish and stigmatize drunk driving regardless of whether someone was harmed. How about all of the young people at those drunken parties are called out and stigmatized? They all cultivate an environment that frequently results in people literally and figuratively harming themselves and one another. Certainly the host of an event intended to lead to extreme intoxication has done something ethically and perhaps legally wrong.
5
@Teal what he needed to do at his hearing was simply to admit that his adolescent behavior was indefensible, and to apologize to Dr. Blasey Ford. His inability to admit that he had been an aggressive , beer drinking young jerk was- pathetic.
13
How about you focus on "new" news, ones with facts and evidence rather than old allegations. I can say anything about anyone a long time ago, and without actual evidence beyond my story, why believe it, why report on it?
It will not fix anything.
6
We have heard a lot about McConnell's refusal to allow a vote on Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.
Reading Jon Meacham's biography of Jefferson I learned that a few days before Jefferson was inaugurated as president in 180l the Federalist Congress during Adams' administration reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from 6 to 5 so that Jefferson could not have a nomination to make to the Court.
4
@n1789 At least that was a structural change that affected them and the future. The delay was just a constitutional dereliction of duty.
As long as so many are out on limbs of what they believe may or may not have happend--here is one of my own. I have always wondered about Dr. Ford's assertion that she had her bathing suit on under clothes, after just having come from a club that doubtles had showers for after swimming etc. Ridiculous you say--well not more in my opinion that the discussion of what went on at Yale beer parties. She claimed that K. was not able to get her clothes off because she had on her bathing suit. A strange thing to remember yet do. Why go to a party after swimming without getting out of your suit? I swam at a public pool with a bath house and none of went home with our bathing suits on under our clothes. Possible of course--and isn't that what much of this discussion is about--speculations about things that are
impossible to know?
3
@Nancy Lindemeyer
While in high school (Midwest, middle class, Catholic co-ed) I went to many parties with a swimsuit under my clothes - when there was a pool at the house - in case people wanted to go swimming. Not unusual at all.
8
@Nancy Lindemeyer It's very possible Dr. Ford never went in the pool, thus, no need to take off her swim suit before donning her street clothes. Many of the girls i grew up with frequently sunbathed, went to the pool to socialize or simply to be seen, not swim.
9
Black outs- by Ramirez and Kavanaugh are common with severe alcohol intoxication. This points to the real problem- alcohol abuse. All Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct was fueled by his drunkenness. His denial and emotional lability during the hearing, as well as his facial flush, are consistent with a drinking issue.
There should be a serious investigation of his alcoholism - well beyond his belligerent claim:"I like beer!"
Substance abuse is a condition that impairs cognitive functions, problem solving and sound judgment. It increases with age. Any talk of impeachment should focus on that.
16
@Sara At last!A professional analyst who has extensively interviewed Kavanaugh and reached an informed opinion.
4
The real heroines of our age are not the clowns elected and shielded by the republicans who refuse to exercise the laws built into our Constitution. The real people who are making a difference are the likes of Jodi Kantor, Megan Twohey, Farrow and the staff from the Boston Globe who broke the debacle of the abusive Catholic priests to the unprotectetd minors in their parishes. Kudos to the investigative journalists and to the papers who print their stories. Tell me why our elected, protected, well paid congressmen, senators, people of high government do nothing follow justice and to help the general population? Vote the republicans out. Vote democrats on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020.
8
What have you done?
Essentially every major Democrat Presidential candidate rushed to judgment based on your faulty reporting.
This isn't something that is walked back easily, particularly so when your explanations frankly feel evasive. I have no idea how you fix this, but I'm betting it will take years.
31
The problem is not that Brett was a frat-boy jerk in the 70's, but that he showed he was still a frat-boy jerk while lying under oath at the hearings. Why would anyone, of any political persuasion, want such an irredeemably flawed individual serving on the Supreme Court?
37
I stopped in at our local supermarket to pick up a few items and to get a copy of the N. Y. Times. When I got to the newspaper rack the Times was not there which is unusual. I finally got to the checkout and low & behold there was the Times right next to the National Inquire on the tabloid rack. I guess the once "esteemed " newspaper of record has diminished itself to tabloid and gossip status. What a shame!!!
21
@Fred The sales rack position is controlled by the local distributor and ultimately the vendor. The NYT has no control over how and where its paper is positioned for sale. Possibly the size of each publication or the quantity of copies offered or the sizes of available racks or a judgment call by someone filling in for the usual delivery person or even the efforts of a supermarket clerk to clean up the area and put that last NYT up front were factors in what you encountered?
1
"During the authors’ investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Stier, witnessed the event and later reported it to senators and to the F.B.I. The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible."
What does this mean? "Two government officials" found the penis story credible or Max Stier's reporting the penis story to the FBI and senators credible? If the former, who are these government officials and what are their qualifications to pronounce it credible? If the latter, I'm not sure how their opinions provide justification for printing the allegations.
What exactly did the reporters corroborate here? That the incident in question is credible or actually happened? Or what?
31
The NYT has no excuse, good or bad, for printing defamatory stories about a sitting Supreme Court Justice that are no more than uncorroborated hearsay from someone with a clear political agenda.
All of us should be fearful when all anyone has to do is say they saw you do something 20 plus years ago that no one else recalls or is willing to corroborate and it ends up being printed in what used to be one of the finest papers in the land for all to read and pass judgement on. The Times' "reporting" over the last 3 years clearly demonstrates the paper is no longer a serious journalistic endeavor but rather a purely political posting place for likeminded folks who forgot that “elections have consequences” like it or not.
36
Gee whiz, people, grow up! This is in fact the way people behaved in the 70s, certainly at Yale and I'm sure at lots of other less privileged places.
What you did there should not define your life afterwards. The judgmental attitude of today's millennials astounds me.
And now that the Times has fired (excuse me, pensioned off) its more seasoned reporters and replaced them with younger (and cheaper) ones it's clear that its reporting reflects that fact (starting with the 1619 project, but let's not get into THAT redefinition of the values of the American experience).
In fact, Judge Kavanaugh has lead a life since Yale that has been enormously helpful to women attorneys. THAT is what should be impressive and important, not the egregious and tasteless behavior of the 70s.
Grow up, guys.
110
@Sconseter in NYC
The reporters on this story are not only young, they’re exceptionally talented.
Indecent exposure was as unacceptable in the 1970’s as it is today.
1619 Project presents our history accurately and, in doing so, upholds American values of truth and justice that for too long have been compromised by the whitewash that’s passed for history.
37
@Sconseter in NYC
Then why was Kavanaugh in so much debt?
Oh yes, the investigation wasn't allowed to ask that question.
23
@Sconseter in NYC
If that's the way he behaved then, ok. If we accept your version, that means he lied under oath at the hearings. THAT is what is important, and not impressive. He could have been more truthful and let the committee decide if they agree with your view that whatever he did then, no matter how bad, should not define your life afterwards. Does that include sexual assault, if that was the accepted behavior of the day?
28
Why didn’t anyone look more carefully at his debts, apparently associated with gambling? New York Magazine reports that he has twice run up debts between 60,000 and $200,000 and the committee was never able to figure out how he paid the debts off. If he paid them off, as he claims, he didn’t report the income as he should have.
The FBI knows that this kind of indebtedness is a red flag for anyone in high public office. They themselves are closely monitored in this regard so why the free ride for Kavanaugh?
This should have been pursued. The numbers don’t lie or misremember. The gambling problem suggests too that Kavanaugh has the kind of addictive personality that may continue to resurface in different avenues over time, ultimately compromising his impartiality.
55
@Cecelie Berry Justice Kavanaugh had to submit years of financial records before even being nominated by President Trump. He was thoroughly vetted prior to his Supreme Court and every other nomination. Every suspicion was proven unfounded, every accusation was proven to be a lie.
38
@Larry
Clearly you don’t know the vetting process.
I have gone through it: let me educate you.
The vetting starts from a baseline and builds from there. The investigation does not start from the beginning (ie, university, first job) for each nomination. Therefore, if something was missed initially—at the first review or investigation of a candidate—it will stay “missed” unless someone/something comes forward later. Also note that the vetting process is only as good as the investigators; some are better than others.
By all accounts the FBI did a cursory, restricted review of Kavanuagh, no reason to believe previous vettings were more thorough.
At any rate Kavanaugh’s histrionics should have disqualified him. What an embarrassment.
20
@Larry
If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge for sale at a favorable price.
In fact, Trump openly told reporters that they do the vetting for this White House. That’s right, don’t take him literally, even when it’s recorded for posterity.
7
What was most disturbing to me was that the FBI did not investigate more thoroughly. Everyone seems to agree that most of the stories seem credible, but no one seems to think it's worth going further.
We now have two Supreme Court justices who almost certainly committed sexual assault or at minimum sexual harassment. Given that there are literally over a million lawyers in the US, why on god's green earth did Republicans think these two should be on the bench?
18
"I think it's time the Times and the rest of the progressive establishment come to terms with the Trump phenomenon,"
You mean with the corruption, the racism, or both?
14
The other reported incident was known at the time of the hearings, and BOTH the FBI and the media did not give it the attention it should have gotten. Even though its a little late, its still proper-and necessary, for news outlets to be investigating, publishing, etc. whatever information they can accumulate.
.
Kavanaugh is an obvious failure as a public servant.
.
Thus, the media should not stop reporting unless and until he is no longer in a public office.
14
The headline news is: "FBI failed to investigate numerous witnesses to Kavanaugh's behavior at Yale," for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in a highly charged and divisive political and cultural climate.
With all of the controversy, the American people needed the truth from a respected law enforcement institution, and all we got was collusion with a compromised executive branch and DOJ.
And now the public trust is broken with the Supreme Court and the FBI, on top of the legislative and executive branches.
That's the news. If there are witnesses to an event that the victim can't remember, then it's still credible. And there are really good reasons for that women to continue not remembering. Of course, it's possible that that behavior was so pervasive that it wasn't memorable. Those folks from Yale Law School should have been interviewed, can't you get disbarred for lying to the FBI? Talk about an incentive to report the truth.
The whole thing is disgraceful. The Republicans have broken representative government, checks and balances, the Justice Department, and credible law enforcement.
That's the news folks, for whatever errors the NYT may have made. Don't get distracted from the godawful reality.
25
This mess is why most reasonable people, including myself, believe that the major news outlets (NYT, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, etc) really have limited/no credibility when it comes to reporting on these events. It's all partisan, it's just a matter of degree. This one is just worse than usual.
27
@Kevin Byrnes
'Most reasonable people'!Partisan!? Don't finish that cool-aid. I am so tired of people including Fox News as part of any comparison to legitimate news organizations.
Somebody tell me how many journalism awards i.e.Pulitzer, Peabody, Dupont-Columbia, Murrow etc. has the Murdoch 'news' organization won in their 22+ years!? I believe zero, zilch. The same number, I believe as the other Murdoch gossip, Rag publications.
Fox News 'Fair and Balanced'...yeah right.
7
Long-time NY Times reader. Your obsession with Trump and his cronies has reached an unhealthy state.
Look, I totally get it. The NY Times leadership is hoping for some sort of smoking-gun gotcha that will bring the entire Trump Crony enterprise crashing down. But it's not going to happen. Trump and his folks have repeatedly shown that they are immune to wolkscolding and allegations, and when the NY Times makes unforced errors like these, it just reduces its credible and provides ammo to Trump on Twitter.
I think it's time the Times and the rest of the progressive establishment come to terms with the Trump phenomenon, stop trying to find some gotcha that will finally unwind his empire. It's unhealthy and, to those of us who want to see the country move forward, depressing to see these constant attempts.
43
@David Konerding
Trump's empire is unwinding entirely on his own. The NYT made a grievous error in judgment, but so has Fox News. No one's immune from error. Even you, my friend.
4
I am a long time New York Times reader and registered Democrat. I also am disturbed by the lapses in journalistic integrity evidenced by the recent tweet and articles on Kavanaugh. The tweet was beyond offensive and shocking coming from the NYT. To say that your vetting process was not followed properly doesn't explain or excuse it. Similarly, the failure to state in the original article that the alleged victim doesn't recall the incident is inexcusable. I have come to expect more from the NYT and hope that the editors and reporters learn from their errors and the outrage that followed in this case.
73
@Ann
Great comment, Ann, but you shouldn't have expected better from the New York Times. This utterly scurulious story is merely the culmination of a radical transformation in the character of the paper's journalism, from scrupulous objectivity to partisan advocacy,
that's been going on for many many years. It's been regularly reflected by editorializing in news stories and, recently, even in headlines. See for example the following account of how the Times changed a headline that factually described a speech by Trump to one that editorialized against it, after complaints from the Democratic candidates and the paper’s leftwing readership that the original headline wasn’t sufficiently anti-Trump.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-times-changes-headline-on-trump-shooting-response-after-presidential-candidates-call-them-out
For business or ideological reasons or both, the Times has made a decision to discard all journalistic standards in favor of becoming the newspaper of the “Resistance.” Sad. Very sad.
16
What about omitting the fact that the female student does not remember the incident from the initial article. Mr. Dao does not address the most scandalous point, which makes me think there was something nefarious going on. The issue was addressed by the authors during the MSNBC interview but, honestly, sounded like 'the dog ate my homework' type (they allege that the editors cut the exculpating sentence because the name of the student was mentioned :-))
44
Given that this story ran, is this newly alleged female student, who is possibly a victim, now more likely or less likely to come forward?
If she is more likely to come forward, we should remember (if she actually does) that she may well be a victim; i.e., someone who, if she is indeed telling the truth, deserves every benefit an actual victim deserves, as is accorded by our custom.
If she is now less likely to come forward (though she is in fact, an actual victim) she will always feel doubly victimized because The Times made itself part of the story. (Whether this was for the greater good or for its own competitive gain, or for some mixture of both, is irrelevant.)
Which begs the question, should there be a cardinal rule in journalism of “Do no harm?"
I’m not sure. It depends.
If she is an actual victim and is now more inclined to come forward and tell the truth—perhaps because she knows she now has the outspoken support of Mr. Strier, an eyewitness, to back up her story—well, then, the greater good may be served; despite the involuntary burden of personal difficulty which this may impose upon her.
Is the harm done to her by the article’s calling her forward, then, a burden that we all, as Society's Children, should be prepared to shoulder; given the good turn that coming forward could possibly do society (weighed against the bad that a "bad" Supreme Court Justice could conceivably effect if not called-out and held to account)? This is for her to weigh, and decide.
@JiMcL She appears to be a victim of the Times, not of Kavanagh. She does not have any recollection of the alleged incident -- only one person has alleged it, but that person is unwilling to make the allegation publicly, much less under oath. Dao says "the authors corroborated the story" when he means "the authors corroborated the fact that the allegation was made" -- the story was not corroborated. This "Reader Center" is still more journalistic malpractice.
32
If Justice Kavanaugh doesn't file a defamation lawsuit in spite of the strong libel case he has against the publishers ..
.. I can only assume he agrees with the veracity of every bit of the published story.
6
@Bhaskar
He's not gonna file any lawsuit. Truth is a defense against a libel charge. Last thing Kavanaugh wants is for the truth to come out.
7
@DW
Is that why the Clintons didn't file one single defamation lawsuits against the troll army of people who published allegations about them?
5
@Bhaskar
There might have been a time when this type of story in the NY Times would hurt someone's reputation. I'm not sure that's the case here, partly because Kavanaugh already has a pretty poor reputation in this regard and partly because the NY Times is no longer considered the paper of record.
5
Every time an offensive tweet appears from an editor or reporter, there's always a statement about how it's being investigated what went wrong, new controls in place, etc. How about newspapers and other news media have their staff not tweet at all about matters that fall under their purview and stick to editing and reporting?
25
I did not support Kavanagh’s nomination particularly because of his lack of judicial demeanor during the hearings. But your judgement in running this story is unconscionable. Not only do you fail to
mention that the alleged victim has no recollection of his misbehavior at Yale but you also do not mention that the book specifically finds that none of the four witnesses that Ms Ford named can recall the party she mentioned. And that the friend that *she* called as a witness does not corroborate her account and finds it not believable. Now this does not mean that Ms Ford lied but to publish a book excerpt as a piece of news analysis without mention of all sides is serious journalistic malpractice on your part.
50
@MMiller
According to friends, the alleged victim has no recollection.
That is not a direct response but the victim but rather hearsay and essentially worthless in any court of law.
As far as the victim actually speaking out - given the tenor and viciousness of the response to Ms Ford's testimony, some women would prefer to not speak out.
As far as recall- quite frankly, all questioned were probably drunk or stoned at the party in question- memory would be questionable.
5
I think we might have a problem here.
What are we going to do?
I think we're going to have to throw Dao under the bus. We'll give him severance and a good letter of recommendation. He'll be fine.
Under the circumstances that is probably the best plan.
Are you going to talk to him?
No, I'll have somebody else do it.
Okay. Have you chosen the lead article for tomorrow?
Not yet. I think we're going have to go with Iran.
20
That piece really shone a light on the challenges faced by people who went to private schools and Yale and have a pool in their back yard.
5
So - to summarize - the latest victim has no memory of the alleged offence and the 'new' witnesses simply heard a rumor that was going around Yale - but never actually witnessed anything.
So - no one - not a single soul - actually saw a single event that is the core of this book - they 'heard' about it.
I am thinking that perhaps we are setting the bar a bit low for impeachment.
32
I am bored by all of this. Kavanaugh has been appointed and I couldn't care less about what he did as a youngster. I've read all that the NYTimes has recently published and sympathize with Ms. Ramirez for the unfair treatment she received at Yale. But, JFK said that life is often not fair. Ms. Ramirez has moved on and others need to also focus on being productive rather than resentful.
25
@Donald Champagne he wasn't a youngster, he was a young adult. Stop being dismissive of him. Too bad I can't forget my assault that happened forty five years ago, huh?
3
A lot of questions, none of which address the main issue: none of this would arise if the Kavanaugh vetting had been thorough and honestly executed.
17
I do not agree with his stance on the Constitution, he conducted himself very poorly during the vetting process and the FBI failed to do due diligence in reviewing his character.
35
The supposed "victim" does not remember the incident - that should tell you something.
63
@99percent
The Stanford rapist's victim did not remember the incident either. However, eyewitness testimony convicted Brock Turner.
It sure seems to me that Republicans think boys who rape unconscious girls or girls who don't remember should all be exonerated because having an eyewitness to it doesn't count for them.
Of course, they also don't believe the women, either.
15
@RJ and the Lt. Governor of Virginia?
6
Inappropriate tweets below any standart news - read Trump'S tweets. Are Times readers being realistic enough to demand filtering legitimate sources to the point of censoring and isolating the editors, when the facts presented carry true ugliness, misconduct behaviour, corrupt, and evil in nature?
3
Me thinks there is entirely too much protest about this “egregious error”! As a lower class woman who ended up at an Ivy League grad school in the late 1970’s, I saw the drunken, over-privileged behavior of Kavanaugh types first hand. I had almost no experience with drinking and was overwhelmed by the huge consumption of beer. It was incredibly easy to become pass out drunk at an impromptu party - especially when your alcohol consumption was limited to about one six pack a year and all of a sudden you were in a room with people who consumed one six pack an hour.
And while I was certainly no virgin, the entitlement that many of these guys felt to leer and grab and put you in uncomfortable positions (like thrusting their penis in your face!) was part of just what they could do to feel superior. I wanted sex on mutual terms and they were fine with that - as long as “mutual” meant their terms.
