Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ford's Attorney Claims Political Motivation[edit]

Should attorney Debra Katz's statements be included under the Christine Blasey Ford section? [1] [2] [3] [4] (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Though mainstream coverage of this is light, so I would appreciate input from others about whether inclusion is really due. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Fearnow, Benjamin (September 8, 2019). "Video Shows Christine Blasey Ford's Attorney Saying Kavanaugh Testimony Was Politically Motivated". Newsweek. Retrieved September 15, 2019.
  2. ^ Crowe, Jack (September 4, 2019). "Blasey Ford's Lawyer Admits Client Wants 'Asterisk' Next to Kavanaugh's Name When He Rules on Roe". National Review. Retrieved September 15, 2019.
  3. ^ Prestigiacomo, Amanda (September 9, 2019). "WATCH: Christine Blasey Ford Attorney Admits On Video Client's Testimony Was Politically Motivated". The Daily Wire. Retrieved September 15, 2019.
  4. ^ Reporter (September 5, 2019). "Christine Blasey Ford's lawyer claims her client was 'partially motivated to come forward with her allegations in an effort to undermine Brett Kavanaugh's abortion rulings'". The Daily Mail. Retrieved September 15, 2019.
I would leave it out. Especially if we are leaving out all the much-more-highly-covered new allegations against him. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You say "allegations" - is there more than one? Mr Ernie (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The new "allegations" have had a "correction" posted as well as additional information (including the fact that the "victim" claims no such event happened). [1] However, there is MUCH reporting of the video of Debra Katz making the claim that Mrs. Ford was attempting to stain any possible judgement by Kavanaugh in regards to Roe v Wade; a pure political maneuver. How many publications would you like to see reporting on this (trying to skip any far-right-biased news agencies, at least according to [2][3][4][5][6] (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It is funny how the speed of Wikipedia can so mimic a government agency. Sometimes the frantic pace of change introduces many errors (needing correction, sometimes for years after) & at other times, the snails pace is an embarrassment when viewed by the general public (especially by those required to produce results in order to be profitable). Can anyone explain the reason Ms. Katz's comments aren't being added at this point? Is it:
  • Lack of coverage by major news outlets
  • Potential shadow cast on Mrs. Ford's entire accusation (NPOV or the like issues?)
  • Her comments aren't of a level of importance required to be included
  • Just lack of action by editors
Not trying to be a jerk, but honestly curious what the hold up (process) is. I have witnessed both ends of the spectrum here. — (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The lack of response on this is disappointing. The accuser's attorney has stated publicly (video of the comment as well) that part of the reason for the accusation (true or not) was fear of the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice who could tip the balance, possibly reversing current law, if a Roe vs. Wade case were brought before the court. This is not worthy at least of discussion? — (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Moore, Mark and Sheehy, Kate (September 16, 2019). "New York Times corrects story detailing misconduct claim against Brett Kavanaugh". The New York Post. Retrieved September 17, 2019.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Naham, Matt (September 5, 2019). "Judge Napolitano Floats Idea That DOJ Might Want to Investigate Remarks by Christine Blasey Ford's Lawyer". Law and Crime. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  3. ^ Schwartz, Ian (September 6, 2019). "Napolitano: DOJ Could Investigate Christine Blasey Ford's Attorney For Kavanaugh Comments, Perjury". Real Clear Politics. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  4. ^ Swoyer, Alex (September 5, 2019). "GOP senator urges probe into Blasey Ford's testimony against Kavanaugh". The Washington Times. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  5. ^ MacDonald, Tyler (September 8, 2019). "Video Suggests Christine Blasey Ford's Sexual Assault Testimony On Brett Kavanaugh Was Politically Motivated". The Inquisitr. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  6. ^ McGurn, William (September 16, 2019). "Pin the Asterisk on Kavanaugh". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 17, 2019.

