Brett Kavanaugh was a secret source to Bob Woodward while working as a lawyer in Ken Starr's 1999 in
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.
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/
= new reply since forum marked as read
for personal reasons is so typical of the dirty political agent we know him to be. The Starr swiftboaters. Might as well have expected him not to chew his fleas and lick his butt.
Fwiw, I really doubt that bringing it up again 20 years later would have changed the result. Trump surrounds himself with people who can be "trusted" to steal candy from a baby whenever they feel like it. He only requires loyalty to him.
And, of course, the same for McConnell and company in the senate. They had the votes to get their agent on the court and the friendly media to confuse the electorate about who was doing what, including the NYT. The WaPo is far more honorable.
Btw, that NYT article is no "puff piece" about the WaPo. It offers a range of insights but is overwhelmingly about the minority/#BLM struggle at the Post and in much of the rest of the MSM, including the Times. 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.