By NO means does this describe all, or even most, males of this era, but it does describe a type: rich, white, full of themselves. They dominated the Ivies.
Oh and “I don’t recall” is legal speak for “I do not want to say”. If the other alleged victim said “it categorically didn’t happen” that means it didn’t, but you can’t be accused of lying if you say “I can’t recall”.
23
@Cooofnj
No one can categorically say that an event didn't happen unless they were following the accused all the time the night in question.
While I have no doubt that there were drunken entitled rich frat boys at Yale, I also have no doubt that there were drunken entitled rich sorority girls at Yale for whom the "grand bargain" was worth it.
Debauched culture wasn't invented at Yale, or stayed there during the 1970s. Guys with a penchant for sexual assault continue that behavior in their professional lives. Nobody has a crisis of conscience when they walk into their first job.
1
@Viv I agree that no one observing an incident can categorically say whether it happened (or didn’t) unless they were observing 100% of the time. My comment was about the other alleged victim. Reports are she’s a lawyer so she would be certainly careful.
And while I agree that Yale was not unusual ( I did not attend Yale), I did attend a state college (non-elite) where that behavior was definitely frowned upon (not non-existent, just “not cool”).
And certainly there were (and are) rich, drunk, entitled young women, but they much fewer in number. And I also suspect that many of those women (and more than a few men) seriously regret how they enabled and covered for sexual predators.
By all accounts Kavanaugh did not continue his egregious (my word) behavior into adulthood. Hopefully it was merely because he finally grew up and not because he did something that required intervention. In which case, if he simply owned up to the fact that he was an immature jerk, apologized, and lived a good life, he would have been given a pass by a much wider set of the public. One sign of maturity is owning your mistakes.
I do not like his conservatism but REALLY?! Are we headed for a crucifixion?
48
Christine Blasey Ford’s friend now says she’s skeptical of Kavanaugh accusation
56
@R. R.
Maybe we should ask the third person who was in the room — put Mark Judge under oath.
16
@Tedj
No that is not allowed. Because Mark Judge would surely contradict Kavanaugh's testimony that he and his pals were honoring their friend Renate throughout their yearbook.
Or maybe Judge would commit perjury like his pal Kavanaugh and claim that Renate should be grateful the boys were so nice to her in their yearbook.
3
A simple question - just one: I do not defend Kavanaugh for offensive inappropriate conduct; I do not think he was the best or better of possible conservative options for the Supreme Court. But given what are clearly the current standards versus then for sexual assault and harassment, would the Times and others now call for Bill Clinton’s impeachment?
54
@Science Teacher Given that he certainly lied under oath, I'm going to go with YES. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction. Sound familiar?
19
@Science Teacher
Bill Clinton had been impeached. It is time for Kavanaugh to take that seat.
15
@Science Teacher: If I remember correctly, Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was consensual. And Clinton was impeached for lying about that relationship. Tell me what you think we should now be impeaching Clinton for. And while you're it, maybe you can remember that the current commander in chief has had uncountable accusations made against him. You ready to impeach him too?
4
In my view the latest allegation should have never been published since the alleged victim doesn't recall it. The old Roman law statement is "one witness is no witness". The NYT is supposed to publish "All the news that is fit to print" I know the piece was in the opinion section, but it contains a derogatory allegation from a single source that is not verified or substantiated in any way;it is actually refuted by the supposed victim. I am no fan of Brett Kavanaugh, but this is not good reporting. I think the NYT needs to perform up to the reputation it built for journalistic integrity.
93
@James Fear
Good thing, Brock Turner's victim was rescued by two Swedish grad students instead of just one.
13
@James Fear
Exactly!
7
@Tedj
If Republicans posting here had been on the jury, they would have demanded the rape victim apology to Brock Turner because those Republican jurors would insist that since the victim can't remember, Brock Turner is innocent and must go free.
4
At some point, his daughters are going to ask questions, and he's going to have to look them in the eyes and either lie or tell the truth about his past. My guess is that'll be a watershed moment.
11
@Katrin
The Kennedy and Clinton children managed quite well, and don't appear to have changed their affection for their fathers.
32
@Viv
Except that there is the public family and the private family.
I don't know that either of those families would be regarded as role models.
As for Kavanaugh's daughters, like Anthony Weiner's son, if they are in school, their classmates have already filled them in.
2
So disappointed that The New York Times presented a story without corroborating. If the goal is to print facts, then corroboration is essential. If the goal is a character smear, then anything goes.
74
@Nan The FBI REFUSED to interview over 20 names given to them re this event; including several who contacted the FBI.
6
@ewrzjc
They spoke with Ramirez herself and it was determined that she lacked credibility.
The 20+ names were just a ruse to delay the proceedings in hope that Kavanaugh would be withdrawn
1
@Wondering
If an individual gets blackout drunk, memory of what happened during the drinking is not clear. Ramirez was not used to drinking; she was out of her social element and was humiliated by some entitled snobs at a private university. Ramirez did not lack credibility; she had no reason to come forward at all and expose herself to more bigoted opinions about her. I went to a few frat parties at Berkeley; I don't doubt her story at all. Arrogance and drunkenness are a bad combo.
The fact that the victim doesn't remember the incident is unimportant. Both people were very drunk, which makes memories hazy or non-existent.
My sister and I frequently compare incidents when one of us doesn't remember it at all and the other remembers a lot of details which sometimes can be verified by an old photo. Both of us were sober at the time.
What Kavanaugh said he remembers at the hearings was selective. (What guy keeps his high school calendars?) He wasn't going to admit to being a drunken lout. What should have disqualified him was his attacking his questioners about their drunkenness. That is not a way for any judge to act, let alone one who is on the highest court. Trump promised us all the best people, but history has shown that he had to fire all of them. Of course, he won't fire this unqualified judge because he is someone Trump's base idolizes.
24
@S.L.
Love the way people can whisk away all of Blasey Ford's weakness as a "witness" to an allegedly earth-shattering event in her life, but those folks can't get over the fact that Kavanaugh kept calendars from high school.
25
@S.L.
Or perhaps it is Stier with the faulty or selective memory...
16
@S.L.
Kavanaugh was arrogant and rude during his Hearing; he even dragged in the Clintons as if they had something to do with his Hearing; the Clintons were out of power and in no way involved with Kavanaugh. What I remember about Kavanaugh was that he slurred his words, and had a hard time remaining civil. He kept asking one woman on the Panel if she had a drinking problem, because he knew her father was an alcoholic. That was uncalled for; it was insulting and it revealed just how privileged this Georgetown Prep/Yalie was. I worked for a political law firm in D.C. for 5 years, and met my share of Kavanaughs. And Lindsey Graham's questions? What a set up.
In any rational world the news released by the authors of this book that Ford's best friend and sole identified witness Leland Keyser does not believe that the incident claimed by Ford regarding Kavanaugh ever took place would be the real headline of this story. It appears most likely that Ford,like Kayser never met Kavanaugh during her high school years and only became aware of him from secondary sources.
But much more troubling and even more of an indictment of the Times "reporting" is the failure to mention in any way the attempts of Ford loyalists to pressure Keyser to give supporting testimony for Ford's story, even to the point of threatening to portray hr as a drug addict.
The Washington Post is reporting this today.
65
I am a longtime reader of the New York Times. I am now a disappointed reader of the New York Times.
It is unbecoming of this paper to privilege a politically expedient narrative over its usual standards of journalism. As a conservative who hopes a Democrat replaces President Trump in 2020, it is my belief that mistakes like these secure his presidency in a second term.
Why?
Much of President Trump’s begrudging support comes from the belief that “the left” is becoming intolerably extreme and extremely intolerant. I am a bit more optimistic than my fellow conservatives. However, the Times is not doing America any favors with these missteps. If the Times really wants President Trump to lose 2020, I would humbly suggest this paper and it’s peers appear more sober than zealous.
102
@Leo Strauss
I think it's horribly sad that some people still think that believing assaults on women are a very serious matter is an "intolerably extreme" stance. Whether the assault was in college, or now.
Or that such a stance is somehow "zealous." I'd call it civilized.
And of course your choice of the word "sober" is ironic. I would prefer our Supreme Court justices be generally sober; a clear history of alcoholism, and very bad behavior when drinking, is concerning.
3
@DW
Kavanaugh was a known blackout drunk in Georgetown Prep; he continued to drink at Yale. An educated guess is that he still drinks, and friends still cover for him.
Why are these questions being answered by the deputy opinion editor, instead of the news editor or Mr. Baquet himself?
69
@Lauren
Because then Mr. Baquet will open himself up to questions about his infamous "Town Hall" meeting, arguably the most egregious misadventure (that we know of) in the Times's post-Walter Duranty history!
5
At least the Times acknowledges mistakes it makes. Would that the current administration did the same thing, but it always doubles down on its errors on the theory that repeating them enough makes them accuracies, not mistakes. I'll take the NYT's integrity over the administration it reports upon any day.
20
This is pure politics, nothing more. It’s a transparent attempt to raise from the dead the hope of blocking Kavanaugh, and from there trying to hold off Trump from filling his seat until (they hope) they win the election.
Unfortunately for Democrats this will only fire up the Republicans and ensure your defeat.
108
@AACNY I hope you will acknowledge that most of the response of NYT readers to this article have been extremely negative, rather than fired up.
3
Given Max Stier’s political views, former employer Bill Clinton, his long, contentious history with Justice Kavanaugh, and the fact the purported victim had no memory of a 30 year old event, Mr Dao’s answer to why he included that bit of information is deeply troubling.
131
Nonsense! Any sane and reasonable person would recall someone or someone’s handing another person’s genitals to them. And what’s the connection of you dealing with 40,000 felons and someone you don’t know and never met as being morally corrupt or not?
8
@forgetaboutit
How do you explain the gratefulness of his many law clerks and students for his generosity and professionalism, and even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's acknowledgement of the good he has done in promoting female law clerks, who will as a result be more qualified for future judgeships? This comment seems to be founded in irrational hatred for someone who is not at all morally corrupt to the core.
26
@forgetaboutit. Ah, I suppose you can just look in someone’s eyes and determine they are a criminal. That is why so many of us fear the left far more than Trump. And btw, Mr Stier is a long time political operative and unlikely to have been concerned about being buried by a publicity mountain. On the contrary, it’s good for business!
26
If Mr. Kavanaugh had admitted that he drank too much as a college student, and as a result participated in unethical behavior, and that he was deeply sorry about this behavior and avowed that he had matured now, I would certainly respect him and consider forgiving him.
His complete, and at times angry, defiance of all these allegations combined with accusing the Democrats specifically of conspiring against him paint a far darker as well as unforgivable picture of a man unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.
558
@Richard Phelps Yes, just like what happened to Senator Franken when he apologized....he lost his job.
27
@Richard Phelps-If Kavanaugh had an impeccable record why did the WH hold back over 100,000 documents and redacted information? Why did Republican Senators limit the time for colleagues to review relevant documents; releasing 42,000 pages only the night before hearings started? Wouldn't Judge Kavanaugh insist that all relevant evidence be brought to light in the cases he presides over? Wouldn't he want to be held to the same standards he would apply? Kavanaugh's answer was "no".
48
Have you considered that maybe he is not guilty of what he was accused of?
46
Brett Kavanaugh is obviously intelligent; he wouldn't be presiding at the highest court in the land if he wasn't.
However, to listen to him during the Senate confirmation hearings was to listen to a self-possessed, obstinate egotist who seems, clearly, to believe that the world owes him: on a silver platter, thank you.
On the basis of his maturity level, alone -- woefully revealed at the hearings by the rantings of a teenage delinquent who never grew up -- Kavanaugh proved himself wholly unfit to deliberate Fairness and Truth on the Supreme Court.
In the persistent "legal contests" between him and his accusers -- between lies and the truth -- Kavanaugh's accusers win every time.
628
@Ken
Can you recall one prominent politician who was accused of the same and acted more appropriately when interrogated in public? No, of course not. People tend to act "immaturely" when they are accused of heinous crimes by people who can't even remember the incident itself, and never planned on making their story public.
The demonstrated heinous behavior here wasn't what Kavanaugh did at a frat party 30+ years ago.
It was in the deliberate outing of two women - women who were are expected to believe are victims, and who did not want to come forward.
If we take you at your word, these women are victims, they weren't just victimized by Kavanaugh, but also by members of the media and politicians - people who they trusted to keep their word because that's what they were promised.
That violation is beyond the pale, and deserves no less scrutiny than what happened 30+ years ago.
85
@Viv
"That violation is beyond the pale, and deserves no less scrutiny than what happened 30+ years ago."
Agreed, and I'd add:
As does blatant perjury by Kavanaugh last year during his confirmation hearings!
50
@Viv "... by people who can't even remember the incident itself." What are the you talking about? This comment is wrong in so many ways.
39
Well, that clears it all up. The NYT did nothing wrong. Everything was done by the book, except that uncomfortable tweet, which was retracted. And since they say they did nothing wrong from the outset, they don't even have to explain why they printed a correction to add that tiny inconvenient bit about the "victim" denying that the alleged assault happened. You may be doing nothing wrong, but you don't want to get sued for libel for doing nothing wrong. Right?
And since they cleared it all up, that they did nothing wrong, they shouldn't have to explain why everyone in the journalism community, including those Trump-lovers at CNN and the Washington Post, and all of journalism's leading lights, are lambasting them for doing nothing wrong.
175
As far as I know, the alleged victim has not “denied” the event happened. You are jumping the gun, to say the least. She might have been too drunk to remember — a condition in which many girls are victimized, after all. The truth is, if you want to complain about something, you should complain about there not being more clarity on that point. Again, though, I have yet to read that she denied it.
25
@Chuck French: Very confused post. First, the victim has not denied that the incident happened, at least not according to any reporting I have seen. Rather, she has declined to comment and is said not to remember the incident. Second, the NYT did not assert that the incident happened. It states that a report of the incident was made by someone claiming to be an eyewitness, and that that report was deemed credible by the FBI.
26
@Chuck French
If they believed it to be the actual news they pretend it is, they wouldn't have published it in the opinion section under a book review.
Why didn't they publish it under news, if they stand by their reporting as factual and not opinion?
33
If the FBI had been allowed to go through the standard vetting process and had been able to follow all of the leads that they were given then we would't be where we are today. Between the lack of proper vetting and his lack of candor during his confirmation hearings he will be forever tainted and should not be sitting on the Supreme Court. The White House, in it's rush to pack the court with right wing ideologues, is to blame for this entire debacle. If Kavanaugh had nothing to hide, then why cut short the vetting process? Transparency is an alien concept to this administration.
13
Can you explain why it also wasn't mentioned in the article that Max Steir (the thoughtful person bringing these present allegations) was the counsel for Pres. Clinton in the Paula Jones case in which he was accused of exposing himself. The most interesting aspect is that's the counsel working with Ken Starr was the very Brett Kavanaugh and Steir did not bring up that opposing counsel had allegedly also exposed himself to a girl at a party not that long ago at he time? Is that not relevant? Why did he stay silent then when the episode was much more recent? So fascinating. . .
27
It is terribly unfortunate that the Times column has created such a distraction from the real issues, which are not whether the allegations against Kavanaugh are true, but whether they were sufficiently investigated to allow the Senate to make an informed decision on whether he was fit for a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court. And if, as it appears, they were not investigated at all, why was that?
I think the answer is that the allegations were not investigated because Republicans did not (and do not) care whether they were true (which would be par for the course). They wanted their man on the court, and nothing and no one was going to stand in the way. In short, an exercise of raw power -- it's what Republicans do.
At this point, if a proper investigation were to show that Kavanaugh perjured himself during the course of his confirmation hearing, and there were no adverse consequences, that would be a huge step towards further destroying Americans' faith in our democratic institutions -- which, come to think of it, has been the goal of the Republican Party since at least Ronald Reagan (who often said so publicly).
11
@Another Joe I think the FBI should do more investigation. They should talk to Ford's friends on whether they pressured her friend to lie. They should interview Ford, since her attorney waived privilege, about the lies under oath to the committee about motivation. And, if they find there was pressure, or that Ford lied they should be prosecuted.
3
The book’s authors were interviewed by L. O’DONNELL at msnbc last night and have given more context to what the book is about, which was not intended to be a political hit job but more of cultural and reflective.
They were asked about the kerfuffle on the way NYT handled the publication of the excerpt which was adapted from the book, and I understood it to be some kind of an editing glitch. In the book the woman in the new allegation was named and noted that she declined the interview, couldn’t remember the alleged episode and so did her friends. However, this information was not noted in the original essay and was issued as an addendum. The authors said that NYT policy Is not to name names and in deleting her name, they opined the whole sentence referring to her, including declination ended up being deleted.
In fairness to the authors, I recommend giving them another column/piece to answer questions.
The book is coming out today.
5
"not intended to be a political hit job"? That's a good one. Hard to stop laughing. Intended to make a quick buck by writing a political hit job. Can't anyone get a better job?
16
For a peek inside the frat culture, see the movie "Scent of a Woman". Wealth, privilege, arrogance, and the caste system are all on the menu. It may not be an exact portrayal, but you get the picture, and you might see flashes of Bret Kavanaugh in a few of the characters.
6
i lived in new haven in the late 60's. it seems the culture of yale u. didn't change much.
4
This is more fake news designed to rile the sheep. I for one am tired of the unrelenting attacks on good people for political gain. Kavanaugh will be a Justice for many decades so just get used to it. There is a really good chance President Trump will nominate at least one more before 2025. The left will probably begin assassinating nominees since this ploy failed.
19
@Dave...well, Dave...once Kavanaugh went on Fox News to plead his case vs the National news stations or PBS (who usually do a great job of unbiased reporting) he lost me and many others. I think his judgement in doing this speaks to his character and caused me to have major doubts about him from that point on.
10
Isn't the story about why there was no FBI investigation of the allegations... especially since there were multiple witnesses? Isn't that STILL a story?
11
The Times erred, has apologized, and says it is determined to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
That said, one would have to be politically obtuse, ideologically blinded, or both not to see the irony in our President's criticism of the Times on this issue.
2
I do not understand why the Times is being so defensive about its coverage of this important story. This man is a liar and a fraud, a disgrace to the Bar and the Supreme Court. The Congress failed to do its job. Our entire system of government is threatened. An independent press is a critically important if we are to have any chance of returning to a properly functioning democracy. I do not think the Times made errors here. The Tweet was harmless. When you second-guess yourself, you give ammunition to the very people we need to hold accountable for the sad state of affairs we face in this country today.
8
Summary: Mistakes were made.
3
The need for a Public Editor of stature could not be clearer. It is telling that the response here is from the deputy.
21
Kavanaugh should not have been approved based simply on his demeanor and behavior at the Senate hearings. His interaction with and response to questions from Senator Klobuchar was disgusting and unworthy of a person who is fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. As a Catholic woman who was in a Catholic private school in the 60's and a RC college in the 1970's I can attest to a lot of drinking and boorish (bordering on criminal) behavior among the "fine" young Catholic men. Those fine young men absorb at an early age that women don't really count except as a vehicle to bear children - and now they form a majority on the US Supreme Court. If Kavanaugh cared about this wife and children he would have kept his past closed for their sakes. He thought he was above the investigation into his fitness to be on the Court and he shamelessly dragged his family through the mud in his wake.
12
The fact that his arrogance led him to drag his family through this is merely another echo of his legacy and that is the history of his "character."
