NYT Reporters Blame Editors, 'Drunk' Alleged Victim's Memory For Kavanaugh Screw-up

Brittany M. Hughes | September 17, 2019
Font Size

The New York Times’ Robin Pogrebin, one of two masterminds behind the Times’ weekend hit piece accusing SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during a dorm party back in college, defended her controversial article by suggesting that the woman Kavanaugh supposedly victimized was “incredibly drunk” at the time of the alleged incident, suggesting that her memory of her own assault is "questionable."

"She was incredibly drunk at that party... memory here is really a questionable issue," Pogrebin told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell Monday.

Because if slandering a sitting Supreme Court justice weren’t bad enough, let’s double down and slander a random, unnamed drunk woman while we’re at it.

Pogrebin, along with her coauthor, Kate Kelly, have come under fire this week for their piece in the New York Times, ripped from their larger book set to be published Tuesday, detailing an allegation that Kavanaugh had exposed himself during a frat party back in the ‘80s – an article that conveniently omitted the fact that the woman he supposedly forced to touch his genitals says she doesn’t remember the incident at all.

The New York Times published a hasty “correction” to their story after critics noted the piece left out the pertinent detail, which was included in Pogrebin and Kelly’s book. 

On top of calling into question the anonymous drunk woman’s “questionable” memory, Pogrebin and Kelly also blamed their editors for why their supposed victim’s denial of the entire event never made it into the final version of the article (a fact that's since been added to the Times' piece).

“In your draft, did it include those words that have since been added to the article?” O’Donnell asked.

Both Kelly and Pogrebin answered,“It did.” 

“So somewhere in the editing process, those words were dropped?” O’Donnell continued.

“It was in editing, done in haste in the editing process, as you know, for closing the section,” Pogrebin said. “I think what happened, actually, was we had her name and, you know, the Times doesn’t usually include the name of the victim And so I think in this case the editors felt like maybe it was probably better to remove it. And in removing her name, they removed the other reference to the fact that she didn’t remember it.”