Brett Kavanaugh was a secret source to Bob Woodward

[Me.]

“New York Times reporter Ben Smith revealed a bombshell in a puff piece about the Washington Post on Sunday. While President Donald Trump has railed against anonymous sources, it appears his own Supreme Court judge used to be one.

According to the report, writers at the Post can look at upcoming stories by looking at the back end of their content management system. “And at the height of the furor over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2018, some who did saw a shocking article awaiting publication,” wrote Smith.

“In the article, Bob Woodward, the Post legend who protected the identity of his Watergate source, Deep Throat, for 30 years, was going to unmask one of his own confidential sources. He was, in particular, going to disclose that Judge Kavanaugh had been an anonymous source in his 1999 book Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate,” said the report.

Woodward wanted to expose Kavanaugh because he had publicly claimed, “in a huffy letter in 1999 to The Post,” that he wasn’t a source for Woodward in 1999. According to the claim, Kavanaugh gave Woodward juicy details about Ken Starr’s investigation behind the scenes while serving as a lawyer on Starr’s team.”

Continued at link…

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/brett-kavanaugh-was-a-secret-source-to-bob-woodward-while-working-as-a-lawyer-in-ken-starrs-1999-investigation-report/?fbclid=IwAR3AphKG7YIbjDFetxXdHa-bqINnWQlbI2ShmrVRzL-mGI-K0S34QwiT8KE

[Sneederbunk]

1. So Woodward pulls a Bolton.

[Renew Deal]

2. The biannual reminder that Kavanaugh is not trustworthy.

[Me.]

4. I Hope THis Blows Up In HIs Face 'BIGLY'

any chance he'll have to resign

[Maraya1969]

5. That's what I was thinking. He was a lawyer at the time. Was what he did somehow unlawful?

[Me.]

6. Fingers Crossed

But unless he swore some type of oath, I think it's an ethical matter. Could he be disbarred is what I'd like to know and would that be enough to remove him?

[Hortensis]

23. I wish too, but. The Repubs are hiding documentation

of many ethical violations, literally over 100,000 pages from his time during the W administration alone. But many were brought up in the two attempts to keep him from being named to the appellate level by Democrats. And two far more damning pieces of evidence requiring investigation (that the Repubs refused), including for instance being caught in possession of and using documents stolen from Democrats, were introduced during the confirmation hearings.

Also, this has been known for 20 years. Kavanaugh leaking dirt on his fellow scumdog swiftboaters for personal reasons would be entirely typical of the dirty political agent everyone knew and knows him to be. Might as well expect him not to chew his fleas and lick his butt, but no one does. Same for current Republican leaders and much of the MSM.

[lagomorph777]

24. After we flip the Senate, we need to publish all 100,000 pages.

[Hortensis]

26. The presidential records are legally held by an attorney

the Repubs, or W, stashed them with to keep them inaccessible. If a future congress couldn't order access to specific requested parts, (?), no doubt a court could.

As for actually publishing them so we can read them, though, the law governing presidential records wouldn't allow us to compel that. They're privately owned, and somehow I doubt W or whoever has legal ownership would give permission now either.

[lagomorph777]

27. If we control the White House, House, and Senate, we can re-write the law.

[Hortensis]

28. Yes, but not to undo previous applications of law.

The law might be rewritten to once again make ownership of future presidential records public instead of private; there are presumably valid arguments for both.

But also, Biden's administration will be committed to restoring traditional ethical considerations and practices, so those would guide and constrain any changes we might make.

The Republicans of course routinely rewrite laws in order to break them. You're right about the job we have to do. No doubt there'll be incredibly many at all levels we have to rewrite wherever voters give us the power to do it.

[Me.]

30. What An INdictment!

There is no depth to which these deviants will not stoop.

I like to think that there is a point when a 'bill' comes due and there is a reckoning. I wonder if his time is coming, for why now? That is to say, why is this story coming out now?

[fescuerescue]

29. Even if he was disbarred. He would stay as a Supreme Court Justice

One is not required to be a lawyer to be a SC justice.

[Renew Deal]

7. I don't see him resigning.

He’s a snake. If the rumors are true about a leak from the court to Trump about his taxes, it might be Kavanaugh.

[Me.]

8. THat Would Be Enough To Get Him KIcked Off

[Polybius]

11. Maybe, but let's wait 7 months

Otherwise Trump replaces him.

[Me.]

12. Well THese Things Must Build

and they do so slowly

[bluecollar2]

21. What....

Trump replaces him during an election year?
You can do that?

[Marie Marie]

3. Was he drunk at the time? He likes beer!

What a slimy POS.

[Me.]

13. Slimy Doesn't Begin To Describe

that privileged lying hypocrite creep. I wonder if Susan Collins will see this story.

[CBHagman]

9. I thought it was a tell when Kavanaugh went on the offensive...

...with his self-pitying rant and referencing of the Clintons. The story about Kavanaugh's sending a huffy letter to the Post when he apparently really was a source for Bob Woodward suggests the associate justice is every bit as untrustworthy and undeserving as he seemed.

[Me.]

10. You Were & Are

Quite correct.

[Me.]

14. KIck For Visibility

[SergeStorms]

15. STOP THE PRESSES!

Well, maybe not. Kavanaugh is a liar, but the vast majority of us already knew that. So no, don't stop the presses. Sorry about that.

[rockfordfile]

16. Corruption

[Me.]

33. Beyond

[Girl powers]

17. "Secret source"?

In other words Kavanaugh “LEAKED”confidential (was it classified?) information to a journalist.
Remember Kavanaugh was also one of the “Brooks Brothers”rioters. He can’t be considered impartial. All his supreme court votes should be suspect; He should be impeached.

[Me.]

19. I Forgot His Role In 2000

[Cha]

18. KR!

[Me.]

20. ...

[Cha]

22. I never liked Bob Woodward after All the President's Men.

[Me.]

32. I Think He's Way Too Full Of Himself

[Hortensis]

25. Btw, the NYT article is mostly about #BLM discrimination

at the WaPo and other top workplaces, including the NY Times. Calling it a "puff piece" is very strange.

It ranges over a few topics, including Kav-Wood, but focuses overwhelmingly on the minority/#BLM struggle at the Post, and similar employers. In particular how even wildly talented minorities, especially AA, are still routinely discriminated against, held back from advancement, passed over for submission for awards -- including the Pulitzer, forced to leave what should be dream jobs at the top of their field, but are not, for work in less elevated spheres where they can achieve to their already proven levels, and beyond.

A good read about in-house race issues that the NYT's boring headline couldn't hint at any less. The very opposite of clickbait, I wonder what the authors' version was before the editors rewrote it.

Marty Baron Made The Post Great Again. Now, the News Is Changing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html?smid=tw-share

[Me.]

31. ...

[Blue Owl]

34. Weep Throat

n/t

[Me.]

35. FInally...The Story Is Beginning To Surface