Also: don't forget the NYT hatchet job article that came out (no pun intended) just as the 2013 tournament started. That's probably another reason why she is being far more proactive.

And as someone said earlier: does some beltway limp-wristed pencil neck thinks he is going to generate animosity against Kim in south Louisiana? In years past someone like that would be found months later in Bayou Teche half-digested and next to a very fat gator.

Story just broke!!

To combat the forthcoming Washington Post article, Kim Mulkey agreed to sit down for an interview. pic.twitter.com/oJFrlZ3EsV

— Korked Bats (@korkedbats) March 23, 2024

Since it was from 2 years ago when she was in her 1st year at LSU, appears to be during her time at Baylor. She refused to speak to him since he was trying to trap her. Then he tried to get her to throw dirt at Brian Kelly, and she refused. She has been approached several times to say negative things about Griner and Baylor, but she refused and basically told him to go away. Looks like repeat, similar stuff again. And he contacted several of her former asst coaches and former players to say negative things about her. They refused and contacted her to tell her what he did. Here's the kicker--that reporter is a SC Gamecock alum.

Kim Mulkey was one of only two people to defend Baylor publicly during the sexual assault scandal. The leadership of the university refused to defend the institution.

I will always feel indebted to her for that.

PartyBear said:

---

Working 2 years on a story? Could it be about why she really was somewhat ousted from Baylor? Perhaps there was alot more to that than we all thought???

I thought I did listen to her. I didn't hear anything about what the sort was about. Unless I heard a short version of her statement. I don't care to hear a long rant. Can someone who thinks they know just state what she said the story regards?

---

If someone at Baylor contributed to the Post story with inacuracies then I'm done with BU. Shades of the BOR hatchet job to WSJ on Briles.

SMack said:

---

Kim Mulkey was one of only two people to defend Baylor publicly during the sexual assault scandal. The leadership of the university refused to defend the institution.

I will always feel indebted to her for that.

---

Exactly. The rest had no balls whatsever.

I joked earlier that this probably had more MAGA implications than NIL implications. I was only halfway joking, and much of the responses here prove what I was thinking. Refusing to participate in the story for two years and then preemptively throwing a hissy fit about it before it is even released just seems very Trumpy. As does saying whatever the reporter reports is wrong before you even know what he's reported.

Also, it should be noted that stories like this on public figures from outlets like WaPo go through multiple layers of lawyers to make sure it is above board. That doesn't mean everything in it will be air-tight, but it does mean that Kim Mulkey's lawyers will likely not win a libel case against Jeff Bezos' lawyers.

They sent a list of questions to respond to this week. She does know what he is interested in. We just don't.

IowaBear said:

---

This is just BS on part of the Washington Post. Kim has her flaws but this feels like a witch hunt

---

lol witch hunt, what would be the point? Mulkey is insignificant, literally just a basketball coach. What would be the point of a hit job by major news outlets, especially one that would involve a 2 year investigation? Click bait is literally made within minutes, you don't spend 2 years investigating for click bait, that would be a massive waste of resources.

I have no clue what this is about, but there is no way it's just a witch hunt. At the end it may be literally nothing of importance but she would hardly be worth spending 2 years just for a click bait article.

ctxbear said:

---

I joked earlier that this probably had more MAGA implications than NIL implications. I was only halfway joking, and much of the responses here prove what I was thinking. Refusing to participate in the story for two years and then preemptively throwing a hissy fit about it before it is even released just seems very Trumpy. As does saying whatever the reporter reports is wrong before you even know what he's reported.

Also, it should be noted that stories like this on public figures from outlets like WaPo go through multiple layers of lawyers to make sure it is above board. That doesn't mean everything in it will be air-tight, but it does mean that Kim Mulkey's lawyers will likely not win a libel case against Jeff Bezos' lawyers.

---

After seeing made up story after made up story being published by the post and times and happily spread by CNN and MSNBC over the last four years. This comment about the integrity of the process at these institutions is laughable.

Defamation lawsuits can be filed and can be won. Look at case history. Depends on the fact and fiction of the case. Early indications are that this gamecock reporter is going to hide behind anonymous sources which can be tricky for him and Kim. If it is a balanced view of her strengths and weaknesses, her fans and detractors, so be it. But every hint sounds like hack job prejudice from a writer desperate to punish Kim for putting him on the B list of reporters. His ego may land him and the paper in a long and costly court battle. If you are going to do battle with Kim, you better bring your lunch box. She put them on public notice for a reason. Also, the timing of this whole affair is a cheap shot in itself.