8
As pointed out by others, the most notable revelation in the Kavanaugh book was the reporting that Ford's best friend, Leland Keyser, who was at first listed by Ford as someone who would corroborate her story, instead says that she does not believe Ford, that Ford's story doesn't add up. Furthermore, Keyser asserts that Ford and her backers tried to get her to lie about her lack of recollection to help their case against Kavanaugh. The fact that this REAL NEWS wasn't the lead of their story on the Kavanaugh book tells you all that you need to know about the credibility of the NYT - or lack thereof. Sad.
34
@Robert
... not to mention the fact that Judy Munro-Leighton admitted she lied about Kavanaugh "to grab attention."
7
Although I consider myself a political Independent and although I myself was sexually assaulted in college, I have multiple critical comments that I hope you will consider: (1) As an undergraduate in the 1980s, I can attest that most students got drunk and did stupid things at times. Our view of these actions seems to have changed in the past 30+ years. If there is real evidence that Kavanaugh raped someone, then he needs to be charged with that crime. However, you do not have any evidence at all that he assaulted anyone. Fortunately, getting drunk and acting stupid is not a crime. (2) My journalism professors impressed upon me the ethical and moral obligation for journalists to be impartial in reporting the news, and our editorials were expected to take a back seat to the news. I equate[d] this to a physician's Hippocratic oath. Now, I rarely see news that is truly objective. Shame on all of you who have failed in what I consider to be your covenant with the American people. (3) People--even Supreme Court Justices--are innocent until proven guilty. Our liberal politicians have been suggesting otherwise. (4) In your essay about Kavanaugh, I saw zero credible evidence to support your suggestion that he committed a crime. Your essay seems to be merely slanderous. I know slander laws are different for public figures, but you are skirting very close to that line.
37
@Patty
This is far too sensible for Times readers to understand. But Times reporters should be required to learn it by heart and refer to it next time they have to make such judgment calls.
5
@Patty
"(1) As an undergraduate in the 1980s, I can attest that most students got drunk and did stupid things at times. Our view of these actions seems to have changed in the past 30+ years."
Many of us have never changed our views on these things. I was also an undergraduate in the 1980s. I did stupid things even when not drunk, I'll admit, but like a great many other people, I never assaulted anyone, nor did any of my friends ever assault anyone. Far more people have never assaulted anyone than have done so, and I would suggest that having no history of sexual assault is the least we can expect from a Supreme Court justice.
"If there is real evidence that Kavanaugh raped someone, then he needs to be charged with that crime."
You seem to be suggesting that any type of assault other than rape is not serious enough to investigate, or to disqualify someone from the Supreme Court? I disagree.
4
@Patty
There was a witness, a man named Steir who entered the room by mistake, looking for a bathroom. He pulled Kavanaugh off of the girl. He was located when the story broke; he was interviewed; he did not say the incident never happened; he said he did not want to be involved in the controversy. He had moved on, and did not want to relive something from the past. He could have said nothing happened; he did not say that, just that he didn't want to be involved in a public controversy.
Your answers are ridiculously brief. You need to bring back the public editor who served as a watch dog and would write columns critiquing NYT stories that fell short of traditional journalism standards. This piece reads like a brush off. You especially need to address the Tweet, which I never read but which sounds incredibly offensive. Who on earth would be so insensitive as to send a Tweet like that? Donald Trump? That being said, I found the story on Debbie Ramirez compelling, especially its description of how this incident affected her whole life. You have someone like Kavanaugh from a privileged background humiliate a girl from a Puerto Rican family says so much about his character. Despite @metoo it seems that men are determined to get away with bad behavior and don't care a fig leaf about it. Look at the Patriots hiring Antonio Brown when they just went through the embarrassing revelations about Robert Kraft. It never ends, does it?
9
@P.A.
Re your comment on Kavanaugh and Ramirez:
You might be right - if any of it actually happened.
How about proof?
1
@Joe Pearce
"At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time."
2
@P.A.
There was gossip about the Ford incident, and about the Ramirez incident. Ford testified and had to move out of her home; her children had to change schools due to hostile crowds gathering in front of her house. Why would Ramirez want to subject herself to the bigotry she endured at Yale? Why would she want to go through the same thing Ford went through? I cannot think of any girl who would invent a sexual assault in a private school for attention.
Wow! If you could take those twisted excuses and release the energy into a turbine, you could power a small city for a year.
13
No space should be given, in this context, to comments about Brett Kavanaugh. Don't make this an editorial within an (almost) apology. This is about the NYT setting itself back - and by extension the best of professional news coverage everywhere. Your paper owes it to the public to do a thorough investigation and report on how this happened and what fine-tuning of procedures is taking place to ensure it doesn't happen again. Such an investigation is called for and is, incidentally, newsworthy. Your paper is on the hook and attempts to wriggle off will only ensure that its stumble will be enshrined as an example of what not to do.
20
“Republicans rejoice that there’s finally a national tragedy that doesn’t involve guns.”
1
I understand that the Times is currently reviewing what went wrong when it posted this inflammatory tweet. When can readers expect there to be accountability? More importantly, will the Times disclose who was responsible and what actions management took as a result? I'm a reader, who like many, respects the Times, but I feel as though this incident strongly undermined this institution's credibility. Many readers would like to know what was done to rectify the situation.
15
Kavanaugh lied under oath when he answered Senator Whitehouse's question about the meaning of "devil's triangle," calling it a drinking game and not sex between a woman and two men.
6
"The only supposedly new claim made in the book isn’t new and comes from Democrat attorney Max Stier, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s with whom he has a long and contentious history. In the words of the Yale Daily News, they were “pitted” against each other during the Whitewater investigation in the 1990s when Kavanaugh worked for Independent Counsel Ken Starr. Stier defended President Bill Clinton, whose legal troubles began when a woman accused him of exposing himself to her in hotel room she had been brought to. Clinton later settled with the woman for $850,000 and, due to a contempt of court citation for misleading testimony, ended up losing his law license for five years. Stier worked closely with David Kendall, who went on to defend Hillary Clinton against allegations of illegally handling classified information. Kavanaugh’s reference to his opponents being motivated by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” met with befuddlement by liberal media, despite the surprisingly large number of Clinton-affiliated attorneys who kept popping up during his confirmation hearings."
See: "Alleged Victim In New York Times Kavanaugh Story Denies Any Recollection Of Incident"
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/alleged-victim-in-new-york-times-kavanaugh-story-doesnt-remember-incident/#.XX6bvBKeV_c.twitter
23
The clock is ticking and we may soon have another opening at SCOTUS. Oh, boy, this is going to be fun!
4
Totally unacceptable explanation. When you know the ostensible victim refuses an interview and claims no recollection of the incident, you make sure to print that. When you know that the person pushing the story is a Democratic political activist you print that too.
This, of course, is nothing new with the NYT. Recall the paper unleashing a platoon of reporters chasing down rumors of a McCain affair in 2008 and coming up with a nothingburger, Back then at least it was more careful not to traffic in unconfirmed allegations. Now, if any crank drums something up on social media it somehow becomes newsworthy.
Bye bye patrimony. The inmates are now in control of the asylum.
P.S. Note how quickly the Times pulled its "explanation" of the front page of the online edition. No need to prolong embarrassments.
28
NYT, please do better! Many folks depend upon your journalistic ethics. The whole truth, nothing but the truth (even if the truth is someone's opinion) and let us think for ourselves.
16
Turner Catledge and Lester Markel are rolling in their graves.
5
Why didn't the Times report the new details first in a news story rather than in an opinion piece? Seems the reporters were working on the paper's clock. Were the details not considered solid or newsworthy?
9
The greatest mishandling by the NYT of this particular piece was its title, "Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not.", which both trivialized and deflected the important issues that were raised in the article itself.
7
I started reading the NYT when I moved to the US in 1986. Sunday was spent parting out the Sunday paper and reading it for the week.
I fall in the liberal/progressive camp and I certainly despise Trump and knew all about him 20 years ago.
That said the NYT had really become no better than Fox news. The reporting can be great, 52 places to go and modern love are must reads.
Anything to do with Trump , well I have gotten to the point that I just ignore it as I know it will be so slanted that the slogan should be "facts be dammed, full slime ahead".
Trump will be gone at some point and we will recover just fine. The NYT , not so much.
32
@Dennis
This is exactly how I feel.
3
I am not surprised and this is nothing new. The difference is that today there are more platforms to challenge slanted and erroneous reporting. The times needs to catch up with the times. Upgrade their integrity.
11
Abe Rosenthal is not just turning over in his grave, he is positively rotating at high speed.
NYT: If you don't know who Abe Rosenthal is, look it up.
You have pretty much destroyed your paper, and on top of that handed Trump, unprompted, another potent issue to rally his base. Thank you for continuing to do things that will ensure his 2020 victory. A victory that is pretty much already assured.
10:30 am Tue
24
The NYT has for decades been known as an unimpeachable news source, "the paper of record", so to speak. This is the 2nd or 3rd time that the paper has had to make clarifications or "walk back" offensive tweets (the anti-Semitic cartoon comes to mind in the international edition) in the past 6 months. The American public depends on your staff to get us the correct answers to hard questions in these dangerous and troubling times. Get it together, guys; we can't afford for you to lose national credibility because of careless or presumptive reporting!
20
And still the Times is not talking about Max Stier, the Yale classmate who made the allegation. He was a Clinton attorney during Whitewater when Kavanaugh was working for Ken Starr on the investigation. Ax to grind?
Then Newsweek does a story quoting none other than Michael Avenatti on what a stand-up guy Stier is. Avenatti!! Can someone even tell me why he and Julie Swetnick have not been brought up on charges.
The Old Grey Lady should hang her head in shame.
23
In its hatred for Mr. Trump and its blind loyalty to the Democratic Party, the New York Times embarrassed itself and disgraced the US press.
24
I thought Mr Dao’s defense of the Times pieces was weak. I have always respected the quality of the Times reporting. The Kavanaugh smear piece detracted from that quality by a considerable leap.
16
@Rick Chalker
Very weak. The paper knew they had to do some reflecting and hoped this would be enough. Maybe it is. It's possible that Dao would face even more criticism if he was appropriately tough on the original story. Given the makeup of the paper's current staff and much of it's subscriber base, Dao probably figured that this weak defense would be more than enough. Not sure he's wrong.
2
Warren and Harris have issued their impeachment declarations for Kavanaugh based on The NY Times “mistake” or partisan smear. What a train wreck!
18
Why was the Editors' Note buried at the end of the essay and not treated as a correction or with a home-page reference to know such a critical edit had been made to a major story? If you did not see the essay for the first time until after the Note was attached, you'd be in sync. If you read it earlier, there would be no way to know a major revision had occurred without going back to read it again.
At least now with the simple Q&A up front, the Times makes suitably visible that something was going on.
6
The Times can do no wrong, it’s the basis for left liberal elitism.
13
To me this article was inexcusable. As if a nomination to the supreme court is some sort of parlor game. As if, as long as the players are upper-class men in suits, the screaming of violated women is nothing but a side-show. As if the notion of any kind of justice in this country is some sort of idle entertainment -a reality that does not touch the upper crust who therefore don't really have to care. As if the specter of yet more, half-vetted, entitled (mostly white) males on the supreme court will not actually touch real lives; the lives of the many in this country who have trouble getting their human rights recognized at all: immigrants and asylum seekers, indigenous people, Black people, lgbtq, violated women and girls, laborers, poor children and elders. The revolting elitism of this article, and the revolting middle-class smugness and sense of entitled safety hurt me, made me furious, and I find it unforgivable. As if the Times is what they say - and I've always, always argued otherwise - out of touch, elitist. And all these faqs do not fix it. Get to reporting. Get to digging. Be journalists. Keep matters of life, death, misery, and rape off your gossip pages.
3
After reading the stories by the AP and The Washington Post, if The New York Times does not hold itself to the standard CBS set when the network fired Dan Rather, I will cancel my subscription.
20
Your lack of integrity has brought the NYT down to the level of Pravda, CNN and The Huffington Post.
28
Why isn’t it ever satisfying to hear someone (or an organization) make excuses or explain why they screwed up? Hopefully this will encourage a little more thoughtfulness at the Times.
3
Now Rep. Pressley is moving to impeach Kavanuagh on bad reporting..the mess gets bigger and bigger.
The Squad is out of control and the NYT needs to reel them in before Warren and Harris jump on the bandwagon of stupidity.
11
Too late. They’ve already called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment—based on the Times’ story that somehow omitted the crucial fact that the alleged victim doesn’t remember the incident.
8
I no longer regard the New York Times as a news purveyor. The Times is still omitting giving prominence to the fact that Max Steier was opposing counsel defending Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky case, when Justice Kavanaugh was representing the other side in Clinton's impeachment. Max Steier's wife is a judge nominated by President Obama. This sounds like an extremely partisan background for Max Steier, if you are going to characterize Justice Kavanaugh as partisan, yet you virtually hide this context. More importantly, Steier's claims are not supported by the supposed victim in any way, and are not actually supported by other witnesses, from what I can gather from other more thorough actual reporting. I read this entire piece as a sign that the New York Time no longer cares about journalistic ethics and is now on the level of turn of the twentieth century so called yellow journalism designed to enflame readers rather than responsibly inform them. Smear is the name of your game.
26
More than anything this disgrace reminds one of Dan Rather and GWB's Air National Guard story. People still think the article was fake, but accurate.
For a propagandist the accuracy of a narrative is not important. Reinforcing prejudice is the most important thing. Anti-Semitism was endemic in early 20th century Germany, but creating actionable hatred through false news media took work. Similarly, the radio announcements in Rwanda created actionable force to slaughter different tribal members.
Someone is going to feel entirely righteous in attempting violence against those who have different political views. It has already happened. Responsible media should seek to cool passions. Alas, this does not pay the bills nowadays. Reinforcing prejudice does.
46
@Mick F
An astute observation. To those who seek only to have their prejudices reinforced the truth of what is written does not matter. Words that fuel the fires of hatred are ammunition that injures and kills.
5
Excellent comment. This "who, me?" piece speaks volumes about the self- degradation that has occurred here.
5
This is truly the Democrats single most popular strategy. If you disagree with the person's view and particularly if they are influential as a SCOTUS then you attack the person. If you don't have any evidence it doesn't matter- just make up an allegation and go to work on attacking the individual's personal life. This is who the Democrats are - its what they do.
66
@DED All I can say is Pizzagate, death panels and Mexico will pay for it.
3
@DED Google "Swift Boat"
3
And who does this better, and more often, than anyone on the planet? POTUS.
1
I have several friends at Yale and they have described “naked parties”. Maybe that is why the “victim” won’t speak. She was embarrassed.
9
@Dady. Or maybe she denies it happened because it never happened.
15
@Dady
Could be, Dady. My thought was that nearly half of the people in this country voted for Trump and this woman could be a Trump supporter and for that reason was unwilling to tell tales about Kavanaugh.
What I have against both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch is their utter lack of self-awareness about or unwillingness to attend to how the perspective of wealthy white white male hegemony skews their judgement. Gorsuch calls it a republic, if you can keep it (read republic as as placeholder for wealthy white male hegemony.) This book by Pogrebin and Kelly looks like it investigates an important story on that kind of development (and, by contrast, Gorsuch from a similar background, without a hint of scandal.) The Times editorial section could use some self-awareness, too. It's a shame the Times brought attention to it with such a clumsy and clouded delivery. The Book Review section would have been sufficient.
10
Lack of self awareness. Because he doesn't blame everything wrong with the country on racism? That latest bogeyman that people blame their position in life on? Well, it isn't true. If 11 million illegal aliens can find that Americab Dream, that doesn't say much for those born here that cry racism at every turn , yet continue to be the stereotype that they despise so much. And speaking as "a person of color", when people act like all the other "people of color" are somehow United against the evil white men, the hispanic and black "people of color" dislike each other as much as they hate those that sign their paycheck.
14
@Rick Talk about lack of self-awareness. Good lord.
6
@Rick. Good work. Got to use hegemony in a sentence. Twice! Too funny.
6
Mr. Dao's answers leave much unexplained: These authors are also N.Y. Times reporters. When they started working on their book, did they enter some form of contract with the NY Times that would allow them to withhold new, not-yet-disclosed hard news and save it for their book (or an excerpt in the Review)? If not, as Times reporters, didn't they have an obligation first to go the News Department with their findings from their investigation? Did they go to the News Department with their findings, or just save them for the book? If they did go to the News Department, would their news about what Max Stier been vetted and fact-checked differently than it was in the Review Section? Would the News Department have handled the reporting differently?
53
@Doug I think you are confusing new reporters with the police.
"During the authors’ investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Stier, witnessed the event and later reported it to senators and to the F.B.I. The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible. "
Corroborated with two government officials? The government officials were witnesses to the "event"? No.
In this case your so-called corroboration is essentially confirming others heard the rumor and therefore it's true.
What are you folks doing, just making up definitions as you go along?
82
@Jp
Good point. And why is the language so loose? "government officials"? Legislative, executive or judicial? Village, county, state or federal?
The worst thing about this clarification is the squish. The Republicans have picked up on the fact that the Times story on Sunday failed to mention that the third incident was an allegation that could not be confirmed by the alleged victim.
The strength of the piece on Sunday is that the allegations of the first two women are supported by
witnesses.
The Times should point out that the third allegation could be supported if the woman involved is served with a subpoena She then would have to tell the truth, which may be that she does not remember, or that she does remember but did not want go public, not an uncommon thing for women and completely understandable and perhaps, sadly, unfair to victims, who for their own protection may be tempted to commit perjury.
2
My, my, my what a mess.
As the "I" word hasn't been over-played with the dilly-dallying of the House on whether to impeach Donald Trump. Now we can add Brett Kavanaugh's name to the mix.
In another time, long in the past, the nation would have welcomed - even demanded impeachment proceedings against a Supreme Court justice with such a questionable past as Justice Kavanaugh's. Maybe the mid-1970s. . .
But that was then. In the topsy-turvy world that is Washington since the era of Trump began, it is just adding fog to an already misty political spectrum.
We are in trouble, and it is deep. The last thing the country needs is more political smoke. The time to have prevented Brett Kavanaugh from completing his lifetime appointment was before he was put on the court. Now it is just an exercise in futility.
29
@Len Justice Kavanaugh has a perfectly reputable past. Every libelous accusation was thorough investigated and proven to be a lie.
29
@Len - Why do you believe all the lies?
5
@Larry
All in one week, right? Bah, humbug.
I agree the NYT got ahead of standards on this one, but Kavanaugh's behavior in the hearings alone disqualified him for the lifetime appointment to highest court in the land. He clearly lied under oath, and it's obvious the FBI did not investigate the allegations due to the White House controlling the list of who gets questioned and who doesn't; they're masters of stonewalling years, that week avoidance was a cake walk for Drumpf.
The truth will set you free, as the saying goes. There needs now to be a reckoning on what really happened, and let the facts guide the justice. At the very least the supreme court has lost credibility, and contrition isn't this administrations strong suit. So much for justice for all; unfortunately, we can't rely on the facts now from the FBI or federal prosecutors, their hands have been tied by the Drumpf and Barr show, with cover from Moscow Mitch and Lindsey the lying doormat. We've come to the point the government can't be trusted to follow the rule of law. Pass time to grow a conscience America!
61
Yes, the Times made an error in not including that caveat of the woman having no recollection. That, too me, had little affect on the import of the article. This is news in that it highlights the fact that the restraints put on the FBI investigation were ill advised, at best. It was a travesty. Too much of this ramrodding those with less than stellar character into our government is eroding our democracy. A thorough investigation should now be conducted for everyone’s sake, Kavanaugh’s included.
35
@EJ What would have something other than a little affect (sic)? If the woman denied it?
