NY Times reporters claim Kavanaugh agreed to be interviewed, but asked them to lie, so they bailed

[mystery-ak]

NY Times reporters claim Kavanaugh agreed to be interviewed, but asked them to lie, so they bailed
September 19, 2019 | Frieda Powers

Authors of the new book about Brett Kavanaugh are stirring the pot again with a new allegation that the Supreme Court Justice had conditionally agreed to be interviewed.

Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, the New York Times reporters behind a controversial report about Kavanaugh published last weekend, claimed on Wednesday that they had to walk away from an interview with him because he allegedly asked them to write that he had declined to be interviewed for their book.

In another confusing twist in the prelude to the release of “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation,” Pogrebin and Kelly told an audience at a National Press Club event in Washington D.C. on Wednesday that they had approached Kavanaugh about an interview as their book was reaching its final stages.

The associate justice allegedly agreed to speak to the reporters to provide background information as they wrapped up their 10-month investigation on his education and the sexual allegations against him that surfaced during his contentious confirmation hearings last year.

But Pogrebin and Kelly claimed that Kavanaugh agreed to be interviewed as long as the reporters wrote that they didn’t speak with him.

more
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/09/19/ny-times-reporters-claim-kavanaugh-agreed-to-be-interviewed-but-asked-them-to-lie-so-they-bailed-827025

[Wingnut]

We are expected to believe it when they say "he lied" from two people who are proven lyers.  Man that is rich..

[verga]

BKMK

[Cyber Liberty]

We are expected to believe it when they say "he lied" from two people who are proven lyers.  Man that is rich..

It's "Faked but accurate."

[PeteS in CA]

Two very likely possibilities:

* Kavanaugh offered to speak with them "Off the record" and these t___s are falsely calling that asking them to lie;

* These t___s are making shit up, confident they cannot be fact-checked.

Given their previous lack of honesty, I think the latter is more likely.

[PeteS in CA]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nyt-reporters-havent-kept-their-story-straight-about-brett-kavanaugh-asking-them-to-lie

NYT reporters haven't kept their story straight about Brett Kavanaugh asking them to lie

The National Press Club event, which was hosted for the benefit of promoting Pogrebin and Kelly’s new book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, included a moment where the moderator asked specifically of the Times reporters' efforts to collect information on the conservative justice: “Did you speak to Justice Kavanaugh?”

“We were on our way to Washington to speak to him,” said Pogrebin. “We had finally arranged for an interview. Ultimately, we could not agree on terms that we felt comfortable with. So, we didn’t do it, regrettably. We didn’t feel like we could.”

She continued, saying, “We have debated whether to talk about this, but it is what it is, which is: He wanted us to say we hadn’t spoken to him.”
...
On Thursday, in a subsequent interview with the Hill’s Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, Pogrebin and Kelly retold the tale of trying to wrangle an interview out of Kavanaugh. They told mostly the same version of events. But not quite.

"I think you suggested in a recent interview that Brett Kavanaugh said he would talk to you but only if you wrote that he didn’t talk to you. Did he just say he would talk to you off-the-record or did he actually say that?” asked Enjeti.

“You know,” responded Pogrebin, “we had back-and-forth negotiations with him and a representative where we were kinda’ trying to come to terms on this.”

She added, “Unfortunately, they wanted a line in that actually said he declined to comment and we felt that would have misled the readers.”

Kelly said in agreement, “They asked us to affirmatively say Justice Kavanaugh declined to be interviewed for the book even if we had an off-the-record discussion with him.”

Did you notice that? It is a small thing, but it is worth noting. On Wednesday, Pogrebin and Kelly’s story involved only Kavanaugh. They mentioned no one but him. On Thursday, however, their story evolved slightly to include that Kavanaugh’s allegedly deceitful interview request was made by both him and his representatives. Or maybe just his representatives?

Who actually demanded the reporters include the line in their book — if the line was indeed demanded at all?

The problem with lying is remembering what lie you told to whom.

Pogrebin and Kelly are obviously lying about a simple "On-Background" request, trying to magnify it into something scandalous. Rather than being POed that they didn't accept the terms, they're POed that Kavanaugh was smart enough to make that request so they could not selectively-creatively edit his comments. Kavanaugh and his rep probably also specified that any interview be recorded by them as well and the "reporters" were unappreciative of this further impingement on their ability to lie about what was said by interviewers and interviewee.

[Cyber Liberty]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nyt-reporters-havent-kept-their-story-straight-about-brett-kavanaugh-asking-them-to-lie

NYT reporters haven't kept their story straight about Brett Kavanaugh asking them to lie

The problem with lying is remembering what lie you told to whom.

Pogrebin and Kelly are obviously lying about a simple "On-Background" request, trying to magnify it into something scandalous. Rather than being POed that they didn't accept the terms, they're POed that Kavanaugh was smart enough to make that request so they could not selectively-creatively edit his comments. Kavanaugh and his rep probably also specified that any interview be recorded by them as well and the "reporters" were unappreciative of this further impingement on their ability to lie about what was said by interviewers and interviewee.

They obviously wanted quotes from him so they could bash him while distorting the out-of-context meanings of the words, and he was simply refusing to be quoted.  I don't see the big deal, they act like they were doing him a favor by giving him a chance to be misquoted.