WaPo Serves up Spin on Goodwin Liu Nomination; Little Information in Paper's He-Said-He-Said Account

The Washington Post featured an update Thursday on the battle over confirmation of 9th circuit nominee Goodwin Liu, but provided readers little actual information. The article, "Senate at odds over nominee to appeals court," by Ben Pershing, features a he-said-he-said between Senators Jeff Sessions and Patrick Leahy, but provides little basic reporting about the issues at hand.

Sessions and fellow Republicans are alleging that Liu has not provided enough information, and that's the center of the article. Here's all the Post gives us on the substance of that issue:

On Tuesday, Liu sent 117 items to the committee, a "supplement" to an earlier questionnaire he filled out about his record, including articles he wrote and events in which he participated, but did not include in his original submission.

Readers then get the committee Republicans' soundbite about Liu hiding his "controversial work" from the committee, and then Leahy defending Liu.

Here's what Pershing doesn't tell us:

• What information is Liu required by law to submit? Is there any evidence that he knowingly failed to submit information that he was obligated to submit?
• What is the precedent for what information circuit court nominees submit to the committee? Have most past nominees included some kind of information that Liu failed to submit? Overall, does he seem to have been more or less thorough in his information submission than previous nominees?
• Is it unusual or normal for a nominee to submit additional information after Senators request it?
  

That's the basic reporting readers need to understand if Sessions' charges have merit or not.

Sure enough, for those who have looked into it a bit, Sessions' charges quickly look pretty questionable. Liu supporter Jonathan Singer has done some work on this, including comparisons to some past nominees, and makes a pretty good case that in fact Liu's submissions have been rather thorough. Richard Painter, who was an Associate White House Counsel in the Bush Administration, also provides a case that Liu's submission have been thorough. Jonas Lerman looked through the 117 documents and shows that "Nothing among the new items is significant or noteworthy—especially compared to the hundreds and hundreds of pages of his writings that Professor Liu disclosed seven weeks ago in his original submission to the Committee."

Look, it would be one thing if the Kalamazoo Gazette didn't have the expertise or resources to explain to readers how the confirmation process works and what information the nominee provides to the committee. But this is the Washington Post. They're supposed to be good at this. Their article Thursday gave me little more information than I could have gotten from checking Sessions' and Leahy's press releases.