13
@EJ
People just don't seem to understand the import or context of the latest allegations.
The point is that they add credibility to Deborah Ramirez's allegations. People just don't seem to be seeing the big picture here. It is not that some people want Kavanaugh prosecuted or somehow disciplined in regard to a victim who was unknown at the time of the hearings ( and apparently still wishes to be unknown). The significance here is that this new info strengthens accusations against Kavanaugh that WERE known at the time and were left uninvestigated, though they clearly could and should have been.
4
@skeptic She didn't deny it -- she just doesn't remember it. It's still offensive conduct whether or not she was aware of it at the time (remember the Al Franken photo and the sleeping female soldier)?
1
As other commenters have noted, this is not an isolated incident of poor journalism by the Times.
Quite coincidentally, I happen to be traveling on business in a conservative part of the midwest as I write this, and saw the segment Fox News did last night. They made a banquet out of it, but they were probably more factual than was the Times on this issue.
This kind of journalism does so much damage to the progressive cause in general, to the specific matter of Kavanaugh's deservedness to be on the court. It's not dissimilar to Trump firing up his base: rumor, half-truths, and falsehoods that serve no other purpose than to keep the momentum and the fire.
Really, we should be working to be credible; to sway those swing voters who are uncomfortable with Trump's lies and looking for alternatives. The liberal Newspaper of Record does us no favors when it follows the same playbook.
72
@hammond
Their problem with Fox News isn't lack of journalistic integrity or editorial decisions. It's obviously their very successful ratings and profitability.
Of course they were going to imitate their tactics sooner or later.
The Trump election was the best thing that could have ever happened to their bottom line - which, incidentally, is why they backhanded pushed for it so hard.
1
@hammond; You seriously want the TRUTH?? Isn't it the NYT that changes the headlines so as not to offend their readers? Sounds like NYT readers only want to read what makes them FEEL good.
7
Having worked in the company of attorneys for years, I often winch at the term "mistake". Mistake intimates a forgivable sin; a lack of intention. After all the vitriol from the NYT pages concerning anything Trump, does one expect reasonable people to accept "mistake" as the excuse? No, this was a journalistic sucker punch followed by a "my bad" and a giggle. This time, however, there may be considerable legal repercussions. Then who'll be giggling?
90
I wish Mr. Dao would own up to the error made just two days ago that the entire journalism community is talking about, including liberal CNN, which reported:
"But the book, 'The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,' included a key detail that the essay published by the Times was lacking: The woman at the center of it, who'd been a student at the time of the incident, declined to be interviewed. Moreover, her friends said she did not recall the incident."
83
Thank you for this explanation.
Journalism is inherently biased.
Deciding what to report to what audience from what perspective is an editorial choice subject to frailties of our humanity. Openess and transparency are essential to the news business.
' Text without context is pretext' Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.
8
As a long time subscriber to the NYT, I have noted the deteriorating standards or competence of the editors.
While this instance of editorial malfeasance is notable, it is not out of character with the trend. That is important.
The NYT of today presents "news analysis" alongside "opinion" on the "front page," usually "above the fold."
The editors appear to have decided that the tactics of the Murdoch propagandists are the standard by which they want to present "news" as objectively reported. They omit pertinent information that does not conform to their agendas. This happens repeatedly on matters of socio-economics, and is now a matter of course for anything to do with this administration.
As much as I despise Trump and his apologists (which include nearly every republican politician in office), I am appalled by the decline in editorial competence and standards over the past several years.
We are now in an era where the editors of competing "news" organizations have decided that opinions can substitute for objective reporting. That's ok on the opinion page, but now the opinion page is presented as the news.
I'll continue to subscribe, for a number of reasons, but advise anyone who wants an objective view to do their due diligence and visit multiple sources to fact check.
For those people interested in factual reporting with high standards of editorial management, you might consider reading The Economist and Foreign Affairs.
What a disappointment.
136
@TDurk
The NYT of today presents "news analysis" alongside "opinion" on the "front page," usually "above the fold."
I, too, have been noticing this bogus new category of "news analysis." To me, it seems like a term striving for a kind of authority, that is, in fact, just a vehicle for editorializing. Dao's description of it yields only obfuscation:
"As for “news analysis”: That is the label we attach to pieces by Times news reporters to underscore that they are not part of the Opinion section." Huh? I get the reverse impression.
14
@TDurk
Yes, but do you want to go back to the days when the NY Times carried stories about Senator McCarthy on the front page, above the fold, and did not include disclaimers regarding what were obviously false statements?
It took years for the Times to get where it is and it isn't a bad place to be, when you look around and see what the world of journalism has become.
And look at what we are doing here this Tuesday morning -- telling them what we think of their handling of a piece that appeared last Sunday.
I get, unsolicited,in my email box, a daily letter from the Trump Whitehouse, and a bulletin from the Tea Party. Media aint what it used to be. And I wish The Economist would use larger type on its pages. Geriatrics unite!
@TDurk I could not agree more with your every word. I find recent developments at the New York Times both sad and alarming. I would add the Guardian to your recommended reading list.
4
I did a double take to look at the "news analysis" label. I'm not new to the NYT, I've been a subscriber since 1978, and a reader before then. The evidence cited is not up to NYT's historical standards.Whatever you think about Kavanaugh, he's been confirmed to a lifetime appointment. Time to move on...
65
Yes.
Time to move on to impeachment.
The man lied during his confirmation hearings.
His lifetime appointment doesn’t excuse that.
31
He never should have been questioned about his high school yearbook. It was a witch hunt and a farce and if he lied, he did the right thing. It gives me zero concern about his qualifications as a judge.
16
@Jerry Engelbach. Yes, and of critical concern, he lied under oath. That, my friends, constitutes a 'crime.'
17
Students in these parties at Yale or in other universities get so drunk that i don't think anyone remembers what one did or didn't do. The culture is such that if one didn't go to these parties, one is ostracized.
16
@Gangulee I didn't go to these parties and was not ostracized. University students are not a monolithic group. Just as there were pot smokers, who thought everyone smoked pot, there were others who did not smoke pot who thought it was a small minority who did. The problem with the piece by the authors is their overgeneralization of what occurs on campus.
1
What's wrong with just admitting that the NYT made a bad call on this situation, rather than continuing to defend that bad journalistic call? Admittedly, we'll never know the political thinking behind that decision.
81
My take away from this is 1. it was a messy roll out by the Times. BUT that does not mean the story is false. I believe Kavanaugh was not a 'fine young man' who is being smeared here. I believe he behaved very poorly as a younger man and , while he may have cleaned up his act, he should definitely own up to being that out of control young man. And he never should have put himself and his family in this situation. He could have just quietly gone about his business and flown under the radar. He was so hungry for the job he was willing to throw his family under the bus to get it.I am not naive, arrogant, or stupid enough to think that if I were in his shoes, no one would ever discover what I did as young man. He will always be remembered as the tainted Supreme Court Justice. and 2. The Republicans have to stop making it look like they are holier than thou and the Democrats look like the devil. The only thing worse than a corrupt politician is a corrupt politician that practices hypocrisy and laughs in your face when they do. That is why the left despises Republicans.
71
@Walking Man
I agree completely with your comment though I take exception with your last sentence. I want to change the verb to something less emphatic and replace with... "fears for the souls of ", worries for", etc. They are our brothers in kind.
2
@Walking Man I came of age in the 70s and can only think that most if not all of my contemporaries thank god every day that cell phones and the camera were twenty years or more away. I’m sure glad they weren’t around I shudder to think about the ramifications of some of my actions. Fortunately the statute of limitations is long expired
14
@steve from where I sit it appears that you haven’t met any republicans that voted for trump and endorsed kavanaugh
1
Look Bret Kavanagh lied to the Committee that is why he should be impeached . He testified to the Committee on October 2018 that the first time he heard of the New Yorker article regarding Deborah Ramirez was at the hearings. This is a blatant lie as Kavanaugh and his handlers were working on damage control regarding Ms Ramirez allegation as far back as September 23rd 2018 .
In terms of who Max Steir worked for it makes no difference . Who cares if he worked for the Clinton's, it is irrelevant and has no bearing on what he saw Kavanaugh do.
The that fact that the FBI choose to ignore his testimony just shows that their investigation was the sham that those of us who who were woke knew it would be.
Busy or not the Judiciary Committee needs to start proceedings to investigate Kavanuaghs testimony and start an impeachment process .
Kavanaugh will have an opportunity to explain himself , resulting no doubt in another one of his hissy fits. Hopefully this time around someone on the Committee like Senator Harris will shut him down, or send him back to the playroom for a time out.
35
Like many other commentators, I grew up reading the New York Times and relied upon it for factual reporting. Those days are clearly gone, as the paper now prides itself on leading "The Resistance," as opposed to allowing readers to draw their own conclusions from its articles. The labeling of this piece as "news analysis" is clearly a concession that, even under the new relaxed standards, it cannot be passed off as "news,"' even though it is now cited across the country as alleged evidence of "new" allegations against Kavanaugh, and has led to certain presidential candidates, including the former Attorney General of California, to now demand impeachment.
The problem is that there is no 'there" there. The alleged victim provides no support for this claim, and her friends have said that she has no memory of it. The fact that a classmate, who apparently worked for Bill Clinton during his impeachment travail, may have passed this story along does not corroborate it, and the Times, again relies upon unnamed anonymous "government officials" to seek to provide credence to this tale. Too many breathless front-page anti-Trump stories are sourced only to "unnamed government officials not authorized to speak on the record." I, as a reader, have no ability to assess the credibility of these anonymous sources, and cannot now rely upon the judgment of the New York Times to do so. This is simply inflammatory decades-old gossip. I expected better.
113
@Richard
It strikes me strange that you would critique the Times as promoting a Kavanaugh narrative that cannot be substantiated and you in the same breath resort to the same tactic of undermining facts by imposing that clause of "Steiner who apparently worked for Bill Clinton..." in your comment. As if that really had any relevance!
Well, of course, you believe it's appropriate, but under the same conditions you remand the Times I would have expected better from you. Is every complaint against a politician, or Supreme Court judge, or Parish priest a conspiracy? Sometimes an assault is simply an assault.
17
@steve It is hard to take anyone seriously who believes that the past of Max Stier, who was on opposite sides of Kavanaugh in the Clinton impeachment is hardly relevant.
18
@Richard
When I read what you wrote, Richard:
"The problem is that there is no 'there" there. The alleged victim provides no support for this claim, and her friends have said that she has no memory of it."
I knew right away that you either (1) Did not know that there are now three women who have been
said to have been molested by Kavanaugh. Two of them have been supported by witnesses and the third has been supported by witnesses but she declines to come forward and says that she has no memory of the incident. Or, (2) You know all of this and seek to serve the cause of Kavanaugh by ignoring it.
2
Why was the fact that the woman had no recollection of this supposed event and that she refused to be interviewed left out? Why was the fact that Max Stier, who claimed this happened, works with the Clintons left out?
77
@XLER Why did you leave out the fact that Stier also worked for Rep. Jim Leach (Republican)? In Washington and in politics everyone is interchangeable. Trump leaned democrat at one time because it suited his purposes. He was friendly to the Clintons until the election.
26
This article represents the difference between The NY Times and a number of other news organizations (such as Fox News). The NY Times answers questions and explains why and how articles such as the one in the Sunday Review that started this are reviewed and presented. It goes further in such subsequent things like the handling of the tweet and the response to it.
This shows the underpinnings of good journalism, something too often lacking in other news organizations. There are many other good news organizations that provide such transparency. This level of transparency should be a requirement to be considered a news source, and not “fake news”.
15
@AS Pruyn
Too little too late.
You don't tell your kid he's a nice boy on the way to the toolshed. This is a public paddling. I hope there is job discipline involved if/when things break down again.
Harmless fun? Not. Boy did you lose credibilityi printing yuks at an assault if true...
25
@Midway
I am not certain what you are addressing as "on the way to the toolshed." Are you saying that the treatment in this article of Kavanaugh was too harsh or too lenient? Or is it the Times being taken to the toolshed? And if so, for what? This article was about responses to questions asked the Times about a piece they published, explaining why they did it that way. I feel a look behind the decisions is a good thing for journalism.
The piece at the center of this came from the two authors who looked in depth at the general situation involving students at Yale during the time Kavanaugh was there, with a subsequent focus on Kavanaugh and reports of what he and his friends were up to there.
As far as"harmless fun", who's? I have a tendency to believe people when they say they were assaulted, as the large majority of the time the reports bear a great deal of truth. As someone who was a mandated reporter, I always took any accusation of sexual assault or harassment as serious. And I do not believe that I used the term "harmless fun" in my original response, nor implied that I felt that way.
1
The problem comes from the fact that the article omitted two key pieces of information: first, that the woman in question did not remember the incident, and second, that Stier was once on Bill Clinton's legal team.
Neither of these facts necessarily make the accusation untrue. But the first one particularly -- included in the book but omitted from the article -- cannot help but produce any other impression than that the whole thing was a matter of political bias. How could any editor omit from the article a sentence that was in the book, that completely changes -- at minimum -- what the reader's overall impression would be of the accusation against Kavanaugh? Also, the article gives the impression that this is some hot new development whereas, in fact, the story was known by the Democrats at the time and the Senators who were screaming at Kavanaugh about everything declined to raise this particular item. Again, to be clear - this does not automatically make the accusation false, but it certainly erodes one's confidence in the NYT. What's going on over there? Is anyone seriously editing anything?
113
@traverse
Max Stier also worked for Rep. Jim Leach (Republican) and is the head of a respected, non-profit, non-partisan organization in D.C.
If you are going to complain about someone’s background, it is better to include the complete background.
And the problem is that Mr. Stier’s allegations were apparently not investigated at all by the FBI.
29
If the FBI declined to investigate a 35 year old dorm party that the “victim” doesn’t even remember, it reassures me that there’s still some sanity to be found in this nonsense.
30
@Rita This issue is not simply that Stier worked for Bill Clinton. The issue is specifically that Stier was a counsel for Bill Clinton during the Starr investigation, while Kavanaugh was an opposing counsel on Starr's team at the same time. The two men were adversaries in a highly charged political issue.
24
It is a fait accompli. It's interesting as history and lessons learned. The Republicans played hardball and they won the battle. Mark Judge could swear on a proverbial stack of bibles that Christine Ford was telling God's truth, and it would not matter to the other side of the aisle. It simply wouldn't matter.
It takes 2/3 of the Senate to remove a Supreme Court Justice from office. It's never happened, and it's not likely to happen in 2019, or 2020 ...
13
@Sophocles
You're quite right about the political reality--Kavanaugh will never be removed by the Senate. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be hearings. Why did the FBI ignore Senator Coons' warnings? What does Kavanaugh remember about the incident/allegation (yes, I pretty sure I know his answer too--"I liked to drink beer.")
Congress has an oversight responsibility--particularly the House of Representatives--the branch most responsive to the will of the people.
Let them do their job and investigate. What the Senate does with the information is on their conscience (assuming the have one).
18
@Laurence Bachmann
Since Ms. Ramirez has stated she does not recall anything about the incident she reported that Brett Kavanaugh was there, what would be the purpose of hearings?
20
@Azalea Lover
To corroborate the assertion it was witnessed; to inquire who the others were in the room; to call those others to testify, under oath and at risk of perjury if they did see it as well Witnesses under oath are far more likely to answer truthfully and cannot as they might to a Times reporter say: "no comment."
I think those are great reason to hold an inquiry.
8
@Karl Haugen Your closing assertions are not true. Ramirez was never reported to have been at the party in which the second incident occurred, so of course she wouldn't remember it.
And since the FBI never investigated the incident Stiers reported, it's misleading at best to say no one remembers it.
Many witnesses emailed or left messages for the FBI indicating they had information about Kavanaugh's sexually inappropriate behavior. The FBI failed to investigate any of them. These are facts.
36
@cs Just as dozens of women that knew him at that age wrote and said they never heard or saw actions like that from Kavanaugh? They submitted sworn statements. Were the alleged emails and messages even a surprise considering the left would have killed someone to stop him from being confirmed?
1
Between its placement in the editorial section, the misguided focus on Yale culture in the 80’s, a fairly minor error that has
allowed Trump and the Republicans to scream “fake news”, and an appalling tweet, the Times managed to turn a significant news story into yet another account that exacerbates our partisan divide. There was so much that could have come from this story, but it was completely mismanaged. Our only hope is that other mainstream media news will keep it alive with appropriate focus and facts.
35
"The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible. Based on that corroboration, we felt mentioning the claim as one part of a broader essay was warranted"
Wow, two government officials...now I feel much better about the credibility of the story. The Times should be embarrassed.
93
It would be far more impressive to see the NYT's ombudsman weigh in on the behavior of their reporters.
80
You need to bring back the Public Editor. You're making so many mistakes lately and that plays into the hands of Trump and his war on the media.
When you make the mistakes you just come out with these reasons and say things will change, but then you make another mistake. Anti-Semitic cartoons, an editor picking a fight with Roxane Gay, trying to link Palin to the Giffords shooting, etc.
You tried it without a Public Editor. The experiment has failed. Get your house in order.
186
The sexual misconduct claimes against Kavanaugh are bad enough, but, in my opinion, the ugly defense from Kavanaugh at the hearing was way over the top and should have disqualified him for confirmation.
46
@Pat Boice True that - his bias was clearly and definitively displayed for all to see. A sad day for SCOTUS.
24
@Steve Bower He was biased against the lies and innuendoes of the left attempting to stop another Conservative Constitutionalist Justice from being confirmed to the court? During a speech Ford's lawyer admitted she gave her story because she feared Roe would be repealed. That is why they have now switched to new innuendoes and lies.
6
@Dave
It is way past time to drop the meaningless "constitutionalist"; it belongs with "originalist". Neither offers anything other than a dressed up opinion.
To say the Kavanaugh proces was rushed is not true. He was nominated on July 9 and was confirmed on Oct 6. Do they need more than 3 months?
To say not enough info was provided is not true. More than 1m pages for Kavanaugh. 182k pages for Gorsuch and 170k pages for Kagan.
To say Max Stier is non-partisan is not true. He and his wife are two of the most wired-in progressives in DC. Obama nominated Max Stier's wife for a federal judge position. Max Stier worked as special litigation counsel for 3 years under Clinton.
To say Max Stier "tried" to report this to the FBI is not true. Grassley says it was reported and deemed not credible because nobody other than Stier remembered the event, including Ramirez.
103
I read "All The President's Men" in college. In it I appreciated the editorial rigour requiring corroborating sources. Reporters and the paper had to meet factual standards before publishing.
Mr. Dao's responses to layup questions doesn't address why this story was published in the first place.
This lack of professionalism is a gift to those who say the Media is biased and lacks integrity.
144
The real issue is why did the FBI only spend ten days investigating something that warranted much more scrutiny. Why was there such a rush to get this Republican nominee on the bench without proper vetting. This position of rushing judicial candidates through like an assembly line seems to be the pattern of this administration, in stark contrast to ghosting Obama’s candidate, for the Supreme Court. It is no wonder it took the Times months to actually sift through what remained of the murky and tainted potential crime scenes of Kavanaugh’s past. If only the Bureau and Congress had just done their own jobs and not pushed him through when everyone had a reasonable doubt. Thank you NYT, because now I have many more.
30
@R. Pasricha A good question for Senator Feinstein. The committee could have dealt with these matters in July.
8
The allegations seem to be politically motivated. Convicting people in the press is always at odds with due process.
