yeah .. this is shocking, right?? the authors write an work of fiction, the NYT treats it as fact and the authors themselves have to correct them that they really have no evidence at all. 
FAKE NEWS!!! 
Kavanaugh book authors: 2020 Democrats had a 'rush to judgment' on impeachment after NYT op-ed
https://news.yahoo.com/nyt-kavanaugh...132959100.html
Michael IsikoffChief Investigative Correspondent
,
Yahoo News•September 18, 2019
The authors of a hotly controversial new book about Supreme Court  Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that Democratic presidential candidates  calling for his impeachment were engaged in a “rush to judgment” without  having actually read their “nuanced” account of the sexual misconduct  allegations that were leveled against him.
“It’s dismaying to see  the rush to judgment,” said Kate Kelly, a New York Times reporter and  co-author of “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” in an interview on the 
Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”
“We  definitely have been grappling with it for sure,” said co-author and  fellow Times reporter Robin Pogrebin when asked about the firestorm the  initial accounts of their book triggered. “There was a sense going into  this that nuance doesn’t make headlines, ... that people were going to  pull stuff out. ... People saw what they wanted to see before learning  any of the facts, or didn’t even make much of an effort to pay attention  to the facts.”
At the same time, Kelly and Pogrebin acknowledged there were “errors in the process” of preparing an 
opinion article in the Sunday paper about  their book that resulted in Times editors removing “significant”  information favorable to Kavanaugh’s defense from an early draft.
The article stated that, in the course of  researching their book, the authors had uncovered a “previously  unreported” allegation that Kavanaugh, while a freshman at Yale  University, was at a drunken dorm party where “friends pushed his penis”  into the hand of a female student.
The  allegation in the report triggered demands — led by a half-dozen  Democratic presidential candidates, including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth  Warren and Pete Buttigieg — for Kavanaugh to be impeached.
But the  Times article left out a key detail that is included in the book: that  the woman at the party in the new allegation never spoke to the authors  and, according to several of her friends, didn’t recall the event ever  happening.
“Obviously, it was an oversight,” said Kelly. “We  corrected it as soon as we could, added the information in. There’s an  editor’s note explaining that we regret this. It’s unfortunate, and just  speaking for Robin and myself, there’s no attempt to conceal  information from our readers.”
The authors also acknowledged that  they actually know few details about the new allegation against  Kavanaugh. It was first passed along to Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of  Delaware by Max Stier, a Washington lawyer who once worked against  Kavanaugh during a court battle over Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Coons  then wrote a letter to FBI Director Chris Wray urging the bureau to  interview Stier, but there is no indication that ever happened.
But  the Times reporters were unable to flesh out any details about what  Stier actually saw at the college dorm party more than 35 years ago,  including whether he recalls anybody else who was there and how he  communicated his recollections last year to Coons and others. Asked if  Stier put his account of what he remembered in writing, Pogrebin  replied: “I can’t say I know that.”
Much  of the article about their book in Sunday’s paper involved seven  witnesses who, the authors claim, corroborated aspects of a separate  account by another former Yale classmate, Deborah Ramirez, that  Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at another dorm party. Such  corroboration would be significant given that, according to initial  accounts last year, Ramirez had been initially uncertain about  Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident
But the authors  acknowledge that none of those corroborating witnesses actually were  present at the dorm party. Several of them — including Ramirez’s mother —  had been told about the incident but with no reference to Kavanaugh  being the offender, and two others only “vaguely” recalled it without  being told it involved Kavanaugh. Ken Appold, one of those who did hear  that it was Kavanaugh, wasn’t present at the event and, according to the  Times reporters, couldn’t remember who told him about it. Yet another  of the corroborators heard that it involved Kavanaugh — but only from  Appold.
Against these details, the book also includes passages  boosting Kavanaugh that also were left out of the Times article. The  authors report that Leland Keyser, a onetime friend of Christine Blasey  Ford, came to question Ford’s account that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted  her at a high school house party. Keyser had been named by Ford as one  of those present at the party when the assault occurred. 
But Keyser —  after initially saying she didn’t remember being at the party but that  she believed Ford — no longer does so and told the authors that she was  pressured by Ford’s allies to change her story. “I was told behind the  scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply,”  she is quoted as saying.
Download or subscribe on iTunes: “Skullduggery” from Yahoo News
The  authors also noted that they had found no evidence of Kavanaugh  mistreating women as an adult — to the contrary, he had heavily promoted  and mentored them — and that the image of him in some circles as a  hard-right conservative was off. “This is a jurist who is known for his  thoughtfulness, who’s known for pragmatism, and less kind of predictably  ideological,” said Kelly.
But he was also a jurist who sought to be  less than forthright about any interviews he might give the authors.  Kelly and Pogrebin described their efforts to negotiate an interview  with Kavanaugh for the book.
“We kept the justice just apprised of  what we were working on throughout, asked him to consider meeting with  us very early on,” said Kelly. “It didn’t seem to be something he was  seriously considering until kind of late in the process. We asked  several intermediaries to talk to him about it, and they did, and we  were made to understand that he was thinking about it.”
But, she  added, the negotiations “broke down over ground rules. ... He wanted us  to say in the book that he had declined to be interviewed, and we were  not comfortable doing that.”