"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast" -Oscar Wilde |
"The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself." -- Proverbs 11:25 |
Kennedy is onto something... He knows Alito's fingerprints are in the CAP records, and at least one of those boxes down at the Library of Congress is a Pandora's Box.
I share the opinion that Alito's amnesia is an act. Alito is lying when he states he has no recollection of his relationship to Concerned Alumni of Princeton. I attended Princeton in the mid 1980s, and do not find it credible that Alito cannot account for why he listed his affiliation with CAP in his 1985 job application.
If Alito's name appears anywhere in the organization's records deposited at the Library of Congress, it will be completely at odds with what Alito has said under oath. But first, a word on the Republican's pre-emptive spinning...
Tom Coburn showed us a card today. From the way I heard his remarks, the Republicans are bracing themselves for fireworks if and when the CAP archive is actually opened. Whatever is in the boxes, it appears to be material dating from the mid 1980s, and the Republicans seem to know it. The Republicans are spinning Alito's relationship to CAP as Alito's concern for the possibility that ROTC might be not be allowed to recruit on campus in 1985. (This is the gospel according to Coburn. Alito was in ROTC as an undergraduate, ROTC disappeared for a while at that time, Alito was only concerned that ROTC might disappear again from campus, etc.)
1985? The year in itself should raise suspicions, and not just because it's the year Alito filled out his job application. If Alito was active in the organization around that time, I believe it was for another reason: to give CAP legal and strategic advice. I think this has everything to do with a 1984 scandal involving Dinesh D'Souza and a Princeton freshman. In March 1984, Concerned Alumni of Princeton put itself on shaky legal ground by printing details of a female Princeton student's sex life. Alito would have been a good person to turn to for advice on torts, and for dodging tort claims.
The [Prospect] story, "In Loco Parentis," charges the university with preventing the mother from withdrawing her freshman daughter, who it says is a minor, from school. It alleges that the university has promised to replace money denied the daughter by the parent with its own financial aid.
The article, written by the magazine's editor, Dinesh D'Souza, also discusses the young woman's sex life.
An editor's note states that the last name of the parent and daughter were changed "to protect the privacy of her daughter." But an accompanying article on a related subject, which refers to the circumstances of the other story, uses the student's real last name.
A woman with the last name used in the second article confirmed that those articles referred to her. She also said that Mr. D'Souza had tried to interview her, but that she had refused to talk to him because "Prospect has a reputation for twisting what you say."
In previous articles, the magazine had referred to the director of the Women's Center of Princeton as "the wicked witch of Princeton's Women's Center" and to an Hispanic assistant Dean of students as "seƱor."
In the case of the young woman, D'Souza said the name had been used in the second article because of "a proofreading error." He declined to go into details, but added:
"It's an honest-to-goodness goof."