85
I find it strange that the authors used their own standards--no eyewitnesses, just people who heard it second or third hand--to decide that something was corroborated.
105
Why are Republicans so willing to support men who assault women? The list goes on and on.
28
Well, Terri, there is no actual evidence of any assault as pertains to Justice Kavanaugh. None. There are, however, 7 different FBI deep background checks that came up clear because none of these accusations were made until Kavanaugh was up for the Supreme Court.
Regarding enthusiastic support for people much more credibly accused of sexual assault, why don’t you explain why Democrats worshipped at the altar of Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein (big Democrat fund raiser and king maker in addition to his film producing) for decades. There was no lack of allegations against both men and yet influential Dems like James Carville got laughs for years when he spoke of never knowing what you might find when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.
40
Why do you “believe the woman” regardless of the particular facts? If Republicans are the only ones calling for due process, even for men, all the more reason to vote for them.
5
Reflections on young men in college: I found a recent entry in the Princeton Alumni Weekly celebrating the come of coeducation some 50 years ago or so. I answered and they actually printed my comment on line, much to my surprise. What I noted was this: before coeducation Princeton students had to import their sex workers; since the coming of coeducation that is no longer necessary. The first caused scandal, the second caused normal sexual misbehavior.
9
@n1789 I attended Princeton from 1963 through 1967 (just before the advent of co-education), and I don't recall hearing anyone talking about "importing sex workers." Typically, the social scene centered around the eating clubs (Princeton did not have fraternities per se), and the women visiting there for weekend parties were mostly from other colleges, along with a considerable number of students' girlfriends. If a given student was availing himself of sex workers, he was likely to keep quiet about it, as it would have socially stigmatized him as being unable to attract women of his own social class.
The only exception I remember is an eating club whose members hired strippers to put on a show at a weekend party, but this was considered unusual and was in the spirit of "bachelor parties," which were considered socially acceptable at the time.
Moreover, from a purely logistical point of view Princeton was still "in loco parentis" then, and there were curfews at the dorms regarding guests.
I have watched the New York Times’ quality diminish over the years as (coincidentally?) hard left groupthink becomes normalized and objectivity blurred.Heartbreaking. I read it (past and present — future maybe) as an independent thinker. Getting harder and harder to do that. I watched the New York Times contribute to Trump’s election by failing to be an objective voice of all sectors in the country, failing to see the blind spots of the perspective of its primary demographic,and now witnessing it happen all over again. Very hard to watch. Other commenters said it best with “contributing to the polarization of our community” and “don’t become the next Breitbart.” Once some of the more mature op-ed columnists retire and if another international quality journalism organization is in the market, I think I’m done.
112
@steven wilsonl
Good comment. One problem. If it isn't the NY Times we read, then who do we read? (Comparing The Times to Breitbart is also a bit too much, don't you think?)
I was revolted, back then, by William Safire's columns on the suicide of Vince Foster and Safire's ugly attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton.
But, you know, they printed his opinions and those of some others. That, these days, the paper of record is mixing opinion in its news stories is perhaps true, but it can be (I hope it isn't up to me to parse this out!) that no party can now be neutral in this world.
If you or your newspaper do not take a stand then you and your newspaper have been neutral with regard to those chambers of the Titanic that are filling up with ice-cold water.
1
It is so clear Kavanagh was a sexual predator as the initial accusation against him were made by a dignified and persuasive accuser. It also appears he is an untreated alcoholic, such people admitedly rarely recall what happens while being under the influence. Another version could be, he sincerely believes his own lies another glaring symptom of addicts. Being approved by Trump and the senate is a grave injustice. Trump needed someone in the Supreme Court to help exonerate him in future allegation against his sexual misconduct. For justice to prevail, both deserve to be impeached.
30
@nf
Perhaps you did not follow the statements by the witnesses who the 'dignified and persuasive accuser' identified as being at the party.
All the 'accuser's' witnesses said there was no such party. One of the witnesses was the accuser's lifelong best friend, another woman, who added "I have never met Brett Kavanaugh" to her statement.
16
@Azalea Lover
How drunk were these people when they were attended the party? College kids can get pretty drunk. Ms. Ramirez had never met Brett Kavanaugh formally; that does not mean she didn't encounter him on the stairs and not know who he was. I attended parties where I didn't know everyone.
The investigation was led by the White House, is there further proof, we no longer have an independent FBI?
The dictators, rump and mitch are now in charge.......above the law, the American Way.
22
@George
I'm curious: are you referring to the Obama White House or the Trump White house or to any number of other administrations?
5
@Azalea Lover
It was the Trump WH at the time of the investigation; Trump controlled the extent of the investigation and the time allotted for it. If you don't know that, it appears you didn't read the article.
One of many recent dubious actions and articles in a paper that I’ve loved since childhood really. I hate to admit it, but the Times recently is living up to the moniker that Trump et al use for it. “Facts” are presented from the writer’s political perspective. It’s become so biased - even in the eyes of this liberal. Heart breaking. At this moment in time, we need the Times to do better and preserve an institution essential to democracy — while trump is tearing down all the others. This omission was unacceptable and deceptive by way of omission.
105
Negative, low standards of journalism aside; 5 year statue of limitations for all sexual assault charges.
#MeToo - isn’t 5 years enough time to get over embarrassment, shame, anger and other emotions to want to put this behind you and find the courage to punish the person who assaulted you?
Any longer than that and sadly your story weakens. And lives can be ruined - on both sides.
25
I disagree, but even leaving the issue of our disagreement aside: the question here is whether a person who was credibly accused of gross sexual misconduct on multiple occasions and then lied about it is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice of the United States. A true investigation into these matters was blocked, and a woman who showed real courage was hung out to dry. Women are all too ready to participate in the violation of other women, as your posting clearly shows.
22
@Michelle Taylor You are a woman and I'm assuming that you have been the target of some sexual assault. Perhaps you even know someone who has been raped, groped, coerced into sex? Perhaps even a young girl?
Could it not be about "punishment" but the idea that someone who has violated your autonomy -- a basic human-right -- is now appointed to the highest court in our democracy? Aren't both values worth protecting?
8
@Michelle Taylor: “ ... isn’t five years enough time ...?” Seriously? Have you read the testimony of kids, now adults, who were been raped by priests and are crippled emotionally decades later? Not just kids, though - anyone who has had his or her bodily and psychological autonomy violated and has been viciously disempowered by a predator, humiliated, and made to feel worthless? Your statement shocks the conscience.
11
Confusing article from a renowned newspaper such as the NYTimes, a lot of talk only to say that they shouldn't have published an article based on the fact that the alleged victim refused to testified.
66
@Dominique: Wrong. They reported that a book under review describes an accusation by an eye witness of an incident that parallels the Ramirez accusation. They confirmed that the accusation had been made, and that it was deemed credible by the law enforcement agents that heard it. They did not attempt to confirm that the accusation was true. I agree that they should have included the information about the purported victim, but that failing does not alter the fact that the accusation was indeed made, just as the book under review claims.
21
Was it the talk of the Yale campus? Apparently, there was considerable talk. I would love to hear from that wider crowd. Some were eye witnesses and some knew second hand. The problem with testimony in this era is that people do not want the threats, their lives upset, perhaps jobs lost, and monetary costs of coming forward. Tactics like those used by Weinstein to hire ex Israeli Black Box thugs come to mind tho a different case but I can see the GOP pulling that.
In addition, potential witnesses consider what they could testify to under oath if challenged about being drunk to drug use to being the only one who saw an incident or came forward. I can see someone at Yale seeing something, others too, but the others willing to lie saying they saw nothing for political or personal reasons. No one mentions that people are fearful of the Trump GOP and its willingness to inflict cruel damage.
28
@poslug: Yes. Consider what happened to Christine Blasey Ford when she came forward. She and her family were forced to leave their home and hire security; she was vilified publicly, and, no doubt, regrets every day that she took the risk - which was precisely the message that her attackers wanted to send to any other potential witnesses. Who wouldn’t heed it?
7
@Olenska
And how do you know that Blasey Ford "regrets every day" coming forward? All you can really say is that, were it you, you would regret it.
In Oct. 2018, Ford's lawyer said Ford had no regrets.
Does Anita Hill regret coming forward? I doubt it. Instead of projecting how we would react in such a stressful situation, why not just ask and remove all uncertainty?
7
@Doug McKenna: I wrote “no doubt.” That’s a surmise based in empathy for Professor Blasey Ford, who is not (in case you are unclear about this) Anita Hill. I am not familiar with her lawyer’s statement, but will check it out.
1
Can someone who witnessed an event be credible if the "victim" doesn't remember it?
I think yes. In sports, a referee calls a foul even if the targeted recipient is unaware of the offense.
34
The editor answers the question about the victim not remembering the incident by saying this:
"The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible."
In providing this answer he misuses the meaning of the word "corroborated."
Government officials finding the story credible does not constitute corroboration, especially in the journalistic sense.
His answer is not forthcoming, and very disappointing.
102
@Adrian
?? That's the meaning of the word "corroborate."
8
@DW
To corroborate would be to find another witness or other evidence. For two Democrats to say "oh yeah, we think our Democrat lawyer friend might have something here" when talking about baseless allegations against against a Republican nominee is not corroboration in the least. This is as much corroboration as the Steele dossier had. Publishing lies on multiple web sites is not corroboration. OMG the TDS is thick here.
32
@DW
No, that's not the meaning of the word corroborate.
Corroborate means that you witnessed the event in question happen.
It does not mean that it could have happened because it sounds plausible.
Plenty of things sound plausible without them being factually true.
24
Throughout the process of vetting Mr. Kavanaugh for his appointment, I found myself wondering if his parents had ever received any call or notification from any other parent, law enforcement agency, or academic institution regarding his behavior and the possibility that he had violated laws or institutional rules. This area of questioning would be especially appropriate for his mother to answer because professionally she is subject to rules and sanctions which should prevent her from avoiding a complete and honest answer.
11
@Jose Pieste
I think it's more because this was very common behavior in this crowd. Boys will be boys! No one foresaw any problems for "the young Kavanaugh" in behaving the way many of his peers habitually behaved.
3
@Jose Pieste
Young Kavanaugh was a well connected student in the Georgetown community. I lived in D.C. for five years, working for a political law firm. Georgetown is a small town environment, socially dominated by a financially well off population. A Puerto Rican girl on a scholarship would not challenge that world; neither would Ford with a professional reputation to protect. An accusation of sexual assault is different from an argument or a mugging.
But you didn't address this question: Why didn't you *even mention in the article* that this woman didn't want to talk to The Times and that her friends claimed she didn't even remember the incident. That's a completely different question than the one you chose to answer, about the decision to include the incident or not. Including it is one thing, placing it in its proper context (or not) is another one entirely.
This was sloppy work to begin with, as well as a sloppy and disingenuous attempt to clean up your mess after the fact. You need to up your game, Times.
202
@Sixofone
The context is that it lends additional credibility to Deborah Ramirez's claims.
7
Except, of course, now it doesn’t.
20
@DW
Since Deborah Ramirez stated to New Yorker magazine interviewers in 2018 that she didn't remember anything except she was at a party and Brett Kavanaugh was there, what claim is there?
10
This whole Kavanaugh story is sounding more and more like Clarence Thomas redux:
i.e. Suprreme Court nominee, unqualified by temperament and credible allegations about harassment and possibly assault of women, blusters bombastically and somehow manages to intimidate a pusillanimous Senate into confirming him (with a major assist from the White House and Republicans in the Senate). Later clear corroboration by others gets overlooked (here by FBI), suppressed, or overlooked until long after the fact.
WIth that sordid and tragic (for our Court and nation), I'd like to ask "Does the Times feels at all as if they dropped the ball in failing to get this investigation done sooner and getting this story out while the nomination was still pending?"
And maybe also to ask "Why the Times didn't act more like the Washington Post during Watergate and push investigative reporting more with an eye to getting the story corruption, criminality, and justice denied pout sooner, at least in time to head off a clearly tainted nomination for a lifetime appointment on the Court? (As I recall, the Times also soft-pedaled the Watergate story to some extent too, leaving the real heavy lifting to Woodward, Bernstein, and the Post, no? )
23
@NYer. The Washington Post passed on publishing the allegation last year.
22
@NYer:" Later clear corroboration by others gets overlooked "
That was not corroboration. They only confirm they heard a story from someone. Not even close to corroboration.
3
It appears from this article, despite its title; that there are no real answers to why the once respected NYT printed an article accusing a sitting member of the US Supreme Court of public indecency without even the named victim agreeing that the event occurred.
Subsequently, and quickly thereafter, several members of the 20 or so people attempting to be our next President on the Democratic ticket cited the article in calls to have Judge Kavanaugh impeached from the bench seat he now holds. One of the impeachment minded even claims to be an ex-prosecutor even though she appears not to know that one accused is 'presumed innocent until proven quilty'.
121
@Samuel Spade
Maybe you're aware what Ms. Blasey-Ford endured by giving testimony? I wonder if her family is still in hiding.
11
@Samuel Spade There are multiple, credible accounts of Kavanagh's drunken, boorish and immature behavior. Just because a woman (for whatever reason) does not remember the event does not mean it did not occur. What it does mean is that she will not provide testimony to support the witness's account. Remember the hearings were not a criminal prosecution but a inquiry into the character and bearing of a potential appointee to the highest court in the land. By multiple accounts and his own demonstrated outcry against Democrats, Kavanaugh did not meet that criteria.
27
@Comp. Ford’s own father doesn’t believe her and fully supports Justice Kavanaugh!
27
As a longtime subscriber I have many issues with the NYTimes, and firmly believe they should bring back the Public Editor position. However, this news analysis article was well reported, well written, and it’s location in the Sunday paper is logical. Twitter and cable news are 24 hour outrage machines seeking constantly to create mountains out of molehills. The article is a teaser for a book, if you want the full story read it; a short article can’t be everything to all people.
22
I grew up reading the N.Y. Times and to see where the paper has gone to is very depressing. This incident highlights that no one seems to be in charge of what is finally printed, regardless of the lack of truth in an article. I have no opinion of Justice Cavanaugh because no factual information has been given or demonstrated to be true, in the negative. Justice Ginsberg says he is a decent and honest man and a very good judge. Are we all to ignore this and believe unproven and unaccountable negative information that seems to have been made up in order to sell a book? This lack of editorial integrity seems to permeate a once, truly great newspaper and it is to me so very depressing.
155
I am not affiliated with either party so am speaking as an Independent voter. The Times still is being misleading in its introduction with this piece "....questions about how we handled an essay on the Supreme Court justice and a third accuser." The implication being that this is a third woman who is making an accusation against Justice Kavanaugh. As it turns out, it was made by a guy at the party.
That third woman who has been drawn into this politically motivated issue has made no accusation. In fact, she says she has no memory of any such event taking place. If she recants under pressure, her credibility is shot by the first denial.
Why is the media so obsessed with dragging private citizens into the public arena. Leave this woman alone. I am deliberately not using her name because I do not want to be part of a chain to disrupt a person's life. And I speak as a retired journalist myself.
Who takes seriously the stuff that goes on a frat party anyway. I went to plenty of frat parties and they always were wild and crazy. This scene at this Yale party was typical on college campuses across the country for years and certainly was not confined to only the elite universities.
As a voter, I do not want to waste my time reading about such silliness. Particularly when I suspect this is a round-about way to promote sales for a book written by two of the NYT reporters, among other motivations.
119
@Mary
Your experience at wild and crazy frat parties would tend to support the credibility of the Rodriquez saga (perhaps to a lesser extent the Ford one as well).
You speak with your big-girl pants on The naive bear this more painfully. possibly their loved ones as well. You say this is typical across the country. Does that make it the elephant in the room. Should we ignore it or not?
This is fed by class resentment and class loyalty as well as political convictions..
Sometimes things come out the only practical response to is denial and impeachment of the accusers testimony.
I recall Kavanaugh's semi-coded message to former school companions to the effect that loyalty is so important. It seemed to me he also expressed a fondness for beer one might interpret as an excuse of young foibles; we assume he handles it much better these days.
Should we be loyal to Brett Kavanaugh, or should we be loyal to the appearance of judicial sobriety and dignity?
The strategy to keep up appearances via the controlled hearing regarding Kavanaugh was a winner short term for supporters.
Some other approach might have left us feeling a little better about ourselves.
Various movements have found the past fertile territory to mine; they are not giving much room to 'boys will be boys' or silly mistakes.
Arbitrary statute of limitations are subject to political reality.
4
While NYT is correct to highlight any sexual misconduct, the fact is they chose to highlight an already incendiary issue- Brett Kavanaugh and a victim who does not recall being molested. How could this story ever pass the editorial muster? At the very least, there should be a victim who was victimized and a corroborative witness. They have put the entire case of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh in doubt.
85
@Bryan You have one victim who does remember and put her professional and personal life in jeopardy to provide testimony about Kavanagh's character. Another credible witness who can testify about Kavanagh's drunken, frat-boy behavior does not get the opportunity to do so. That the victim of his prank either does not recall the event or wishes not to testify is not relevant here as the hearing was about Kavangh's character and suitability for the highest court in the land. Now, one has to ask -- did he lie under oath or through omission about past offensive behavior? If he had come of age during Facebook I think we would have a different set of evidence -- about his character. It's never been about criminality.
11
@Hope
The "one victim who does remember" provided names of friends who were at the party when she alleges she was assaulted.
Every friend stated "It didn't happen".
One friend, a female lifelong friend, said "It didn't happen" and further said "I have never met Brett Kavanaugh".
7
Was the person who wrote that tweet an undercover Post employee or conservative who was trying to single-handedly sink the paper? Because that's the only explanation that doesn't make me want to rethink my allegiance to the Times. It was sick. And more action needs to be taken than what you suggest in this tepid response. The reinstatement of a Public Editor, at the very least.
Count me as one of many disgusted and disillusioned readers.
75
They STILL are not emphasizing what the story originally said: two dozen people DID corroborate the Ramirez incident - or tended to - but the FBI refused to speak to them !!! Why is that point so overlooked? It’s the darn Smoking Gun that shows as Kamala Harris said the investigation was a sham. Cmon Man!.
34
I'm not surprised that this book review showed up in the Opinion pages under the title of "News Analysis".
As a long time NYTimes reader (40 years), I've noticed the quality of the Opinion pages declining for the past decade. It has a definite progressive tilt, pushing particular ideas and angles, despite what the reader may logically think. Often, I find the comments to the Opinions to be far more insightful than the prescribed thought the NYT Opinion pages wishes to push.
As a long time reader, I no longer give the NYT Opinion pages the "benefit of the doubt", rather I go to the Wall Street Journal to seek some balance.
83
I have been a loyal reader of the New York Times since 1978.
To be candid, it has seemed in the last couple of years the Times has been rather thin-skinned in receiving criticism of its coverage. The Answers to Readers Questions changed that tilt and I hope the Times continues in this manner as appropriate. James Dao's piece went along way towards clarifying the actions the Times took and educated me in how to frame up what I am reading in the paper ("news analysis" in the Sunday Review section, etc.,). It provides a reference point for the reader from which to view the author's role and intent. I may not always agree with the reporter/columnist/reviewer/op-ed writer but at least it helps to orient myself with the piece and stay heavily engaged as a reader...which after all is half the battle for any news organization.
9
Here's a fair question. If Kavanaugh were a Roe v Wade supporter appointed by Hillary Clinton, and given the exact same circumstances about questions of his past behavior, would your writers have written this book, and would you have published excerpts?
73
@Erik
Excellent point.