Just watched the video. Kim sounds very suspect. If she has skeletons, she should just get ahead of it and say what happened, her side of the stories. She sounds like she knows what hes going to write about and what hes going to say. Honestly, Defend yourself if you feel like you did the right thing.

Sitting there and defaming the media as a whole as an institution is a cheap trick to avoid talking about her self and actually defending herself on the actions, that shes afraid of.

She has a platform and she can say anything she wants to defend herself, instead she is threatening to sue if negative things are said about her. Narcissistic behavior. Just defend your actions or apologize for making mistakes.

False stories? What stories? She holds the narrative at this point, she herself is distracting from basketball and the games she has to play by using the pregame press conference for LSU womens basketball for her own reasons.

She is not powerless to media with her platform, she can defend her actions by telling her story. What is she scared of? Culpability? Admitting to faults? Not wanting to apologize or acknowledge mistakes.

I hope she can stand up for herself with actual facts and actual clarifications and any acknowledgements of mistakes or misunderstandings, instead of threatening to sue with expensive lawyers.

Sad. She sounds like a complete narcissist and loses credibility by not being forth-write with mistakes or moments of error.

This will be interesting. Its hard to be a public figure, your mistakes and lapses of judgement are on blast.

I hope baylor doesnt look bad after this.

I find it interesting that you automatically assume there is something to coverup? Any coach that is a fierce as Kim leaves a trail of disgruntled players, coaches and administrators. And yes, she is prideful and very self-centered. The same could be said of Geno, Dawn, or Pat, but let's not assume Kim has a closet of skeletons as she has worn every remote thought on her sleeve, which is both problematic and entertaining.

ChapBear said:

---

ctxbear said:

---

I joked earlier that this probably had more MAGA implications than NIL implications. I was only halfway joking, and much of the responses here prove what I was thinking. Refusing to participate in the story for two years and then preemptively throwing a hissy fit about it before it is even released just seems very Trumpy. As does saying whatever the reporter reports is wrong before you even know what he's reported.

Also, it should be noted that stories like this on public figures from outlets like WaPo go through multiple layers of lawyers to make sure it is above board. That doesn't mean everything in it will be air-tight, but it does mean that Kim Mulkey's lawyers will likely not win a libel case against Jeff Bezos' lawyers.

---

After seeing made up story after made up story being published by the post and times and happily spread by CNN and MSNBC over the last four years. This comment about the integrity of the process at these institutions is laughable.

---

And yet Fox News is the only one in that time who was forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for false reporting and defaming a business. Funny you didn't add them to your list.

boognish_bear said:

---

I can tell you this...no major news outlet reporter is spending two years working on a story unless its something juicy.

— Daniel Bishop P. (@TheOhManDan) March 23, 2024

---

This is a naive dumb take. Any more hack "journalists" in the largely corrupt media (who are actually nothing more than biased activists) are fully capable of spending all kinds of time and resources fabricating stories about people they disagree with or don't like. It happens often.

Bear3 said:

---

Whatever the Washington Post story is about, I am just thankful Baylor doesn't have to deal with it after it is published. I am very grateful for what Kim did for Baylor Wbb but I cannot tell you how happy I am to have Nicki as our coach and face of our Wbb program !!!!!

---

Don't mean to water your fire but whatever the story is it will have a significant trail though our campus.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Bear3 said:

---

Whatever the Washington Post story is about, I am just thankful Baylor doesn't have to deal with it after it is published. I am very grateful for what Kim did for Baylor Wbb but I cannot tell you how happy I am to have Nicki as our coach and face of our Wbb program !!!!!

---

Don't mean to water your fire but whatever the story is it will have a significant trail though our campus.

---

And if it does or doesn't, it will probably make most Baylor folks glad she isn't associated with the school anymore. She is imitating Maga and using that political play book though so on this site there will be a disproportionate number who back her no matter what.

I am no MAGA by anymeans but I'll support Kim forever until they prove she is unworthy of her championship type personality bred.

PartyBear said:

---

I can't read the story but she did respond idiotically to the fight with South Carolina. I still don't know what the WaPo is working on but KM sounds like she knows she has problems that are about to drop and further she is acting like they are big problems.

