Posted on 10/14/2001 4:45:07 PM PDT by Zoey
ACCIDENTAL TIMING
"Accidental President," the new book about the 2000 presidential election, had an auspicious launch: a cover story excerpt featured on the cover of Newsweek, plus an appearance by author David Kaplan on "Today." Both highlighted Kaplan's disclosures of comments made by Supreme Court justices in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore.
But that media spotlight shone on Sept. 10, and the terrorist attacks of the next day halted the book's momentum in its tracks. Now, however, there is new buzz of a less positive kind.
Letters to the editor challenging the accuracy of Kaplan's account of two of the justices' remarks appeared last week in both Newsweek and The Washington Post, its sister publication that ran a story about the book.
In the book, Kaplan said Justice David Souter expressed frustration during a meeting with students from Choate, the Connecticut prep school, a month after the decision. "One more day -- one more day," Souter lamented, and he could have persuaded Justice Kennedy to vote against Bush and flip the outcome.
Choate government teacher Zachary Goodyear, in his letter to the editor of the Post, said, "Justice David Souter never made such a comment" to the students. Goodyear said he checked his own memory as well as that of "the only other adult who was present," in addition to hearing directly and indirectly from other students who also said they could not recall such a statement. A similar letter from Goodyear appeared in Newsweek.
The other letter sought to refute a statement Kaplan attributed to Justice Stephen Breyer, from a meeting with Russian judges not long after Bush v. Gore. At various times, all the justices except Souter and Clarence Thomas met with the judges. Kaplan quotes the comments about Bush v. Gore made by several justices at the sessions, but the most remarkable one is from Breyer, who purportedly said the decision was "the most outrageous, indefensible thing" the Court had ever done.
"We can certify that Justice Breyer said nothing of the kind," said Southern Methodist University Law School Dean John Attanasio and New York University School of Law professor Stephen Holmes in a letter to the Post. The two claim they checked with Breyer, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony Kennedy, as well as faculty colleagues, and none could recall the Breyer comment. A parallel letter in Newsweek, written by Holmes alone, mentions checking with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens as well. Neither letter questions the quotes attributed to other justices.
Kaplan, a well-regarded Newsweek senior writer, stands by the quotes, as do Newsweek and the book's publisher, William Morrow. In a telephone interview last week, he declined to discuss his confidential sources or the fact-checking done afterward. If he spells out who he did or did not talk to, Kaplan explained, his sources could be discovered eventually by process of elimination.
But he said his sources for both quotes "were in the room and heard the remarks. They were specific in their recall, and it was relatively contemporaneous."
Kaplan added that both Souter and Breyer "were given a chance to respond, beforehand, several times. Neither have responded yet."
Are the democraps making sh*t up now?
Isn't 'neither' singular?
A democrat is lying even when they use words like: 'a', 'the' and 'or'.
The only truth that ever comes out of a democrat’s mouth is the occasional bit needed to cement two lies together, end to end.
The bastards just got caught doing it a little more artlessly this time.
Don't enter a debate with pathological liars.
And a hell of a lot of the reports in both the Washington Post and Newsweek are pure lies.
One can not win an argument with a lying media. They own the paper and the magazine. They always get the last word and can distort any thing a justice might say.
If fact if a Justice were to talk to them, they would just lie about what the Justice said.
Whaddya mean, "now"??
"...he declined to discuss his confidential sources or the fact-checking done afterward. If he spells out who he did or did not talk to, Kaplan explained, his sources could be discovered eventually by process of elimination."
You can print anything you want as long as you do not have to provide the source. Doesn't mean we have to believe them.
Remember, the "media" is not our friend.
;-}
I guess I've been pronouncing it wrong. I always called it "U.S. Screws The World Report".
Actually, I think all three of the major newsmagazines are (1) too liberal, and (2) of such poor quality, that I won't read them even in a doctor's waiting room. Fortunately, Internet news sources have rendered them completely unnecessary for anyone who's connected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.