16
@Erik Erik -- Could it be that some of the impassioned Kavanaugh scrutiny comes from McConnell's refusal to hold hearings to allow President Obama to nominate a respected jurist to the Supreme Court?
7
@Erik: Not sure, but they would have reported on the dozen + books published by GOP activists about it and would, naturally, have covered the story thoroughly due to the ear-shattering, nonstop screeching coming from Fox, Limbaugh, et. al.
2
I have been and on-and-off reader of the Times since the '50s, when I was growing up in the New York City suburbs and the Times was truly the national paper of record. I've been a subscriber since 2001, and this Kavanaugh hit piece put me *this* close the cancelling my subscription after 18 years of supporting the paper.
As a small businessman for more than 50 years, I consider myself slightly right of center, and I have become increasingly impatient with the Times' allowing its "woke" editorial bias to seep into its news and features, not through blatant falsehoods but instead through what is emphasized and what is omitted. I have decided to give the paper another month or two, and if it continues as "The Manhattan Review of Progressive Virtues," the Times and I will part company. And no, I won't let the door hit me...
87
@Robert Orban
I'd do one thing before walking away from The Times: Pull up that issue from that Sunday and read it in full, and see if you can honestly say that the piece about Kavanaugh counts for more than everything else the paper published that day.
You seem to be about the same age I am. I have some friends from the 1950s that I'm still in touch with. I'd give them a lot of slack before I said "No more," to them, and I feel the same way about The Times.
In the 1950s, the ink from the paper would stain your hands; that doesn't happen now; they have cleaned up before and they can clean up again. Faith beats fatigue.
This entire package is not up to what I thought were the NYT's journalistic standards. The essay contained a first report of a serious further allegation against Judge Kavanaugh by an alleged victim who doesn't remember the incident (an initially omitted important fact) unsupported by independent followup with the reported senators and FBI, buried in an essay about the Yale environment at the time. The subsequent "news" article appeared prompted by reactions to the essay, and also contained no followup with the alleged senators or FBI. The Q & A questions did not probe these omissions, and Mr. Dao's answers did not satisfy me.
NYT advertises that the truth matters. These articles do not meet that standard. I regret the provision of fuel to the "fake news" voices.
52
@Michael Rankin
Ramirez remembered the incident; she did not know who Kavanaugh was. She was a young innocent Puerto Rican girl on a scholarship in an unfamiliar social environment. Why would anyone expect her to start school with a sexual accusation?
While I was a waiter in 1961-62 at the Yale Law School refectory, there were one or more women in the law school entering class. I wonder if this, (these) women had been victims of "Yale culture?"
The conflicting testimony from the people surrounding this matter requires more investigation.
On the one hand, multiple classmates of Mr. Kavanaugh have now come forward. More than 20 contacted the FBI to request to be interviewed as part of their investigation during the confirmation hearings. On the other hand, the alleged victims have hesitated, and in this latest case, refused to come forward and deny any memory of the matter. After Ms. Ford's treatment, it is understand that victims might hesitate to come forward, since there is NO upside to coming forward. For instance, look at the way Ms. Ramirez is now being portrayed by the authors of the essay that is the subject of this article and by the author of the associated tweet that has since been taken down.
The question that most bothers me is why the FBI investigation was conducted the way it was and why the FBI didn't interview the people who requested to be interviewed, including Ms. Ramirez. We know the White House dictated to the FBI whom they could interview. This needs a Congressional hearing and investigation.
Unfortunately, the seriousness of this matter has been overshadowed by the controversy engendered by the manner in which the Times chose to handle the revelation of this new accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh.
15
This essay needed no link to Kavanaugh in exposing the sexual misconduct that was rampant at Yale, and many other universities, at the time before social media, iPhones, email and the internet itself. As someone of his exact age, it is impossible to be unaware of the alcohol saturation and the behavior, nearly always by the privileged students. That connection is evident, and for the reader to see it is much more powerful than making it evident. I wish the authors had avoided mentioning Kavanaugh at all.
8
@Stefan SF This disregard for women is only one manifestation of the attitude of privileged frat boys. They have no doubt of their status and invincibility and will demean anyone and anything to maintain it. That is what scares me more than Kavanaugh's drunken treatment of women.
9
start a controversy, ask for forgiveness, then let the populace lynch the accuse.
33
I'm not a fan of Cavanaugh. That said, the handling of this story was sloppy journalism at best. Leaving out the fact the alleged victim was not interviewed and, that her friends say she does not recall the alleged incident is quite troubling - as is not following up on the question of whether Stier has an agenda he is pushing. All three give you know who a basis for claiming the story was a hit piece or fake news. I expect better from what is supposed to be one of the premier news organizations in the country.
54
@CTH
What about the 25 people who remembered the incident &, according to Ramirez's lawyers, were willing to tell the FBI, but they were never interviewed?
7
@downeast60
A number of them were interviewed by Senate investigators.
4
This is an important story, and you have mucked it up to the point that it will be a Faux News talking point for months. The story was worth reporting, but the real issue is that the FBI was stopped from investigating it. The fact that you neglected to mention that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and doesn't remember the event makes you look dishonest, even though those facts don't detract from the overall point of the story. Something this politically explosive should have been checked and double checked. The person who posted that tweet should no longer have access to your twitter account. Unbelievably irresponsible.
38
This is the type of reporting that can not exist without freedom of the press to correct itself or articulate a serious issue within the same news company.
Yes, the far-right will jump down the throat of the NYT for the opinion essay, but what other publication will go to such lengths to challenge its own.
Good going NYT.
10
@JaaArr
What lengths did they go to? They published a news story under the opinion mantle as a book review.
That's the most hands off approach they could have taken legally and journalistically.
It's not "us" to who published this material, we're just expressing an opinion about an independent piece of work produced another publishing outfit, who conveniently employed a couple of our journalists.
14
What’s most interesting is that neither the original article nor the explanation thereafter gets at the most newsworthy element of the book - namely that Ms. Ford’s best friend at the time, Leland Keyser, does not believe Ms. Ford notwithstanding substantial outside pressure.
This leaves Ms. Ford with no one who can remember the party, the alleged “incident,” or even a second hand knowledge of anything happening. This, along with Ms. Ford not fully disclosing her lie detector results and not releasing the notes of her therapist would lead any reasonable person to conclude this whole matter is entirely fictitious.
47
@Mike C.
She never said she doesn't believe her.
3
@DW. Yes she did. Read the book.
9
@DW
Apparently in the book she does say that Ford's story does not make sense
8
Thank you for your commitment to reporting the truth and for having the humility to apologize for errors.
Of course Republicans consider it a “witch hunt” and “fake news” but for those of us who actually bother to read and have the sense to get our information from trustworthy sources, we appreciate you running this story.
Maybe this is petty, but my favorite part of this story dominatin* the news cycle was the fact that George Conway tweeted absolutely nothing about it. People on the left have been praising him for speaking out about Trump’s crazy behavior, but nothing on Kavanaugh, and that has exposed his game — I’ve been waiting for this to happen because I didn’t buy it for a second.
Someone really needs to look into his finances to see if he’s the one who paid off Kavanaugh’s debts since he was tasked with “looking out for Kavanaugh” in the wake of his nomination and confirmation hearings. The “good cop/bad cop” game of distraction that the Conway’s are playing stinks to high heaven.
4
Don’t believe that Deborah Ramirez doesn’t remember the incident. All of us women who have been victims of sexual assault remember the incident, though details may have been suppressed in order for us to function in this paternalistic society. When the choice is to have one’s life upended, as happened to Christine Ford, or to conveniently ‘not remember’, which would most of us choose?
For those dismissing the story because she ‘doesn’t remember’, any guilty consciences?hoping your own youthful transgressions are not remembered? What if it were your daughters?
7
@Dee
It's not Deborah Ramirez who has no memory of the incident. It's a woman involved in a SECOND incident at a Yale drinking party with Brett Kavanaugh.
Deborah Ramirez remembers the incident clearly, & her lawyers had 25 people lined up who were willing to speak with the FBI. The FBI never interviewed them.
9
@Dee
You've got it mixed up. Ramirez remembers the incident. It's the other woman who doesn't.
3
@DW
Ramirez remembers the incident (and the person) after extensive therapy - therapy which has already been shown to be capable of implanting false memories in people.
Question: why do these mistakes always go one way? Why do they always paint Republicans in a negative light, rather than Democrats?
42
@Michael A question for the ages indeed. Inexplicable.
12
This is exactly why we need and I miss the public editor. Readers should not have to rely on reader comments to ask the follow-up questions that will go unanswered. And, who is the "we" who is asking the original questions? Can't we know that and understand the process by which Reader Center items are prepared? For those of who care deeply about the Times and pay to get its content, please, please bring back a public editor.
55
I have trusted the NYT for top notch journalism. However when I see this situation l am more than a little upset. The main reason is that Trump and the Republicans and their media friends are having a field day with this. It was an important piece but by not including the said information the NYT has stepped in it.
I’m not suggesting censorship in any way, but bringing all the facts.
23
This foray into the political sewer is nothing compared to the one the American people will be dragged on when Trump appoints Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement.
8
@God: I pray for RBG's good health until 120 every day. It's good to know You are listening.
4
@God
he will have to appointment a woman of color to limit this - otherwise expect the same no matter the nominee.
2
@sh
So there can be another Clarence Thomas? Even without the Anita Hill thing, the man has shown himself to be incompetent, lazy and with no qualms about unethical behavior.
2
I'm amazed at the anti-Clinton (Stier was a Clinton-operative!) resentments aired here. But people associated with Trump (like Kavanaugh) are deserving?? The people want and deserve not only an excellent jurist but someone with impeccable qualities as a person, human being. Kavanaugh's very troubled youth and early adulthood and his angry, disgustingly self-righteous, not a defense of himself, but an attack on those who testified against him, show him lacking in a hard way.
He was ushered through by very partisan interests and an appallingly gross dis-grassley manipulation supported by L. Graham histrionics and, unfortunately, the ineffectiveness of more liberal leaning republican senators, such as Flake and Collins (one is gone, the other might follow in 2020) and full throttle confidence in Kavanaugh from the chief in Lying and Blindness.
The Ramirez accusations had more credibility because of more evidence that Dr Ford's allegation though her testifying was very convincing, strong, and believable. The Republican Senate failed Ramirez. Voting in 2020 may change things/the senate and Kavanaugh is impeachable.
15
Let's not near around the bush here.
NYT omitted critical information from the piece: An alleged victim refused an interview request and told friends she didn't recall the incident.
There is zero excuse for this, and heads should roll.
83
In America in 2018, they first they came for the prep school graduates; but I didn't speak up because I didn't attend a prep school. Then they came for "privileged white men"; but I didn't speak up because I didn't consider myself privileged. Then they came for the women who cared about the men; but I didn't speak up because I'm not a woman. Then they came for those that cared about "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty"; but by that time there was no one left to speak out.
50
I'll have to buy a copy of The Sunday Times. It would make great fish wrap.
21
Short of someone finding convincing evidence that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of mass murder and genocide, there is no possibility whatsoever of his being removed from the Supreme Court. So move on. Concentrate on things that can be changed. This fixation on this decidedly flawed but invulnerable factotum is both pointless and counter productive.
14
I am beyond tired of constantly hearing how “privileged” most of the Yale students, including Kavanaugh were. Yes, it is a “privilege “ to be accepted at any Ivy League school. Yes, some students cone from very comfortable families - some even very rich. Many are also middle class on some financial aid. It’s Gotten so today that any student whose parents have any wealth are portrayed like some fatuous kid who behaves like Prince Harry in Las Vegas.
News flash! College culture has been full of excess drinking for over 50 years. There wasn’t the casual hook-up sex that is on many campuses today, but there was a tamer version. It crosses ALL socio-economic lines as well as geographic ones. And in the end, these students grow up, get jobs, settle down and most emphatically are not “defined” by that college culture for the rest of their lives.
The adult behavior of Clinton, Edwards - yes Trump, too - is far more troubling to me than drunk college students.
In the end, this is about selling a salacious book. It’s about an “event that neither the alleged victim nor the alleged perpetrator remembers. Justice Kavanaugh’s behavior since law school has been one of hard work and judicial excellence.
As for Ms Ramariz - what a shame she never found her place at Yale and all these years later, still hasn’t. Most poorer students learn to adapt, find their group and take full advantage of the privilege of such an education. She wasted hers.
40
Conveniently glossed over, even in this, the damage control piece, is any mention of the initial failure to report that the alleged victim has no recollection of the event. For a story of such import, this is arguably journalistic malpractice. I’m a 25-year NYTimes subscriber, but the deterioration of editorial objectivity and overall quality the last few years is sadly breathtaking.
65
There are only a few justices. We heard credible testimony. Is Brett the bear boy really the best we can do in this country? There isn't a single other lawyer that could be put up with a spotless reputation for this lifetime job? His attitude is indeed the only thing that repulsed me, and I am sure many others.
11
Is it possible that Kavanaugh was not the only person at that party - or bash - who was inebriated, and that accounts for some failure to remember the incident?
4
There is no witness. Read the “amended” story that notes that the victim does not want to come forward nor does she recall the incident. A kangaroo court by those profess to champions of social justice. By the way, one of the reporters was herself a recipient of privilege as she attended Yale.
37
With respect to the incident allegedly witnessed by Max Stier, Mr. Dao says the story was checked with two government officials, who found the story credible. Who are these government officials, and what direct knowledge do they have of the incident?
Without more information, their opinion is meaningless.
35
The language here is very confusing. To read the responses, it seems people think Deborah Ramirez does not remember the incident. That’s not true. This is about another woman who had not come forward.
36
Ramirez didn’t remember whether it was Kavanaugh. Only after six hours with an anti-Kavanaugh lawyer did she say it was Kavanaugh. She also told friends she wasn’t sure it was him.
27
@Alan
Yep, this has been driving me nuts. Many people do not understand the story or its context.
3
This piece would have been more understandable with a chart listing each aspect of the Times multi-ply reaction and response, headed by "Right", "?", and "Wrong".
Commenters who mention that Max Steir is a former Clintonite are implying that his allegation must be politically motivated. Do they think the FBI was right to leave it uninvestigated?
Not all politically active attorneys lie, especially about a then-appeals judge, and eventual justice.
I also don't understand why some of the commenters are fixated on the fact that the woman doesn't remember it. Wasn't the point that she was drunk enough to be a) taken advantage of and b) honest enough to say that she doesn't know whether it happened?
The real issue is whether Justice Kavanaugh lied to Congress and whether anybody in the administration or GOP Senators knew that he did.
20
The Times, like any news organization, is not above scrutiny and criticism when warranted. But reactions on social media and in other mainstream outlets critical of The Times’ editorial decisions on the Kavanaugh revelations are over the top. The rationale for how the publication decisions were made is plausible. Ultimately, nothing of material importance was lost or obscured and readers have a clear picture of the allegations against the newest Supreme Court justice . . . perhaps just not played as aggressively as some would like. Maybe the harshest critics can save some of their outrage for those casting the news media as “the enemy of the people.”
17
@NB it is beyond astonishing anyone paying even the slightest attention could fathom the media being an enemy of the people when compared to the flagrant hour to hour lying spouted by Donald J Trump who distorts, corrupts and denies what the news media witnesses and reports! Does the media make errors from time to time? Yes. But when revealed retractions are always forthcoming. DJT just doubles down on the lies when caught!
9
@angus I disagree. The outrage is warranted. This is someone's brother, someone's son, someone's father, etc. This is a human being! The NYT is, by all appearances, changing the story in an effort to get everyone to believe Kavanaugh exposed himself at a party -- and if they can do that, then maybe, just maybe, they can get more people to think he tried to rape a woman, too. In short, this news organization wants the whole country to hate Kavanaugh, a man who for all we know has done nothing wrong.
30
Believe women. Unless they deny or dont remember an incident, then Believe the man that just mansplained t o the said women, that the incident did occur, she just does not remember it correctly. Do whatever it takes to arrive at the truth that you want.
27
@GS the truth is that Kavanaugh lied under oath.
10
I am at a loss to understand what was offensive about the tweet. It seems not to have done anything other than describe an offensive action and its effect on the victim, as it was reported in the article.
11
The issue in the Kavanaugh hearings (and the Clarence Thomas hearings) is someone committed perjury. Witnesses testified under oath. Someone was not telling the truth. The Senate treated it as a political question rather than a question of perjury. The willingness of the Senate to live with perjury elevates lies to the same stature as truth. Perjury before a Senate committee is not political theater. It is a felony.
39
Even if the woman could remember it would still be she said, he said. So the many witnesses are vital to what the truth is even without the woman remembering.
5
Can anyone imagine such a clear and concise conversation between the consumers and the providers of media on any Right Wing outlet?
Thank you for this and for your excellent work over the years, err, centuries.
16
Thank you for publishing this important work. I would like to see more on the impact trauma has on memory, as so many are using the victim's supposed lack of total recall as a weapon against her claims. The truth is trauma is processed by the oldest part of the brain, colloquially known as the reptilian brain. Words are virtually meaningless in that brain region. It operates completely in abstract flashes of emotion, imagery, and instinct, in order to survive. Essentially, trauma memories are stored more in the body than in the newer regions of the brain responsible for language, and memory. Anyone who uses her lack of recall against her is either ignorant, or blatantly deceptive in their arguments that it proves the assault(s) did not happen.
12
As I read readers comments on NYT “lowering it standards” by publishing this article-it truly makes me angry. I am glad NYT did, and I hope NYT will in the future. Thank you very much for bringing this 3rd incident to my attention!
Kavanaugh testimonies then felt wrong and partisan, beneath any objective impartial judge. Now with this new information it only brings to a sharper focus how maverick M McConnell put a partisan winnings over the values of democracy, justice and just human decency by pushing Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court judge.
32
I can understand why in a case involving a capital offense, great care should be taken to make certain that proof of guilt is ironclad. We do not want to sentence an innocent individual and unfairly ruin his future and life. Consequentially we require the removal of all doubt before we convict the accused.
But in seeking a Supreme Court Justice---must we employ the same caution? Must we be so entirely circumspect?
This is such an important position that will impact all of us and our children for decades to come. Our way of life can be altered unfairly by the wrong Judge.
Is it so terrible to reject an individual where doubt clouds the wisdom of the selection? True, it might be unfair to the nominee, but he/she can serve in a lower court and live an honored prestigious life without the greater honor of the highest court. You can't always win the lottery.
I would think that in the case of Kavanaugh, sufficient doubt exists to keep him in the lower court and strive to get an individual without his possible blemishes.
87
@shimr: so....in the case of SC Justices, the standard should be malicious gossip and 36 year old "claims" against a person (who was 18 at the time of the alleged incidents)? and the standard of proof should be so low, that basically ANY tattletales or innuendo is enough? and why is that "good enough" for the Federal bench?
54
@shimr
//Is it so terrible to reject an individual where doubt clouds the wisdom of the selection?
It matters what the doubt is about. If a completely subjective "personality fit" is the litmus test, remember that's a huge reason why women were kept out of prominent positions.
We can't have women making important decisions when they have PMS!
Subjectivity not grounded in facts cuts both ways.
There were plenty of legit reasons to reject Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. There are very good arguments to keep another conservative originalist from the court. None of those were brought up.
The focus was solely on what allegedly happened 30+ years ago when the unwilling victim herself and her friends could not remember.
People who sexually assault others while in college don't just stop cold turkey when they get a job. It's normalized in them that they interact with women that way. It gets worse as they grow richer and more powerful because they buy people off. They don't have "come to Jesus" moments without therapy - therapy which Kavanaugh never had.
