As if the New York Times' “bombshell” report that Brett Kavanaugh allegedly threw ice at a bar patron during an altercation in 1985 wasn’t ridiculous enough already, it turns out one of the story’s authors is an outright anti-Kavanaugh partisan.

The Times article, titled “Kavanaugh Was Questioned by Police After Bar Fight in 1985,” is part of a larger effort by the press and Democratic lawmakers to establish that the Supreme Court nominee has a history of violent, drunken outbursts. Also, that he’s a liar. Also, that’s he’s a serial sexual predator. Whatever sticks.

“As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report,” reads the article’s opening lines.

[Click here for complete Kavanaugh coverage]

This is a real thing that is being reported by a real newspaper.

“The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him ‘for some unknown reason,’” the report reads. “A witness to the fight said that Chris Dudley, a Yale basketball player who is friends with Mr. Kavanaugh, then threw a glass that hit the man in the ear, according to the police report, which was obtained by The New York Times.”

[Related: Undaunted by ice-throwing story, Mitch McConnell vows to vote on Brett Kavanaugh 'this week']

To be clear, the Times’ story notes that Kavanaugh didn’t throw the glass that cut the other bar patron. The story only alleges he may have thrown some ice (I can’t believe this is a thing we’re writing). Kavanaugh wasn’t even arrested. The police report upon which the entire Times report is based doesn’t say whether charges were even filed. It does, however, note that Kavanaugh and others willingly submitted to questioning by law enforcement officials.

And if you think that's something, the print edition headline reads, "At beery Yale, curses, fists, glass, blood and a student." This is where we’re at now in the hunt to sink Kavanaugh’s confirmation. As if the story itself weren’t bad enough, there’s the fact that one of its authors, Emily Bazelon, has publicly taken a position against Kavanaugh.

“As a [Yale Law School graduate and lecturer], I strongly disassociate myself from tonight’s praise of Brett Kavanaugh,” she tweeted on July 9. “With respect, he’s a 5th vote for a hard-right turn on voting rights and do so much more that will harm the democratic process and prevent a more equal society.”

And just in case you forget she went to Yale, she added for good measure, “those fundamental values we try to instill in our students. They matter more than congeniality and credentials.” Dozens of employees to call on, and the Times chose Bazelon. A real mystery!

Those are fundamental values we try to instill in our students. They matter more than collegiality and credentials. 2/2 — Emily Bazelon (@emilybazelon) July 10, 2018



Allowing her to be the paper's on-the-scene reporter for its huge (alleged) ice-throwing "scoop" was probably not the best editorial decision, a Times spokesperson conceded Tuesday (because that's the only problem with reporting an incident involving law enforcement officials and an individual who was not charged with anything).

“Emily Bazelon is a writer for The New York Times Magazine who occasionally writes op-eds for the opinion section. She is not a news reporter. Her role in this story was to help colleagues in the newsroom gather public documents in New Haven, where Emily is based,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “In retrospect, editors should have used a newsroom reporter for that assignment. To be clear, the story is straightforward, fact-based and we fully stand behind it.”

The Times' story has not been updated to indicate that one of its two authors is also an outspoken anti-Kavanaugh critic.

Here’s a suggestion: If judges must recuse themselves from cases where they have an emotional or professional interest, so, too, should members of the press remove themselves from stories where they have an emotional or professional interest. It’s only fair.

--

This story has been updated.