Amy Chua, a Yale professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s fe male law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him

Chua, a Yale professor who wrote a bestselling book on parenting called Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, was known for instructing female law students who were preparing for interviews with Kavanaugh on ways they could dress to exude a “model-like” femininity to help them win a post in Kavanaugh’s chambers, according to sources.

Yale provided Kavanaugh with many of the judge’s clerks over the years, and Chua played an outsized role in vetting the clerks who worked for him. Chua's husband Jed Rubenfeld, also an influential professor at Yale, told a prospective clerk that Kavanaugh liked a certain “look”. Chua on another occasion told students that it was “no accident” that Kavanaugh’s female clerks “looked like models”.

Now Chua has responded to the multiple stories in the Guardian and Huffington Post by saying that everyone quoted in the reports - including a dozen students - are lying about everything that she is reported to have said or done. She is just straight up lying about the entire thing. It's amazing that she thinks she can get away with that. Multiple students reported Amy's words and she never denied them until quite recently.

Chua said in the statement that, contrary to allegations that she told students that it was “no accident” that Kavanaugh hired attractive clerks, she “always” told her students to prep “insanely hard” and that substance was “the most important thing”.

But another former law student who was advised by Chua and approached the Guardian after its original story was published on Thursday said his experience was consistent with the allegations presented in the article.

The male student, who asked not to be identified, said that when he approached Chua about his interest in clerking for Kavanaugh, the professor said it was “great”, but then added that Kavanaugh “tends to hire women who are generally attractive and then likes to send them to [supreme court Chief Justice John] Roberts”.

Supposedly Amy is in a life endangered hospital state which is why she was unable to answer questions when the Guardian and Huffington Post attempted to interview her regarding all the stories they ran about the sexist culture of law school that not only indites Amy and her husband Rubenfeld, who Amy doesn't deny is currently under investigation by Yale University for sexual harassment.

Amy wants us to believe that the dozen students quoted are all lying and she is the only one telling the truth. In addition, the multiple stories in the Guardian and the Huffington Post indite not just her but the deputy dean who's quoted as saying he didn't realize in the year 2004 that telling students to wear short skirts to interviews with judges was sexist. All of this while her husband is acknowledged by himself to be under investigation for sexual harassment on campus of students and other professors.

Amy Chua is obviously delusional or stupid or both. Both is the answer. And how exactly does Amy Chua draft and write this email she sent to the Guardian finally after a week of this story being out? She's supposedly in a near death state and yet she's able to craft this email? She's obviously lying about being sick as well. Amy Chua is a pathological lair with a narcissistic disorder. She didn't become known as the world's most evil mother for nothing.

And her husband is a jewish slave with a rape fetish. Rubenfeld has no dick or balls but he likes to rape drunk girls with a strap-on. He even wrote in 2014 an editorial in the Sunday New York Times - illuminati paper of ill repute - saying essentially that the rape crisis on college campuses was overblown. He was essentially trying to deflate the allegations of rape victims on campuses all across America.

Rubenfeld, for instance, writes that colleges “are simultaneously failing to punish rapists adequately and branding students sexual assailants when no sexual assault occurred”, making it sound as if these two things occur at equal rates. This conflation – that false accusations are as serious a problem as rape itself – is, for some unfathomable reason, apparently a widely-held belief among seemingly-intelligent male pundits.

The truth? According to data from the Department of Justice, a whopping 97% of rapists receive no punishment, while false accusations only account for an estimated 2 - 6% of rape cases (around the same number as false reports for any other crime).

Rubenfeld writes, in reference to California’s new “yes means yes” law for public universities and Yale University’s sexual assault policy, that “a person who voluntarily gets undressed, gets into bed and has sex with someone, without clearly communicating either yes or no, can later say – correctly – that he or she was raped”. But that’s just false, no matter how many uninformed newly-minted rape pundits claim otherwise. Both California and Yale make clear that affirmative consent can be given through nonverbal cues – like getting undressed, getting into bed, and having sex with someone.

Rubenfeld doesn’t get any more creative with his rape apology as the op-ed goes on. He also writes that we need to stop being “foolish” about booze on campus and that “a vast majority of college women’s rape claims involve alcohol”.

The truth: A vast majority of rapists attack drunk women. Rapists – deliberately and with forethought – use alcohol as a weapon in their assaults. They do this because they know that women are less likely to be believed if they’ve been drinking, so they depend on our culture’s continued insistence that alcohol-facilitated rape is a “misunderstanding”. That’s what helps them get away with their attacks. We help them get away with their attacks.

Rubernfeld was more creative in his efforts to excuse rapists last year, however, when he wrote in a law journal that “the fact that sex took place while a person was saying ‘no’ doesn’t prove force”, and questioned whether what he called “unconscious sex” should be criminal. (So, not only does Rubenfeld disagree with “yes means yes” policies, he doesn’t feel “no means no” should apply!)

And while Rubenfeld didn’t feel the need to quote any actual experts on sexual assault, he did know enough to cover his ass. Before sending his op-ed to editors at the New York Times, he asked several law students at Yale to read it over because he was nervous of being targeted as a “victim-blamer”. One law student, who wished to remain anonymous, told me that she offered a substantial critique of his “entirely flawed analysis” around consent and alcohol. “It may be shocking, but he actually toned it down a lot by his final draft,” she says.