The fact remains that nobody has accused him of acting inappropriately ever in his working life. RBG praised him for hiring all-female clerk team. Why would she do that? None of them have even hinted that he's has behaved inappropriately.
8
@Concerned Citizen - anyone who couldn't see that Kavanaugh's sworn testimony was full of evasions, non-sequiturs and outright lies is pretty credulous in my opinion.
6
This is an excellent report showing to what lengths the New York Times will go to make sure that what they say is accurate and truthful. We are fortunate to have a paper that is willing to print "All the News that's fit to Print". Kudos to all the social warriors at the NY Times that work everyday to make sure that the Truth is reported to the American People. They are our heroes in an era where we need heroes.
186
@Independent. Wow, I guess good, fair news will be finding someone that is willing to trash some figure that the newspapers publishers, and readers, don't like. I would imagine someone like, oh, say Elizabeth Warren, will finally get her due, after building her life and career around lies and falsehoods, which we know are facts. I'm sure you're all over that, Independent.
19
@Independent
Sarcasm, that's the way to do it. Kudos.
12
@Independent It's sad that any use of the word "social" conjures up the word "justice."
Society (Americans as a group, not a collection of all-powerful individuals) and justice are concepts the GOP despises and ridicules.
Left unaddressed: Max Stier's full history in Washington, including as a defense lawyer for Clinton.
In a story involving national political figures and jurists, not being clear about sources' backgrounds is itself inappropriate. But giving the impression that Stier was *only* involved with bipartisan activities is absolutely inexcusable.
The original story deserves a second correction. Period.
333
@Cameron
What does this have to do with the Bill Clinton? It was Kavanaugh, in his unhinged rage, who cried “revenge of the Clintons.” Stier has a reputation of being nonpartisan and it has been reported that his nonprofit worked with the Trump transition. If Stier was politically motivated then he probably would have agreed to publicly discuss the incident he witnessed.
47
@Cameron
As if his work history changes his recollection of his college years.
28
@Cameron. Couldn’t agree more. I kept waiting for the line, “mistakes were made,” as the NYT makes plenty of them these days but rarely (if ever) has the courage to admit it.
28
The stories were too week to run and they undermine those of us who opposed Kavanaugh.
149
@AACNY - Dr. Ford was lying and IMO has set women back a generation in the workforce with her histrionic and emotionally unstable performance.
It pains me as a woman to see this.
10
I read the piece, twice. It was fantastic, thanks for having the courage to publish it. My subscription to the NYT is the best money I spend each and every month.
Thank you.
91
When you describe the piece as fantastic, do you mean fantastical-as in pertaining to fantasy? If so, I’m right there with you.
We have one self-described witness who waited 30 years to come forward and he happens to have been a bitter rival of Kavanaugh’s and a Clinton defense attorney at the same time Kavanaugh worked for Judge Starr. Oh, and the alleged victim remembers no such event happening. What a great [fiction] book this will make, right??
35
The problem with criticizing Judge Kavanaugh for his behavior at Yale, let alone calling for his impeachment, is that it is based on things he allegedly did many years ago. If Judge Kavanaugh is fair game for what he did years ago so is Joe Biden (e.g. for his position against busing ). Stick to sticking it to Trump himself.
42
@Jay Orchard
Actually, it's about his lying under oath during his hearings. He denied all of these accusations and evaded discussions of several others. The issue is not so much what he did (which is appalling on its own), but that his weak (if loud) denials lose further credibility with each new witness.
74
No, Jay Orchard, the truth about Kavanaugh's behavior -- past and present -- goes more like this:
By the time a civil human being enters college, he knows Right from Wrong, and practices it.
Sure, many young men (and women) "sow oats" during their college years. But acceptable oats-sowing constitutes harmless mischief -- not Wanton Misconduct.
It's evident to me -- and millions of other responsible adults who cringed at Off-Kilter Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings -- that this man who demonstrated egregious lack of judgment in college has since made little progress in that most important of adult assets: Maturity.
23
@Jay Orchard Do you believe he perjured himself in his Senate testimony? I do. He’s definitely fair game if he couldn’t own what he did (reportedly) repeatedly. Also, Trump deserves impeachment for Emoluments corruption if nothing else. Biden not my preferred alternative but not accused of anything in the same league as 45.
19
This issue is an extremely serious one that unfortunately has become salacious by shoddy handling. I am extremely surprised that the ramifications of the new allegations, even when appearing in an Opinion piece, were not considered before the piece was published. I wish this was investigated further and presented as a well vetted investigative piece. The Twitter sanfu is easily considered, but with the spotlight on female abuse and the position of a Supreme Court justice, this now carries tons more weight than the Clarence Thomas hearings that were easily brushed under the carpet.
This has unwittingly given people ammunition to belittle this as a witch hunt rather than the heavy consideration this is due.
Why was this not seen to be an issue that would be best addressed as a very serious investigative piece?
69
@Me perhaps because the alleged ‘accuser’ has no recollection of the incident. There is no corroboration when the alleged accuser didn’t accuse
21
@Me
It was not easy to brush the Thomas hearings under the carpet if they struck you as terrible. I had no doubt at all that he made salacious remarks and I don’t think many people did. He was an African American nominee and a man. Probably it seemed awful to back down ? Possibly the people who nominated him were unaware before the hearings?
1
@Me
Keeping it as an opinion piece is the only way they could have cleared it with their legal department for publication.
As an actual news piece, it is subject to lawsuits - from both Kavanaugh and the woman who clearly did not want to be named - and wanted nothing to do with the article.
11
Why was a crucial fact totally left out of the original story—that the supposed victim has told friends she doesn’t remember the incident?
386
@Art Eckstein
The authors were just on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show. I may have misunderstood, but Mr. O’Donnell asked just that question. Both authors indicated that it had been part of the original story, but that somehow it had been excised by an editor. Subsequently this part of the story was appended.
Interestingly, that it had been part of the original submission was not stated when the addendum was added. Mr. O’Donnell asked that, as well, and again, if my recollection is accurate, this is what the authors stated.
27
@Art Eckstein
Why is that crucial? Others saw what he did...allegedly.
17
@Art Eckstein
Given the way women who come forth are treated, no wonder the woman says she doesn't remember.
36
I'm looking forward to learning more about the results of that review concerning the inappropriate social media post.
21
Why does Dao not mention that Stier was representing Bill Clinton in several cases? Isn’t this a clear conflict of Interest for this “witness”, or at least an indication of bias?
259
@Peter Rosen
He apparently also worked for the Trump 2016 Campaign so that’s a massive deflection from the obvious there.
18
@Peter Rosen You will find that most lawyers that are hotshots in Washington worked both sides of the isle. That said, why would representing Clinton be an indication of bias or a conflict of interest? This is the Supreme Court, has nothing to do with democrats or replublicans, it has to do with administering the law as written, period. To further your arguement, wouldn't the bias of the republican controlled Senate be a clear conflict of interest with such a partisan candidate? Further, is Brett the best we can do to find one person out of 360,000,000 to fill the job????
25
@Peter Rosen
No it is not a conflict.
12
"In this case, the process was not followed properly, resulting in a tweet that fell well below our standards."
Well, no apology? Nothing else? That's it? Not good enough by far.
241
Regarding the question on the controversial Tweet, that’s a lame dodge for a non-answer if there ever were one.
63
Kudos to the Times for attempting this level of reflection.
However, this Reader Center post was largely prompted by the question over why the original piece did not include the detail that the friends of the alleged victim say she does not recall the incident - and Mr. Dao refused to answer that question here. He receives no follow up question from the authors. As such, this post fails as an attempt by the Times to reckon with the oversight.
What's more, the details of this new allegation are very difficult to ascertain. How was Mr. Dao comfortable including such an allegation without more context as to the physical mechanics of what took place? If none is available in the book, and Mr. Stier does not wish to speak on record, then Mr. Dao should have left the anecdote out of the Times.
77
Although the lapse understandably drawing the most criticism relates to the factual omission(s) in the article, personally, I remain more troubled by the authors and editor's blurring of sociology and sentiment with specific allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.
In my opinion, it's completely justifiable--even necessary-- that any "reasonably" believed new disclosures about a public figure be published, even if they aren't impeccably sourced. However, to inter-mix allegations of fairly violent behavior with a critique of class based tensions at the time, especially in an article whose rhetoric veered, I thought, toward sentimentality, risks biasing readers. If the allegations are legitimate, let them stand on their own.
That in this case the softer/non-news stuff wasn't published separately at best seems like a lapse in judgement and at worst likely to feed the accusation of a hit job.
30
The tweet was indeed offensive but why? You still don’t say. I think it was repulsive—and very lacking in civility—because it showed deference not to the sufferers but instead to the perpetrators. It’s not too different from the deference to the powers that be that led to headlines such as “Cloud Lifted” in March and “Trump Urges Unity” recently. Just say no to that kind of deference and good things will happen. Without fear or favor, to put it another way—how about that as a goal?
14
The authors of this book needed to go back to investigative journalism and continue to dig for and produce solid evidence showing the credibility of witnesses and failures of the FBI to thoroughly investigate kavanaugh- you know, Woodward and Bernstein style.
Hopefully someone will nail this.
18
Maybe we should wait to see the whole book rather than judging how well the authors “nailed it” from a short excerpt.
6
Please be more careful. This is exactly the kind of thing that trump, the GOP and their supporters are going to point to when yelling "fake news." We all have to be double diligent with presenting factual information.
276
I still find your explanation of the coverage of the latest allegation against Judge Kavanaugh lacking. You cite Max Steir as a witness to lend credence to the charge . Really? Max Steir has a history as a Democratic operative and has legal history in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh. It would seem that these facts would have added additional context to his verification, Never mind that the accuser has no memory of the incident. I am disappointed in the coverage and expect more from the Times.
156
I am really angry and disappointed by the poor judgement shown. Leaving out the detail that the woman at the heart of the new accusation reportedly doesn’t recall and doesn’t want to talk? Where are your standards? Are you trying to throw the election to Trump?
373
@Laura Calderone
"Are you trying to throw the election to Trump?"
Yep, like they did last time.
1
Why did you not ask the biggest question: how could the fact that the main accuser has no memory of the incident be left our of the article? Did you know it was left out? And was the omission not a legitimate reason for readers to question the honesty and political motives of the authors?
230
Kavanaugh could have gone up before the Judiciary Committee when the accusations against him first surfaced and leveled with the American people by saying something honest like:
“I drank way too much in high school.
I got drunk a lot.
I treated a lot of girls badly.
Yes, I roughed up Dr. Ford.
And later, when I had daughters of my own, I was sorry for how
I acted.
But it was too late then for me to do anything about it.
The truth is I am now a very different man who believes he could be a very good Supreme Court Justice."
The American people are usually pretty good about recognizing honesty in politicians and a truthful statement from him about how he behaved many years ago might have saved his reputation.
But it wasn’t in him, and he has still not apologized to Dr. Ford.
Like Justice Thomas before him who has never apologized to Anita Hill, he has besmirched the reputation of the Court by serving on it.
It is not too late for the two of them to resign now.
42
@A. Stanton Why should he have pled guilty to accusations that were false? Just to get a few more Democrats to vote in his favor?
10
@A. Stanton Dr. Ford hasn't apologized to Bret Kavanaugh. Research her former FBI "friend" who supposedly gave her the polygraph test (2 questions if I recall). Oh and that was in New England and she flew there, then later claimed she was afraid to fly, remember?
That was a hit job from the start and any reasonable person knew it. It's not too late for those of you who believed OBVIOUS lies and fell for yet another hit job from the party you support.
14
@A. Stanton
No, no, no! Not resign now, when they'll just be replaced by equivalent ... er ... persons.
Resign after the 2020 elections.
2
You don't even include the tweet in question.
This is a very shallow article and a very weak defense.
As for "news" vs. "öpinion," I have found that your "news" is often shaded with opinion.
At least, though, you have improved your coverage of Sen. Sanders, even calling him by his proper title. You still throw in "grouchy" and other adjectives out of thin air, not not so much "ünkempt" anymore. But I wish you would stop calling his explanation of positions a "stump speech." Funny, none of the other candidates you describe seem to have stump speeches. Sen. Sanders often introduces new ideas or details in his speeches, but the Times only notices his waving finger and arms.
I grant you HRC is more attractive than the Senator, but he was winning against Trump by two more points in 2016 polls than she. Maybe if the NYT had paid attention to what the candidates were saying the, and explained it to the public as the news media should, we wouldn't have Trump.
31
For those of us who are desperate to have Donald Trump defeated in 2020, having long-honored newspapers like the NY Times, Washington Post, etc provide accurate and well-vetted news stories of Trump's failures and even illegal actions is imperative. So when sloppiness occurs, it's very disappointing and frustrating. We need you to be better.
124
I am awaiting eagerly further drunken recollections of party participants about now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and I die to learn more details about what went on at the drunken parties of Ivy League Colleges.
This reporting is going to put a dent into the readership of tabloid papers, and will serve as a refreshing sideline from the grave challenges that our times and planet face.
22
Your explanation seems to be you were concerned about not describing the event as criminally bad, but had no doubt that it happened. This is despite the Times clarification that the alleged victim did not remember the event. Sort of weird to me.
37
As a veteran Times reader and former liberal Republican, I know The Times isn't perfect. Sometimes I suspect bias, especially on the death penalty, which I support in some cases.
But compared with today's Republican party, The Times is as pure as a newborn baby. Trump's multiple daily lies with virtually no Republican response...blatant voter suppression...blatant gerrymandering...McConnell's cynical burying of everything from a Supreme Court nominee to gun registration supported by 90% of the public.
Every time Trump opens his mouth at one of his "rallies," he increases the chasm between the two Americas. The Times is simply fighting back in what I hope is not a losing battle.
19
@bnyc The Times is supposed to be doing journalism, not fighting back or otherwise engaging in a political crusade. At least, that was my expectation.
13
The tweet was awful your explanation I do not find creditable. Also how often does the FBI actually tell news reporters they find witnesses or statements credible? Seems this explanation also is not up to Times standards.
32
The whole time I'm reading this, I'm hearing "We did nothing wrong. We merely presented what others wrote. So, she doesn't remember the incident, refused to be interviewed, and just wants to be left alone. A couple of Senate investigators (whose names or which Democrat they worked for we don't know) decided she was credible, and that's good enough for us. Because...journalism!"
Wouldn't it be great if you spent as much time and treasure reporting on things that matter (y'know...news?), rather than trying to destroy someone you hate only because Donald Trump appointed him?
93
@Mr. Lincoln: If you truly think that the NYT "hates" Kavanaugh, or that they report on his misdeeds "only because Trump appointed him," then you haven't been following the news and you didn't watch the hearings, in which an angry and paranoid Kavanaugh showed that he lacks the temperament, and the objectivity, to serve on the highest court in the land.
7
"The essay included a previously unreported claim that friends pushed Mr. Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female Yale student during a dorm party with drunken classmates."
Previous unreported claim made by Max Stier. Hmm, wonder why you omitted that bit.
"During the authors’ investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Stier, witnessed the event and later reported it to senators and to the F.B.I."
Ah, I see. Now you can make it appear as if you're are talking about multiple witnesses. Fanstastic. Good job. You've multiplied the single named "witness" into some plural "witnesses" in the space of two sentences.
"The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible."
Corroborated as in F.B.I. agents responded "yes, Max Stier said this thing." Again, brilliant use of that loaded word "corroborated". And I'm certain they found it very credible if you insist as such. Why shouldn't they? What isn't credible about a story
-that only one man remembers
-the alleged victim has no recollection of
-told by a man who was a Clinton attorney against Ken Starr accusing a member of the Starr team
-that apparently wasn't shared by Stier with anyone on his team when Kavanaugh was opposing counsel (well, the late 90s was peak Must See TV. Maybe Stier felt that Ross and Rachel were better happy hour conversation than a salacious anecdote about the opposing counsel's drunken penis)
Thanks for the clarifications, Mr. Dao.
117
Apparently the book included the information that the second, unnamed woman did not remember the incident, even though witnesses did. Why didn’t the nyt also include that info? By leaving it out, the Times left the whole story open to attack and question.
47
We’ll never think of Brett Kavanaugh in any positive way. It’s almost like not even believing he’s really on The Supreme Court.
Where there’s fuel there’s fire with Kavanaugh.
Again - how many of you 53 year old men out there have your high school calendars? That in itself is creepy.
18
@MIMA
Just so that we're clear, you take the fact that he had his calendar from every year of his life as a negative. Only because it makes it harder for someone to prove that he was somewhere else 30 years ago.
His habit, that he took from his dad, literally gave him an alibi that he'd never expect to need 30 years later.
10
@John
the bit about the calendars was beyond absurd. Sometimes I think I'm living in some alternate reality. Who do you know that has calendars from their high school days?
A lot of people thought Ted Bundy seemed credible when he said he didn’t kill any of those women. In what universe does “his political opponents seemed credible” amount to anything approaching corroborating evidence? The door swings both ways folks. Today’s Max Stier is tomorrow’s Red Scare. If you think we don’t live in a world with false accusations now, imagine if you could bring down your enemies with them. Would you not be tempted? That’s not a world I want to live in.
45
"So to summarize, the only new claim in the new book is that a Democratic attorney told two senators that he saw an incident where a third party allegedly did something to Kavanaugh and the young woman. In their book, the authors are upset that this claim didn’t lead to a massive FBI investigation, although they don’t explain why they think it should have."
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/alleged-victim-in-new-york-times-kavanaugh-story-doesnt-remember-incident/#.XX6bvBKeV_c.twitter
42
How did it happen that the original article did NOT contain the crucial information that the alleged victim told friends she does not remember the incident? The NYT felt compelled to correct this in later additions.
72
Would it be possible for the NYTimes to note that its only source for this allegation (since the supposed victim wouldn't answer any questions and her friends say she never remembers it happening) is a former lawyer for Bill Clinton? Readers could then judge the credibility of the only source for this claim.
84
@CK
I think NYT now takes it for granted that any political story they write is expected to come with express approval and endorsement of the Democratic Party. Still, it would be nice if they put it out as a disclaimer for unsuspecting readers.
10
Based only on the NYT essay and Terry Gross’ NPR “Fresh Air” interview of the authors today, the issues associated with the repulsive behaviour of one of many privileged drunk Yale freshman don’t seem particularly compelling.
What is, is the behavior of Republican senators during confirmation hearings and of whatever direction was given the FBI in its investigation. But of course it’s unfortunate this hasn’t been revealed here or elsewhere, except what we can see for ourselves, a whitewash and a partisan tv spectacle of a weak prevaricating jurist. Let’s hope RBG will spare us another.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761191576/reporters-dig-into-justice-kavanaughs-past-allegations-of-misconduct-against-him
11
Next think you’ll be telling us you omitted telling your readers is the single witness to the crime that the victim doesn’t remember happening was a former Clinton lawyer opposing Kavanaugh in the Lewinsky case.
54
@TR88: @TR88: Steir is a lawyer -- a sworn officer of the court. He would not make a false statement to the FBI, because that would result in disbarment and imprisonment.
