Re: my letter to Dean Baquet

podesta-emails 2,564 words email

D6 P17 V16 P19 P22

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Attached with that edit + copy edits: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Jennifer Palmieri < [email protected]> wrote: > That's a good thought - think we should just say "had a deep impact that > cannot be unwound." Varun - can you do? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 28, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > My only concern is stating the article inflicted damage on our campaign. > Certainly true but I worry that if we leak the letter, it could be > misinterpreted as us admitting the email controversy in general is hurting > us. Maybe we could soften it a bit by saying "...creating a firestorm that > had a deep impact and cannot be unwound." > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jennifer Palmieri < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Brian largely penned this very thorough letter to go back to Dean to >> officially register our concerns and raise concerns they have not >> addressed. I made some edits (Brian will be disappointed that I toned it >> down a wee bit). Appreciate it if this group would take a look before we >> send. Also like views on what people think about making this public. I >> think we should. >> >> >> >> Varun – would you proofread, too? >> >> >> >> Thanks – JP >> >> >> >> Dear Mr. Baquet: >> >> >> >> I am writing to officially register our campaign’s grave concern with the >> Times’ publication of an inaccurate report related to Hillary Clinton and >> her email use. >> >> >> >> I appreciate the fact that both you and the Public Editor have sought to >> publicly explain how this error could have been made. But we remain >> perplexed by the Times’ slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, >> and some of the shaky justifications that Times’ editors. We feel it >> important to outline these concerns with you directly so that they may be >> properly addressed and so our campaign can continue to have a productive, >> working relationship with the Times. >> >> >> >> I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story >> was. The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the >> world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging >> that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of >> a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of >> outlets followed your story creating a firestorm that instilled real damage >> on our campaign that can never be undone. This problem was compounded by >> the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay >> in correcting the story and removing “criminal” from the headline and text >> of the story. >> >> >> >> To review the facts, as the Times itself has acknowledged through >> multiple corrections, the paper’s reporting was false in several key >> respects: first, contrary to what the Times stated, Mrs. Clinton is not the >> target of a criminal referral made by the State Department’s and >> Intelligence Community’s Inspector Generals, and second, the referral in >> question was not of a criminal nature at all. >> >> >> >> Just as disturbing as the errors themselves is the Times’ apparent >> abandonment of standard journalistic practices in the course of its >> reporting on this story. >> >> >> >> *First, the seriousness of the allegations that the Times rushed to >> report last Thursday evening demanded far more care and due diligence than >> the Times exhibited prior to this article’s publication. * >> >> >> >> The Times’ readers rightfully expect the paper to adhere to the most >> rigorous journalistic standards. To state the obvious, it is hard to >> imagine a situation more fitting for those standards to be applied than >> when a newspaper is preparing to allege that a major party candidate for >> President of the United States is the target of a criminal referral >> received by federal law enforcement. >> >> >> >> This allegation, however, was reported hastily and without affording the >> campaign adequate opportunity to respond. It was not even mentioned by your >> reporter when our campaign was first contacted late Thursday afternoon. >> Initially, it was stated as reporting only on a memo – provided to Congress >> by the Inspectors General from the State Department and Intelligence >> Community – that raised the possibility of classified material traversing >> Secretary Clinton’s email system. This memo –which was subsequently >> released publicly -- did not reference a criminal referral at all. It was >> not until late Thursday night – at 8:36 pm – that your paper hurriedly >> followed up with our staff to explain that it had received a separate tip >> that the inspectors general had additionally made a criminal referral to >> the Justice Department concerning Clinton’s email use. Our staff indicated >> that we had no knowledge of any such referral – understandably, of course, >> since none actually existed – and further indicated that, for a variety of >> reasons, the reporter’s allegation seemed implausible. Our campaign >> declined any immediate comment, but asked for additional time to attempt to >> investigate the allegation raised. In response, it was indicated that the >> campaign “had time,” suggesting the publication of the report was not >> imminent. >> >> >> >> Despite the late hour, our campaign quickly conferred and confirmed that >> we had no knowledge whatsoever of any criminal referral involving the >> Secretary. At 10:36 pm, our staff attempted to reach your reporters on the >> phone to reiterate this fact and ensure the paper would not be going >> forward with any such report. There was no answer. At 10:54 pm, our staff >> again attempted calling. Again, no answer. Minutes later, we received a >> call back. We sought to confirm that no story was imminent and were >> shocked at the reply: the story had just published on the Times’ website. >> >> >> >> This was, to put it mildly, an egregious breach of the process that >> should occur when a major newspaper like the Times is pursuing a story of >> this magnitude. Not only did the Times fail to engage in a proper >> discussion with the campaign ahead of publication; given the exceedingly >> short window of time between when the Times received the tip and rushed to >> publish, it hardly seems possible that the Times conducted sufficient >> deliberations within its own ranks before going ahead with the story. >> >> >> >> *Second, in its rush to publish what it clearly viewed as a major scoop, >> the Times relied on questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering >> to seek corroborating evidence that could have supported its allegation.