This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Re: my letter to Dean Baquet

I'm good but agree with suggestion to drop damage to the campaign language and end with firestorm On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Varun Anand <vanand@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > Attached with that edit + copy edits: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Jennifer Palmieri < > jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com');>> 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 <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bfallon@hillaryclinton.com');>> 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 < >> jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com');>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- JP jp66@hillaryclinton.com For scheduling: mfisher@hillaryclinton.com