It’s a story that the mainstream media ignored. After all, it was a liberal reporter at the New York Times who was apologizing to me, a conservative. If it were the other way around, a conservative reporter apologizing to a liberal he had maligned, the media would never stop talking about it. Brian Stelter would need sedation.
Earlier this year, I published a piece revealing that New York Times reporter David Enrich expressed regrets to me about things he wrote about me and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Enrich, like the rest of the Stasi media, had tried to destroy me and Kavanaugh, who was a friend of mine in high school, in order to prevent Brett from becoming a SCOTUS justice. Enrich and the New York Times used everything, including our high school yearbook, to try to ruin us.
“I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about my role in the Kavanaugh coverage,” Enrich wrote to me last December, “and I would be happy to talk to you about it at some point. For now, I will just say that I have learned some lessons and would probably do certain things differently next time.”
When I asked Enrich to elaborate on what he would do differently, he said, “This is a subject for a longer conversation that I’m not going to have over the holidays. Sorry.” Then he added this: “I can’t imagine what it was like for you to go thru that.”
The holidays are now long over. It’s time for that longer conversation Enrich promised me. It’s also refreshing that, for once, I’m not hearing from people – even conservatives – telling me to drop this issue. They are beginning to realize that my pursuit of this story is bearing fruit – and that there is more to it. I’m currently being profiled by a glossy, liberal magazine, but the writer interviewing me (and talking to my friends) has expressed genuine interest in David Enrich. While she informs me that she is “in charge of this profile, not you” – she also agrees with me that David Enrich needs to have the conservation he promised me. He has to specify what he meant when he said he has learned lessons and would do things differently. For him not to respond would also speak volumes.
I don’t care what your politics are or what you think about me; a New York Times reporter apologizing for a hit job and implying there were larger forces behind it is a story. To not pursue it is to do what the liberal media does: ignore facts they don’t like. No one wants to stop exposing the Russiagate scam.
In fact, the reporter doing the story on me is doing the digging that the conservative media has not. When I write about the Kavanaugh events, I often get comments admonishing me for “talking about this again.” I can take criticism, and after 35 years sober, I realize that sometimes the person criticizing you is doing you a favor, and that you should take their advice. However, there is also the ethos of sticking by your guns, of doing what your training and upbringing has taught you – of getting the full story. As I discuss in my book The Devil’s Triangle, the Kavanaugh hit was a criminal, Deep State operation whose full reality and cast of players needs to be exposed – just like Russiagate. Indeed, had I not been so dogged in pursuing the story, David Enrich never would have apologized to me – a story that changed the entire Kavanaugh history. I’m also curious to know what was in the Kavanaugh FBI file, particularly the role played by an FBI agent named Monica McClean. I wish the conservative media would pursue this as well, but frankly, some of our coverage of this case has managed to get to the opposite of the truth.
In his book Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful, David Enrich argues that journalists should be able to write whatever they want about anybody without repercussions. They should be able to do so because of the ridiculously broad protections the press has enjoyed since 1964’s Times vs Sullivan case, which protected the media from defamation lawsuits against public figures. CNN, MSNBC, and ABC have all recently settled multi-million dollar defamation suits. These settlements are troubling to David Enrich, who is defending the behavior that he himself perpetrated – and apologized for.
In Murder the Truth, Enrich explores the 1974 case Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. The Supreme Court further broadened the ever-expanding group who could be maligned by the media to include “limited purpose public figures.” Enrich describes limited-purpose public figures this way: “These were people who weren’t necessarily famous but had injected themselves into a public controversy by, for example, becoming a prominent advocate for or against abortion rights. The five-to-four decision even acknowledged that in rare cases, someone might fall under this umbrella involuntarily. (Think of an air traffic controller on duty when a plane crashed.) The logic was the same: people needed to be able to investigate and write about those in the public sphere, even if they accidentally got a fact wrong. This was hardly the end of libel.”
This becoming a public figure “involuntarily” justified, to the media, the madness that I faced in 2018. When reporters were going through my car, hounding my elderly mother and visiting high school girlfriends, I tried to protest that I was not a public figure and running for anything. I was told I had, in fact, become a public figure – because the media had made me one. My “limited purpose” was to help destroy my high school friend.
David Enrich apologized to me for his reckless and unconscionable reporting on me and Brett Kavanaugh. New York Times reporters do not do such things, unless they are hiding something big. “I can’t imagine what it was like for you to go thru that.” Those were the last words he wrote to me. As I have written to David in private messages (he never responds), it is time for him to come clean.
It’s time to have the conversation he promised. Even if another liberal reporter has to have it with him, and even if you’re tired of me talking about this. This was a criminal and Deep State hit. The truth needs to come out.
Editor’s note: We now have the room to run outside commentary by some of our favorite and most provocative thinkers on the Right. That only happens because of the support of our readers, who ensure that we have the resources to keep providing an independent platform and independent voices in a sea of Protection Racket Media domination.
Help us maintain that fight! Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
