New sexual assault allegation against Justice Kavanaugh

[CaptMurdock]

@Evil_Economist

All that’s left for you now is to apologize…

Pro Tip: don’t hold your breath. :rolleyes:

[iiandyiiii]

NYT Reporters Say Kavanaugh Asked Them To Lie In Exchange For An Interview

Reporters: Kavanaugh agreed to an interview as long as the reporters lie and say he declined an interview.

Entirely in keeping with Kavanaugh’s dishonest reputation.

[HurricaneDitka]

@iiandyiiii

NY Times Reporters Say Kavanaugh Asked Them Lie In Exchange For An Interview | HuffPost Latest News

Reporters: Kavanaugh agreed to an interview as long as the reporters lie and say he declined an interview.

Entirely in keeping with Kavanaugh’s dishonest reputation.

The deceitful reporters claiming this have shown themselves to not be trustworthy.

[AK84]

Isn’t that known as, you know, asking not to be on the record?

[ElvisL1ves]

@CarnalK

he was a drunken lout in early adulthood and his testimony showed that he is currently somewhat of a hotheaded jackass. But he still got confirmed. The game is over.

The game is never over. It includes keeping him aware that he’s under scrutiny, for the rulings he makes as well as for his current personal conduct. That scrutiny may provide him some incentive to lean his votes in the victims’ direction just to show he isn’t that entitled lout anymore.

[raventhief]

@HurricaneDitka

The deceitful reporters claiming this have shown themselves to not be trustworthy.

By reporting what actually happened, and declining to lie about what his condition was, that was untrustworthy? They did not lie to him, agree to his conditions and then reveal it. They asked, he said as long as you lie about it, they said no thanks, we’ll tell the truth.
That’s interesting.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

I’m not sure that consistent accusations of “FAKE NEWS!!1” contributes much to the fight against ignorance.

@CarnalK

But he still got confirmed. The game is over.

By old rules? sure. But the old rules are dead, and anyone still playing by them is getting played. I mean, they rammed a drunken, partisan sexual predator through because they could. They stole a seat from Obama. Why in god’s name should we pretend that past norms matter? If there’s any excuse to impeach the fucker, we should find it.

[HurricaneDitka]

You don’t have the votes.

[ElvisL1ves]

It always starts that way.

[QuickSilver]

@HurricaneDitka

You don’t have the votes.

We shall overcome.

[HurricaneDitka]

@QuickSilver

We shall overcome.

OK, sure, maybe just don’t pin all your hopes on getting enough Republicans (or moderate dems) to join your bullshit partisan “If there’s any excuse to impeach the fucker, we should find it” witch hunt.

[QuickSilver]

Nah. I’ve diversified. Only some of my hopes are pinned to that. Some others lie in the conviction that the fat orange imbecile will self-destruct and take the book-licking republicans down with him. The rest are in an indexed clean energy fund.

P.S. That’s not the first time you linked to that gif of J.L. I think maybe you have a crush. That’s adorbs.

[HurricaneDitka]

@QuickSilver

… P.S. That’s not the first time you linked to that gif of J.L. …

It’s not the first time it’s been appropriate.

[Fretful_Porpentine]

@AK84

Isn’t that known as, you know, asking not to be on the record?

No, it is not.

Since the link is paywalled, here are a couple of excerpts:

“[H]e wanted us to say we hadn’t spoken to him, and we even went to negotiate the phrasing of that, where we even were willing to say nothing, not to talk about who we spoke to, not to talk about our sources. But he wanted a line in there saying we did not, and we felt that to mislead our readers in a book about, that very much deals with issues of truth, would probably not be a good foot forward.”
…
Over time, news organizations have dealt with the situation by writing something like, “So-and-so declined to speak for the record," or they might just leave out an attribution note, as Pogrebin and Kelly were prepared to do in this instance.
…
Famous investigative journalist Bob Woodward tells the Erik Wemple Blog that he doesn’t remember any such request from one of his sources. “I don’t recall it happening, but it’s been 48 years of reporting,” says Woodward, whose books rely extensively on background and off-the-record conversations to nail down specific events, negotiations and disputes. The idea of speaking on any basis whatsoever with a source, only to turn around and write that the source declined to comment, is a no-no in the Woodward book.

[HurricaneDitka]

… we felt that to mislead our readers in a book about, that very much deals with issues of truth, would probably not be a good foot forward.

They apparently had no such compunction about misleading their readers in their NYT article.

[Ukulele_Ike]

Goodness, this thread is one complete shitshow, isn’t it? Keep it up, HurricaneDitka.

[iiandyiiii]

@Ukulele_Ike

Goodness, this thread is one complete shitshow, isn’t it? Keep it up, HurricaneDitka.

Unfortunately, many Americans (and a few Dopers) have absolutely no interest in investigating possible sexual assault and rape if it might harm their political allies. Not surprising, but still a shame.

[HurricaneDitka]

They’ve already been investigated. I have no interest in endless investigations to accommodate a bullshit partisan “If there’s any excuse to impeach the fucker, we should find it” witch hunt.

[crowmanyclouds]

[cough]Benghazi[/cough]

CMC fnord!

[Shodan]

The idea of speaking on any basis whatsoever with a source, only to turn around and write that the source declined to comment, is a no-no in the Woodward book.

Apparently it *is *in Woodward’s book to make other things up, though. Cite.

Regards,
Shodan