 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:18:59 |
Atlantic reporter McKay Coppins joins the show to chat about his latest profile of Brett Kavanaugh, which tracks the Supreme Court justice’s journey from his contentious 2018 Senate confirmation hearings to the bench. After what David calls a “frank exchange of ideas” about the piece, our hosts give us their take on a federal judge’s decision to dismiss the National Rifle Association’s bankruptcy case, the Facebook Oversight Board’s decision to uphold the platform’s ban on Donald Trump, and lower level judicial confirmation hearings.
Show Notes:
-Coppins’ Atlantic profile of Brett Kavanaugh
-Coppins’ Atlantic piece on stockpiling food
| 28 | 75 |
Sarah, you are very passionate, but you came in a bit too hot here, and shouting down--not cool.
McKay Coppins politely didn't remind you about why people wonder about Kavanaugh and revenge.
Did he not say, "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."
And did he not also say in anger: "What goes around comes around." If that's not a threat to get even, I don't know what is.
Perhaps those were intemperate remarks. But harking back to the Clintons is only a reminder that he was a partisan hack on the Starr team, trying to get them to get Monica Lewinsky to describe her sexual encounters in vivid detail. So unfortunate of him to bring it up.
During those hearings I was noncommittal and found the whole process very upsetting. Unfair to him in many ways. But a lot of scrutiny is required for a lifelong appointment. And I also read commentary, that many Republican politicians involved in the nomination process thought Amy Coney Barrett would've been a better nominee.
Kavanaugh had written a law journal article about how the President is too important to be impeached. People were pointing to that, as a reason Trump wanted him on the Court.
I read the Coppins piece, and have enjoyed his work in the past. I was disappointed in this piece. My disappointment was along two lines:
1. He described the Ford allegations as "credible." I don't think that is a defensible term: credible would have to mean corroborated by either additional testimony or facts and this did not exist. There is no judicial proceeding that would have convicted anyone based on the Ford recollections. I don't know how they can be described as "credible" in a judicial context.
2. The question "Is he out for revenge?" was salacious and unnecessary. Just report your findings and let the reader be the judge.
Coppins is a good reporter. He could be great if he was more fair. His editor at the Atlantic should have fixed this, but probably chose the title and therefore exacerbated the problem.