New story involving unnamed student[edit]

I've created a new section based on recent New York Times reporting: Brett_Kavanaugh#Unnamed_student. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • If, as is reported on Twitter, the "unnamed student" denies remembering the event, maybe this "new story" should be as lightly regarded - i.e. not mentioned - as the Rhode Island boat story. MaineCrab (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • No, that's nonsense. The "unnamed student" didn't "deny" remembering the event. She said she didn't remember it because she was passed out when it allegedly happened. By definition, you can't remember anything that happened when you're unconscious. The fact that a witness has reported it happening is entirely relevant. — Red XIV (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, since this is a BLP, I've removed my recent additions, until there's more input:
Daily Caller video

In 2019, The Daily Caller posted a video of Ford's lawyer Debra Katz saying "When [Kavanaugh] takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character...It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine [to come forward]."[1][2]

Unnamed student

In September 2019, The New York Times reported that there was another story that had similarities to Ramirez's allegation. According to Times sources, a former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's told senators and the F.B.I. that he witnessed Kavanaugh with his pants down at a party, and that he saw friends push Kavanaugh's penis onto an unnamed female student.[3][4]

After the September 2019 story broke, multiple Democratic presidential primary candidates called for Kavanaugh's impeachment on Twitter,[5] including Elizabeth Warren,[6] Kamala Harris,[7] and Julián Castro.[8] Meanwhile President Donald Trump Tweeted that Kavanaugh should "start suing people for libel".[9]



  1. ^ Fearnow, Benjamin (September 9, 2019). "Video Shows Christine Blasey Ford's Attorney Saying Kavanaugh Testimony Was Politically Motivated". Newsweek.
  2. ^ Re, Gregg (2019-09-04). "Kavanaugh accuser's lawyer said allegations could help undermine abortion rulings: 'Part of what motivated Christine'". Fox News. Retrieved 2019-09-16.
  3. ^ Pogrebin, Robin; Kelly, Kate. "Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not". The New York Times. Retrieved 2019-09-15.
  4. ^ Bowden, John (September 14, 2019). "Kavanaugh accused of more unwanted sexual contact by former classmate: report". The Hill.
  5. ^ Garcia, Sandra E. (September 15, 2019). "Calls for Kavanaugh's Impeachment Come Amid New Misconduct Allegations". Retrieved 2019-09-16.
  6. ^ @ewarren (September 15, 2019). "Kavanaugh should be impeached" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  7. ^ @KamalaHarris (September 15, 2019). "He must be impeached" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  8. ^ @JulianCastro (September 15, 2019). "He should be impeached" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  9. ^ @realDonaldTrump (September 15, 2019). "Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

WanderingWanda (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Agree with MaineCrab - the student herself does not remember such an incident, and there are some claims that Max Stier may not be an unbiased witness. Better to leave it out unless more details come out. This claim seems to have surfaced to help drum up interest in a new book that is coming out soon. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MaineCrab, and Mr. Early. The story and its source appear to be suspect. I also suggest that the items currently highlighted in green should be removed, which I will leave to the discretion of WanderingWanda. They may inadvertently repeat claims and accusations which have no corroboration, and the opinion of Democratic presidential candidates does not seem relevant.Argentine84 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not in favor of recording every blip on the radar, this is more than that. We should leave the material in there, editing for clarity regarding the uncorroborated nature of the claims and victim denials, and appending to it the fallout and criticism appearing in RS - Notably [1] Given that high profile politicians have co-opted the story to renew calls for Kavanaugh's impeachment, while members from both sides of the aisle are roundly criticizing NYT, this latest event is part of the lengthy ongoing wrangling over his appointment and is worthy of inclusion, for broader context. RandomGnome (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Then it needs to be covered carefully and fully. The witness, Max Stier's history as a Clinton attorney would be important, as would the NYT misleading coverage (failure to include in the original story that the alleged victim does not remember the event). I still say leave it out. These smears against Kavanaugh are some of the most disgusting tactics I've ever seen used in politics. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I would argue again that it's important to include all the detail, to factually represent what happened according to RS, including the reported tactics of using Opinion columns as a tool to attack political figures without proper corroboration of evidence. But editors who would surely be very busy bees on a political figure of a different stripe facing similar mistreatment, are strangely silent here. RandomGnome (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've so far reverted two insertions of the material regarding the unnamed student allegations, citing lack of consensus on the talk page and lack of sufficient clarity regarding the RS reported problems with the NYT opinion piece. Obviously this needs more discussion as this issue has been so widely reported in RS, while current consensus remains the same. RandomGnome (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


I thought the edit was pretty good. Why not just fix what you think is wrong?Patapsco913 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)