2
It appears the NYTimes made mistakes in this story, and now has corrected them. But ... "The primary question, of course, is not what Kavanaugh did in college but what he said about his actions when speaking under oath" (Washington Post, 16Sept2019) And further: " 'Perhaps the most chilling line in Kavanaugh's speech was, 'what goes around, comes around.' He did not say it with any evident sadness, nor did he renounce it as a value,' Jonathan Chait wrote. 'Here was a man apparently threatening revenge on his political enemies, and asking for a lifetime appointment with supreme power of judicial review with which to do it.' " (Politifact, 4Oct2018) "Whatever happened between Brett Kavanaugh and the women, this much is known beyond any doubt: he denied the allegations on national TV not in a sober, clear, calm, direct, and unequivocal manner ... but with a shockingly injudicious and sneering accusation of a political conspiracy by those who opposed his nomination, all in violation of the Code of Conduct of United States Judges' rule barring 'inappropriately partisan statements.' One needn't have taken a position on the merits of the women's accounts to know that Mr. Kavanaugh was unworthy of a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court." (Comment by Paul Horvitz, NYTimes, 14Sept2019) Add in Mr. McConnell's abuse of power involving this appointment, and the non-partisanship of the Supreme Court is out the window for the lifetime terms of Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Gorsuch.
27
@Steve Kennedy - Mr Kennedy, you make excellent and well articulated points ......the manner in which Kavanaugh responded to the allegations is the thing that put his character today on vivid display. Threatening revenge ('what goes around comes around') and that Ms Ford's allegations were part of a 'political hit job' tells everyone paying attention, regardless of their political persuasion, that this man is not fit to be on the Supreme Court. And you are right.....he, Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have done tremendous and long term damage to the credibility of the important institution that is the Supreme Court. Thank you.
5
The NYT must keep in mind that subscribers like myself are only subscribers because we expect the NYT to be careful when articles are published. I'm still not satisfied with how the Kavanaugh matter has been handled but do appreciate that you are trying.
15
Deliberately misleading. A shameful performance by a newspaper for which I am consequently having less and less trust for.
300
@Mark S
Reluctantly, I agree.
More than ever, NYT needs a public editor.
34
What a joke. The question everyone in America is asking is: Why didn't the article include the facts (as reported in the book) that the alleged victim declined to talk to the reporters and that her friends say that she has told them she has no recollection of the alleged incident. Others in the media have called this journalistic malpractice. And yet the Times does not even address it?
226
But, there were witnesses who verify it happened. When you answer why you leave this part out, you may also answer your other question.
11
If you mean Ramirez, there are only people at Yale who at the time heard rumors about such an incident. They are not “witnesses”.
5
@Alberta Bound
No, there are not. Read more carefully. The witnesses said only that they "heard about" an incident like this.
1
The essay included new information that illuminated the authors’ broader narrative and bolstered their conclusion that, even though Senate investigators concluded her account lacked corroboration, Ms. Ramirez’s claims were in fact credible.
Who decide what is credible and what is not, especially when the person the event happened to her has not agreed to fully discuss the matter. Please be explicit about how something is decided to be credible, what standard is being used ?
Why is the New York Times obsessed with Twitter and Tweets ?
If you are supposed to be an aim to be the National Newspaper of America - stop running with the latest technological trends, most people do not tweet.
The NY Times used to provide the email of reporters and columnists so you could write them but now all you can do is sent them a tweet, but if you are not a twit, what are you supposed to do ?
16
Max Stier? Isn't he one of Bill Clinton's attorneys during his impeachment who has made no secret of his hatred of Brett Kavanaugh?
77
@Beth Grant DeRoos: Steir is a lawyer -- a sworn officer of the court. He would not make a false statement to the FBI, because that would result in disbarment and imprisonment.
Please use common sense instead of relying on a knee-jerk assumption of bias.
5
@Doro Wynant "He would not make a false statement to the FBI, because that would result in disbarment and imprisonment."
But you think a Federal Judge/Supreme Court Justice would? Or is just that you think a Republican Justice would? it has to go both ways -- either being an officer of the court keeps you from lying, or it doesn't. Which is it?
7
Brett Kavanaugh is learning that when you lie about something, you lose control about when and how the truth will emerge.
In his case, the truth emerged after 10 months of in-depth investigation by two outstanding journalists. Instead of blame conspiracies for these latest revelations, Kavanaugh resorted to silence.
Now he is also learning that "No comment" means "I'm guilty."
16
The most important news story in all of this was that the FBI investigation was more of a sham than most of us could have thought possible. Ok, you got some people to tell you the new allegation is credible, but you couldn't determine it was true. The thing you seem to know for sure is that the FBI didn't really check this stuff out. And that's the most significant, though certainly not most salacious, new piece of information.
25
@AACNY huh? how can you say the charges were unsubstantiated when it appears that there was little to zero investigation. For example none on the people who may have corroborated the alleged sexual assault were interviewed?
That my friend is what is the sham, ham-fisted, rammed-through, joke of an inquiry into that feeble beer drinking man who will now extract revenge
3
How do you not address the question of how it was decided to omit the fact that the alleged victim, nor anyone besides this one guy, has any idea what he is talking about? Do you feel the handling of this entire situation is even remotely consistent with quality journalism? Does this any several other recent fiascos make you rethink firing the public editor as the sole internal check on ethical compliance by the staff?
51
1) When you say "Senate investigators I think you mean "some Republican" investigators. 2) The Times is truly struggling with"without fear or favor." Some may want you to Fight the Power 24 hours a day, but I would just like to see you withhold deference from the powers that be in 2019. That seems to be too heavy a lift for some at @nyt, sadly. You have not explained what was offensive about the notorious tweet. It's the deference to the powerful and the lack of any thought or concern for the POV of victims. Step away from the"benefit of the doubt" reporting and Decouple from Deference.
3
This kind of character assassination, by unsubstantiated decades old rumor is just wrong. Wrong no matter what part of the political spectrum you dwell in.
Trump may enjoy, maybe even thrive on lies or made up stories-- the rest of the world, including the NYT should stick with verifiable facts..
Last --so now if you happen to come from a upper middle class background---you are now "suspect", and your personal success should be nullified and / or discounted?
The NYT does some great reporting-- this is not that kind of work.
54
I appreciate that the Times has clarified the circumstances surrounding the publication of its recent Sunday Review piece on the FBI’s investigation of Brett Kavanaugh’s conduct at Yale.
Further, I appreciate the publication of the story. It is an important one.
That said, the description of the piece as a “news analysis” is concerning. It appears that a “news analysis” is an opinion piece by a news reporter.
Misleadingly, the term “news analysis” suggests objectivity, rather than a reporter’s personal interpretation of a news event.
My suggestion is that the Times retire the term “news analysis” for something more transparent. A “reporter’s opinion”, “reporter’s evaluation” or “reporter’s perspective” label would be more a more honest description of such pieces than “news analysis.”
Whatever the nomenclature, the Times devotes far too much space to “news analysis” pieces, especially in its U.S. political coverage. I subscribe to the Times for objective news reporting, not for opinion pieces presented as news.
39
@ANetliner" The word "analysis" in "news analysis" makes clear that the piece isn't straight reportage; no one is trying to present opinion pieces as news.
1
@ANetliner
I agree with your suggestions! The news analysis label has got to go. I’ve been a daily reader for 20 years and I have never seen the explanation/definition given here—that it’s writing by NYT news reporters that only goes through the Opinion section’s looser, or at least more subjective, editorial and vetting process, not the process for hard news. The label “news analysis” is NOT an obvious way to indicate that difference to the paper’s dedicated readers, much less the occasional visitor to the nyt website.
7
I’m glad to see this atrocity resurfacing. The confirmation hearing left me numb.. Squirm, Kavanaugh, squirm.
11
The article was journalistic malpractice that will certainly damage all the candidates that made a hasty decision to impeach Kavanaugh because they relied on the integrity and competence of the NYT. Their mistake. I pray this fiasco doesn't hand the election to Trumpists. Fox News is having a field day
77
How can the Times publish a new allegation when the person who supposedly made it refused to talk to them and says she doesn't have a memory of what happened? Also, since when does sufficient corroboration consist only of a person who is a witness to a person making a statement about an event that they didn't witness?? They cannot verify an event they weren't present at, and did not witness!! How can that ever be considered corroboration?? What are the standards of credibility?? Is everybody considered credible if they don't talk to themselves in the street while wearing a clown costume...Can you please publish the journalistic standards that a source must meet to be considered credible..
307
@pirranha299: The person who made the allegation is Stier. He won't talk to them, but apparently does have a memory of the event. I don't know the facts of the case, nor do you, but a credible eye witness making a credible claim is meaningful data, and it is not uncommon for a witness to observe facts that a victim is unaware of or may later fail to recall. Circumstances could well explain both facts: the witnesses knowledge and the victim's lack of same. We just don't know.
10
@pirranha299
Given that every news story I've read about the incident at the "drunken dorm party," I'm perplexed that you have concluded that the witness (Stier) was not present at the party, i.e., an eye witness. Therefore, this witness is "credible," barring direct contradiction by others who were present. But in fact, his accounts were corroborated by others.
2
Amazing when it’s someone on the rightwing who is the “victim”(?), mainstream orgs take responsibility and self flagellate.
While If the person is on the left, the right doubles down and projects and accuses those who call them out. Not to mention the self righteous (looking at you Sen. Gillibrand) fellow liberals who pile on.
Please save the flames.
2
NY Times now comes with too much opinion and political leanings. It weakens itself because of this. More balanced thought please. Don't become the Breitbart of the Left.
221
@Ken Wilkinson: The piece was labeled "news analysis," which makes clear that it isn't straight reportage.
The NYT is an excellent source for well-reported, well-sourced news; all you have to do is click on the NEWS tab at the top rather than the OPINION tab.
6
@Doro Wynant: You know what I'm talking about. The fact that they felt obliged to provide this explanation for the Kavanaugh piece says something. And it's not just right-wingers calling them out now. It's reasonable people who are looking for reliable unbiased sources of information. Everything's become too partisan, and a LOT of folks are tired of it. NY Times needs to do better.
24
@Ken Wilkinson - the NYT is not "of the left". It is a deeply conservative newspaper committed upholding the corporatist status quo.
10
Dear NYT,
Your unparalleled reputation is at stake. Please do better.
Your role in our society gives you a megaphone. Please respect it and hold yourself accountable for gross missteps that are contributing to the polarization of our community.
A disappointed reader
168
"Based on that corroboration, we felt mentioning the claim as one part of a broader essay was warranted." So a third person corraborates an incident that the putative victim doesn't remember and you believe her lack of recollection isn't worth mentioning but the witness's recollection is? I fully believe Bret Kavanugh's accusers, but your lack of journalistic objectivity has handed a cudgel to his defenders and the Times is too mealy-mouthed to admit it.
31
The explanation in this article also falls well below the standards of the New York Times. If your internal processes don’t work, you need to fix them. Bureaucratic explanations don’t cut it. In the era of “Fake News” you must redouble your efforts to prevent dumb mistakes.
83
That is a pretty weak response to the tweet. How do you have someone so misguided writing the social media posts? How does that story, out of all of them, get posted with a lack of oversight? What guidelines does the Times have, and where exactly was the breakdown in review and approval?
You’re making it really hard to stay a subscriber. I can take mistakes, but there are so many missteps and poor phrasing choices lately, and writing at every step is something I expect to be done at a high level by the NYT. And so little in the way of responsiveness.
43
@AP - Great comment. Yeah, I am also conflicted about remaining a subscriber. So far, the main reason I continue to subscribe is because of the Food section and the New York section of the paper.
2
Who knew?
I always thought that the Sunday Review was supposed to be a fleshed-out review of news that happened in the past week in the same way a year-end-review is one for the past year. Live and Learn.
Secondly, shouldn't extracts and precis of authors soon-to- be published works belong in the Book Review section.
It seems there are too many fiefdoms at the New York Times.
21
Who are the two "government officials" who, you assert, collaborated the charges and believed Mr. Stier?
How did they "collaborate" the charge if you only have the word of Democrat staffers clearly opposed to Judge Kavanaugh?
Did you speak with Mr. Stier? Why not given that there are no other "witnesses"?
Did you search for ANYONE who would collaborate this third hand story? If so please explain. If not please explain.
Finally, is this the new standard for the NYTimes in publishing what is, in final analysis, simply unproven and clearly partisan defamation?
If so I have a great story about a buddy of mine who was assauted by a former president at Harvard. I await your phone call from a reporter who wants to write up my charges.
46
This write-up, while appreciated, leaves a lot to be desired. The main answer I wanted to know was not included: what led the authors (or editors) to omit the facts that the new accuser's friends claimed she didn't recall it?
This is the crux of the matter, and it makes no sense if the authors, who clearly know from writing a book which included these clarifications, would not include that in this piece. This editor response does not answer this key question.
36
This explanation dodged the key questions. Why the omission that the allegation is questionable and why didn’t the Times explain who Max Stier is and his political background? I expect better from this newspaper. Firings seem in order.
53
I find the New York Times has consistently lowered the ‘good journalism’ bar In its insatiable quest to smear Brett Kavanaugh. The crass tweet posted by the paper is pure evidence of this. It’s a mistake borne out of the almost gleeful rush to take down anything to do with President Trump and his administration. In that vein, I don’t believe these are ‘innocent’ mistakes. Add to that the fact that the Times ‘news’ article after the essay egregiously failed to mention the key fact that this latest accuser was not interviewed and does not even recall the incident, and it’s just a dumpster fire for respectable journalism all the way around.
179
Once again, the NYT refuses to print the fact that Max Stier worked for Bill Clinton's defense in his impeachment trial. Which means he worked against Kavanaugh, who was on Ken Starr's team.
Doesn't the reader deserve all of the facts and not just the ones that support a thesis?
130
@Ryan M
Ok, let’s assume this Stier guy, whom most other papers are saying is a respected source of nonpartisan counsel, was trying to smear his former rival Kavanaugh: what was his plan if the FBI actually looked into it during their investigation? If he really wanted it out there to hurt Kavanaugh, why report it to the people who presumably would have easily been able to knock it down as a false smear (or just ignore it, as they actually did)? Why not leak to a credulous reporter somewhere to get it out sooner before the guy had his job for life? It doesn’t add up for me, the idea that his actions so obviously and crucially stem from the fact that he was opposing counsel vs Kavanaugh 20 years ago. All lawyers have opponents; that’s kind of unavoidable in an adversarial system.
8
Get your act together, NYT. The way this story was handled, from start to finish, is unacceptable. This is why so many of your readers have cancelled their subscriptions. Get better...soon.
61
Your publication of this unsubstantiated smear, which the alleged victim herself has denied to friends, is outrageous.
61
This story has done serious damage to the reputation of the NY Times for unbiased reporting.
Has the "Grey Lady" looked into the reasons Christine Blasey Ford's father disagrees with his daughter?
Has the editors of the news section requested an investigation into the facts why many of Mrs. Ford's friends do not support her claims.
Relying on sources that have serious challenges to their credibility demean Judge Kavanaugh are not doing the man or the country any favors.
We expect a great deal more from the NY Times!
62
“As for “news analysis”: That is the label we attach to pieces by Times news reporters to underscore that they are not part of the Opinion section.”
Odd.
Because this is not what “news analysis” means to literate readers of English.
32
Translation: unfounded allegation that is NOT confirmed by victim who denies to be interviewed and denied by her friends is nonetheless touted by the NYTimes and now needs to be walked back/explained.
Fake news. Again.
100
How can you expect people to take your reporting on anything related to the Trump administration seriously?
74
Shame on you!!!! The New York Times use to be held to a higher standard then what it reports now. How sad and cruel to callously due to politics attempt to ruin a man and institution such as the supreme court group.
35
When accusations don’t contain names you can now call the NYT a self serving Tabloid. Shame. Your defense is laughable. There can be only one reason to publish this. His appointment by Trump. All the news that’s fit to smear.
37
I hope the DOJ investigates the Times and determines that the paper is in fact a lobbyist for the democrats and the left. Publishing this unverified information is in effect assisting the democrats in undermining Justice Kavanaugh and SCOTUS.
In addition hopefully Justice Kavanaugh sues the Times for liable. This type of reporting at the Times has to stop or it needs to be labeled as propaganda for the left.
27
More shoddy journalism.
This story's headline refers to a "third accuser" even though yesterday's correction indicated that the alleged target of the "third incident" has said she has no memory of any such incident.
The New York Times needs to do a lot better. Starting right now, or it will lose all credibility as a trusted news source.
90
The 1619 Project already took care of that.
13
The fact that you pollitically motivated journalists would publish unsubstantiated and unprovable allegations from nearly 30 years ago is a sign of low the New York Times standards have become.
184
It's a shame. The NY Times, a once great newspaper, now seeking to operate like the cheap tabloids sold in supermarkets. Kavanaugh should sue the paper and the reporters who wrote the story in question for defamation. He probably won't because he has a level of decency far above that of the NY Times. The NY Times cannot be trusted to objectively report the news. It turns out that President Trump is correct in that the specialty of the NY Times has become yellow journalism and fake news.
91
Why has the NYT not reviewed Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino’s book “Justice on Trail: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court” published last July – yet has already reviewed the just-published Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh” as well as given the authors space for Sunday’s now-famous essay?
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, rightly or wrongly, basically credits Hemingway with the red-flag Tweet that caused the NYT to then append their now even more famous Editors Correction to the original essay. Be that as it may, clearly Ms. Hemingway is a knowledgeable journalist on top of the Kavanaugh story. Frankly, that the NYT would review one book and not the other just looks like bias.
56
As usual, NYT has botched the handling of this important news story from start to finish. Your "explanations" are lame, to say the least. Have your editors learned nothing from previous debacles that called their judgment into question? This is why so many readers have cancelled their subscriptions. 2020 is coming...do better NYT. Soon.
92
I think you need a Public Editor again. You keep making really outrageous mistakes, and I am not sure you are learning from them.
441
@Laurel. Yes, Yes, Yes. Getting rid of the position was a huge mistake and this kind of errors just prove it.
28
Agreed!
2
@Laurel
They should never have dropped Brisbane.
He was their conscience.
2
Please.
This is the kind of organizational sloppiness and journalistic short-cutting that opponents of a free press love to point to and use to keep the underinformed in their place.
The New York times owes to its subscribers and to people who would never consider subscribing to the Times but can understand its place in the public square, better journalism than this piece provided.
46
Totally inadequate explanation for a colossal screw-up, an obfuscation worthy of KellyAnne Conway. I'm waiting for the news department's side of the story. Will it be any more candid?
32
Mr. Kavanaugh seems to be associated with many stories and witnesses of his pushing his penis at people in various ways that do not wish to be associated with his penis.
This is unusual, in that other nominees to the Supreme Court--even those virulently opposed by either Democrats or Republicans--have not been associated with repeated stories and witnesses of their pushing their genitalia at others who do not wish to have the nominees genitalia pushed at them.
18
The piece was a hit job. Unfit for publication. Yet you don’t own up to the obvious errors of judgement. The NYT has become a sewer. You should be ashamed.
93
The NYT’s after coming under fire from the left and the right are now trying to come up with excuses as to why they let this ridiculous claim appear in print. The NYT used to be THE newspaper to go to for honest and in-depth reporting. The article about Kavanaugh isn’t journalism it’s McCarthyism trash.
143
Why doesn't the NYT bring back a Public Editor to address controversial issues with the NYT's reporting. The hackneyed way this story and the recent El Paso shooting headline were handled seriously risk undermining the credibility of the NYT.
74
@Jake
I believe that Margaret Sullivan was one of the public editors. She now has that role st the Washington Post. I read her articles with respect.
5
Judging from Dao's attempt at defending the indefensible, it seems like the NY Times is content to wallow in a cesspool of its own making. That gossip generated by Pogrebin and Kelly was deemed fit to print is quite an indictment of Dao and a new low for the formerly respectable newspaper.
180