New York Times "Reporters" Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin Keep Digging, Keep Lying

Below, some interesting claims:

Kate Kelly tries to minimize Leland Keyser's rejection of Blasey's story by claiming "she still doesn't remember for sure."

Blasey claimed Leland was at the party and a witness to the events leading up to the fictitious assault.

Um, Leland has said she doesn't remember it. Period. She also says that there are aspects of the claim that strike her as hard to believe.

Kate Kelly is recasting this rejection of the story -- saying there was no party, that she never met Kavanaugh (which she would have had to do if she were at a party with him), and she would not have just let Blasey leave without leaving with her or trying to make sure she had a way home -- as Keyser just failing to be sure one way or the other.

In other words, Kate Kelly is claiming the standard for a dispositive memory here is that Keyser would have to say, "I specifically remember that party and I specifically remember it not happening."

You can't prove a negative, of course. But that's what Kelly is claiming would be the only definitive memory worth crediting here, that Keyser does remember the party not happening.

You can't remember something not happening. If it didn't happen, you don't remember it. You cannot affirmatively remember a non-event which did not occur in the time-space continuum.

But that's this "reporter's" way of explaining away a crucial witness saying that this didn't happen.

Next, Robin Pogrebin is asked why she is blaming Fox for their error. She says she's not blaming Fox -- she merely retweeted a Vox article (what a great and trustworthy source!) that blamed Fox.

An absurd evasion.

Next, Pogrebin and Kelly are asked why they failed to disclose that the man they heard (indirectly -- this is double-hearsay, hearing from someone who heard from someone) this story from was Bill Clinton's lawyer during the Whitewater investigation, specifically fighting against Kavanaugh, who was a Whitewater lawyer.

They claim that just because he has a vendetta against Kavanaugh doesn't mean he can't be trusted. They ask, rhetorically, if Kavanaugh's own bias should be noted, to which the guy interviewing them says "Yes, it's germane." But they claim they it's just entirely irrelevant that this guy is a longtime Clinton partisan and a specific enemy of Brett Kavanaugh's.

They claim they reported the important stuff, like that he's a "good government" guy.

Here's a rule: If you're making up absurd excuses why something isn't relevant to someone's credibility, it's almost certainly relevant, and you're just a partisan looking to hide critical information from readers (or would-be customers -- they are obscuring key details in order to sell books).

Prosecutors do this a lot -- they don't disclose exculpatory information to the defense, which they are required by law to disclose, by inventing convoluted theories about why the exculpatory information is either just "irrelevant" or actually inculpatory.

These are lies. If you're fighting hard to keep information away from your opponent or an impartial trier of facts, then that information is keenly relevant and you know goddamn well it is. Otherwise you'd just turn it over, thinking not much of it either way.

These are viciously partisan liars who spent months writing a dry-hole book with no new information (except for Leland Keyser coming forward to say she thinks Blasey is a liar) and so they're repackaging old information -- shit that was repeatedly rejected for publication by other news outlets, for being without any real sourcing -- and then they hide the stuff that proves just how weak and unpublishable this shit is.

posted by Ace of Spades at 04:27 PM

| Access Comments