* >> >> >> >> In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had >> not personally reviewed the IG’s referral that they falsely described as >> both criminal and focused Hillary Clinton. Instead, they relied on unnamed >> sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all >> clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This >> should have represented too many “degrees of separation” for any newspaper >> to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all the New York Times. >> >> >> >> Times’ editors have attempted to explain these errors by claiming the >> fault for the misreporting resided with a Justice Department official whom >> other news outlets cited as confirming the Times’ report after the fact. >> This suggestion does not add up. It is our understanding that this Justice >> Department official was not the original source of the Times’ tip. >> Moreover, notwithstanding the official’s inaccurate characterization of the >> referral as criminal in nature, this official does not appear to have told >> the Times that Mrs. Clinton was the target of that referral, as the paper >> falsely reported in its original story. >> >> >> >> This raises the question of what other sources the Times may have relied >> on in for its initial report. It clearly was not either of the referring >> officials – that is, the inspectors general of either the State Department >> or intelligence agencies – since the Times’ sources apparently lacked >> firsthand knowledge of the referral documents. It also seems unlikely the >> source could have been anyone affiliated with those offices, as it defies >> logic that anyone so closely involved could have so severely garbled the >> description of the referral. >> >> >> >> Of course, the identity of the Times’ sources would be deserving of far >> less scrutiny if the underlying information had been confirmed as true. >> However, the Times appears to have performed little, if any, work to >> corroborate the accuracy of its sources’ characterizations of the IG’s >> referral. Key details went uninvestigated in the Times’ race to publish >> these erroneous allegations against Mrs. Clinton. For instance, high in the >> Times’ initial story, the reporters acknowledged they had no knowledge of >> whether the documents that the Times claimed were mishandled by Mrs. >> Clinton contained any classified markings. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, none of >> the emails at issue were marked. This fact was quickly acknowledged by the >> IC inspector general’s office within hours of the Times’ report, but it was >> somehow left unaddressed in the initial story. >> >> >> >> *Even after the Times’ reporting was revealed to be false, the Times >> incomprehensibly delayed the issuance of a full and true correction.* >> >> >> >> Our campaign first sought changes from the Times as soon as the initial >> story was published. Recognizing the implausibility that Clinton herself >> could be the subject of any criminal probe, we immediately challenged the >> story’s opening line, which said the referral sought an investigation into >> Mrs. Clinton specifically for the mishandling of classified materials. In >> response, the Times’ reporters admitted that they themselves had never seen >> the IG’s referral, and so acknowledged the possibility that it was >> overstating what it directly knew when it portrayed the potential >> investigation as centering on Mrs. Clinton. It corrected the lead sentence >> accordingly. >> >> >> >> The speed with which the Times conceded that it could not defend its lead >> citing Mrs. Clinton as the referral’s target raises questions about what >> inspired its confidence in the first place to frame the story that way. >> More importantly, the Times’ change was not denoted in the form of a >> correction. Rather, it was performed quietly, overnight, without any >> accompanying note to readers. This was troubling in its lack of >> transparency and risks causing the Times to appear like it is trying to >> whitewash its misreporting. A correction should have been posted promptly >> that night. >> >> >> >> Regardless, even after this change, a second error remained in the story: >> the characterization of the referral as criminal at all. By Friday morning, >> multiple members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform >> (who had been briefed by the inspectors general) challenged this >> portrayal—and ultimately, so did the Department of Justice itself. Only >> then did the Times finally print a correction acknowledging its >> misstatement of the nature of the referral to the Justice Department. >> >> >> >> Of course, the correction, coming as it did on a Friday afternoon, was >> destined to reach a fraction of those who read the Times’ original, >> erroneous report. As the Huffington Post observed: >> >> >> >> “…it's unlikely that the same audience will see the updated version >> unless the paper were to send out a second breaking news email with its >> latest revisions. The Clinton story also appeared the front page of >> Friday's print edition.” >> >> >> >> Most maddening of all, even after the correction fixed the description of >> the referral within the story, a headline remained on the front page of the >> Times’ website that read “Criminal Inquiry is Sought in Clinton Email >> Account.” It was not until even later in the evening that the word >> “criminal” was finally dropped from the headline and an updated correction >> was issued to the story. The lateness of this second correction, however, >> prevented it from appearing in the paper this morning. We simply do not >> understand how that was allowed to occur. >> >> >> >> *Lastly, the Times’ official explanations for the misreporting is >> profoundly unsettling.* >> >> >> >> In a statement to the Times’ public editor, you said that the errors in >> the Times’ story Thursday night were “unavoidable.” This is hard to accept. >> As noted above, the Justice Department official that incorrectly confirmed >> the Times’ initial reports for other outlets does not appear to have been >> the initial source for the Times. Moreover, it is precisely because some >> individuals may provide erroneous information that it is important for the >> Times to sift the good information from the bad, and where there is doubt, >> insist on additional evidence. The Times was under no obligation to go >> forward on a story containing such explosive allegations coming only from >> sources who refused to be named. If nothing else, the Times could have >> allowed the campaign more time to understand the allegation being engaged. >> Unfortunately, the Times chose to take none of these steps. >> >> >> >> In closing, I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive >> relationship with The New York Times. But we also are extremely troubled >> by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking >> forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have >> confidence that it is not repeated in the future. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jennifer Palmieri >> >> Communications Director >> >> Hillary for America >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cc: Margaret Sullivan, >> >> Public Editor >> >> New York Times >> >> >> > >