---

Party Bear,

I don't know what the article is going to be about...but I have a guess. The media hates Kim Mulkey because she had all this success at Baylor without bowing down to the gay mafia.

Method Man said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I can't read the story but she did respond idiotically to the fight with South Carolina. I still don't know what the WaPo is working on but KM sounds like she knows she has problems that are about to drop and further she is acting like they are big problems.

---

Party Bear,

I don't know what the article is going to be about...but I have a guess. The media hates Kim Mulkey because she had all this success at Baylor without bowing down to the gay mafia.

---

I don't even know what a gay mafia or bowing/not down to it means. Sounds like crazy talk actually. She had a lot of gay people at Baylor who made her successful.

JustWinBears said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

This is just BS on part of the Washington Post. Kim has her flaws but this feels like a witch hunt

---

lol witch hunt, what would be the point? Mulkey is insignificant, literally just a basketball coach. What would be the point of a hit job by major news outlets, especially one that would involve a 2 year investigation? Click bait is literally made within minutes, you don't spend 2 years investigating for click bait, that would be a massive waste of resources.

I have no clue what this is about, but there is no way it's just a witch hunt. At the end it may be literally nothing of importance but she would hardly be worth spending 2 years just for a click bait article.

---

Why has the media gone out of their way to praise Dawn Staley and castigate Kim Mulkey?
Does Dawn Staley have any kids? As she ever been married?

The media is very invested in non straight women leading College Basketball, and a woman from the Deep South that won 3 National Championships at the worlds largest Baptist University is a threat.

The media has tried to paint Mulkey as a bigot and a racist because she was protecting Brittney Griner (and all the other gay female basketball players that played at Baylor) by telling them to keep their personal lives to themselves.

No one at Baylor cared who you slept with, or what your preferences was....... as long as you could hoop.....but this school has never been the place to be some sort of LGTBQ activist....and this is why the media tries to destroy Christian schools.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Bear3 said:

---

Whatever the Washington Post story is about, I am just thankful Baylor doesn't have to deal with it after it is published. I am very grateful for what Kim did for Baylor Wbb but I cannot tell you how happy I am to have Nicki as our coach and face of our Wbb program !!!!!

---

Don't mean to water your fire but whatever the story is it will have a significant trail though our campus.

---

And if it does or doesn't, it will probably make most Baylor folks glad she isn't associated with the school anymore. She is imitating Maga and using that political play book though so on this site there will be a disproportionate number who back her no matter what.

---

I'm not one of them. I loved Big12 championships, Hosting the tournament, Elite 8 appearances and National Championships.

I can't measure the hypocritical moral high ground.

---

This describes me 100%.

Coach Mulkey never embarrassed me when she was standing up for Baylor or winning those National Titles.

The MAGA slurs (does anyone have any proof of Mulkey's political leanings? The only thing I've ever heard her say remotely political was that Obama was the smartest POTUS we ever had) are really anger by the leftist media that a non-lesbian woman has had a tremendous amount of success at a Christian school were our players weren't free to be full blown LGTBQ activist.

Mulkey then goes to another school and wins the National Title within two years.
The media can't have this woman continuing to have success by not bowing down to Gay people so they now have to smear her, and her program.

I'll bet you any amount of money the crux of the WAPO article will be that "Griner wasn't allowed to be herself at Baylor" because of that mean, evil racist, homophobic, white woman from the Deep South.

PartyBear said:

---

If this issue is what y'all say it is, then why hell won't KM respond and have mentioned in the story that she wanted to protect her players so that idiots who are students or on certain chat rooms don't attack them and run them off if that was the case. Seems quite reasonable and easy and she would be saying she goes to bat for her kids. Is she really this bad at PR or is there evidence that wasn't actually the case to which she has no response but threaten suits? Or is that not even the topic of the story?

---

Party Bear,

Are you this daft?
I'm one that typically agrees with probably 90% of your posts, but you are being incredibly nave here.

The 2013 Brittney Griner article was a total hatchet job meant to make Kim Mulkey look like a homophobe.
I was at Baylor when Kim Mulkey took over the program.
Everyone on campus knew that most of the girls on the team swung the other way and no one gave a crap as long as you could hoop.

If I was Kim I wouldn't entertain that crap either. Your in a lose-lose situation if that media member already has their mind made up with how they are going to slant the article.