archived recording

We begin the hour with a show-stopping report from BuzzFeed that, if true, could cost the president his job. The explosive report says the president personally instructed his longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress to hide the president’s involvement in a real estate deal for a Moscow Trump Tower. BuzzFeed cites two law enforcement officials who say Mueller has evidence that the president personally instructed Cohen to lie. The story’s most explosive and consequential claim is this — that according to BuzzFeed sources, the special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages and a cache of other documents. It’s the most direct allegation yet that President Trump may have committed a crime.

michael barbaro

Mike, what were you thinking when that BuzzFeed report first came out earlier this month?

michael schmidt

My first thought was, damn, that’s a really good story. And it particularly hurt because I have spent much of the past two years focused on the issue of obstruction of justice.

michael barbaro

Right.

michael schmidt

And this was the clearest case to date that showed the president may have obstructed justice. It was the president telling one of his associates to lie.

archived recording

If true, this would be bigger than Watergate. If true, this would be obstruction of justice. Well, the revelation is prompting Democrats to say impeachment is a possibility if the reports are true. If, if, if, if true — Then we are likely on our way to possible impeachment proceedings.

michael schmidt

Immediately there was a lot of pressure on us to match this story.

archived recording

So far we have not been able to confirm BuzzFeed’s report.

michael schmidt

And we spent much of the day trying to suss out what was going on.

archived recording

We should note CNN has not independently confirmed BuzzFeed’s reporting, nor for that matter has anyone else.

michael schmidt

And we got a fair amount of pushback and struggled to get it confirmed.

archived recording

MSNBC, NBC News couldn’t confirm that information. If I’m — This information is not verified at The Washington Post. We can’t verify this information independently. — not independently confirm these allegations. No other news organization, other than BuzzFeed, has this story at this point.

michael schmidt

And by that evening, we saw something highly unusual.

archived recording

Here is the breaking news, a rare and stunning move from the special counsel tonight. Robert Mueller’s team disputing an explosive BuzzFeed report alleging the president told Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

michael schmidt

The special counsel’s office, which rarely speaks publicly, put out a statement knocking down the story.

archived recording

Quote, “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.”

michael barbaro

Right — saying very forcefully and very clearly something in this story is wrong.

michael schmidt

This was a reporter’s worst nightmare.

archived recording

This isn’t a correction of the BuzzFeed story. This is an annihilation of it. And this is a bad one for BuzzFeed, man. They maybe should have stuck to some cat listicles. It’s not good. The press is making itself look very, very badly. And it’s going to be very difficult for this media to restore any credibility it once had before. And I think —

michael schmidt

Here you have the special counsel, Bob Mueller, who probably has more credibility in Washington right now than anyone else, saying your story’s not true.

archived recording

So the people are saying heads should roll at BuzzFeed, that you’re hurting the news business as a whole. What do you say?

archived recording (anthony cormier)

I’ve been a reporter for 20 years. This is going to be borne out, Brian. This story is accurate.

michael schmidt

It got me thinking of a time when a similar team of journalists found themselves in a very similar situation. You rolling? So I got in an Uber and went to Georgetown — [RINGING]

speaker

Hello?

michael schmidt

Hi, this is Mike Schmidt. Is Bob there?

speaker

Just a second.

bob woodward

Good to see you. How are you, pal?

michael schmidt

To the home of Bob Woodward.

michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today, the perils of reporting on a presidential investigation. It’s Thursday, January 31.

michael schmidt

1, 2, 1, 2. How’s that? [DOG BARKING]

bob woodward

We’ll see if we can quiet the dog and the door and the phone.

michael schmidt

Oh, it’s fine.

bob woodward

I’m sorry. It’s the real world.

michael schmidt

It’s the real Bob Woodward.

bob woodward

Well, the life of living with a dog.

michael schmidt

It’s fine.

michael barbaro

So what’s the story that Woodward told you?

michael schmidt

The story Woodward told me starts with the Watergate break-in in June of 1972.

archived recording

Democratic National Committee is trying to solve a spy mystery. It began before dawn Saturday when five intruders were captured by police inside the offices of the committee in Washington.

bob woodward

It was at 2:30 in the morning. And by 9 o’clock, the editors at The Post were getting on — how are we going to cover this?

archived recording

Five people have been arrested and charged with breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the middle of the night.

michael schmidt

Bob Woodward and his partner Carl Bernstein jumped on that story.

bob woodward

I was sent to the courthouse and saw burglars in business suits. Didn’t make sense. Lead burglar worked for the CIA. So there was an immediate curiosity.

michael schmidt

In the weeks and months after the break-in, Woodward and Carl Bernstein are out front on this coverage.

archived recording

One of the suspects, James McCord, operates his own security company in Washington. He was doing work for the Republican National Committee and the committee to re-elect President Nixon. No one has proved that the Republicans are behind the break-in, but tomorrow the Democrats are expected to file some sort of legal action against the G.O.P. anyway. Mr. Nixon, did you know about the burglary of our Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate?

michael schmidt

They are doing everything possible to figure out ties between the burglars who broke into the Watergate and Nixon’s campaign.

bob woodward

Conventional wisdom then was, Nixon’s too smart to do this. But Carl and I didn’t do conventional wisdom, to be honest with you.

michael barbaro

And they kind of have the story all to themselves.

michael schmidt

They are out front, even when some news organizations are ignoring it.

michael barbaro

Including The Times.

michael schmidt

The Post was ahead, big time.

bob woodward

We started developing sources like the bookkeeper who kept their records on the money and the treasurer, Hugh Sloan. And so it was always about money, or at least that was one path of exploration.

michael schmidt

And they discover this slush fund, this pot of money that Nixon’s advisers controlled so they could dole money out to folks like the burglars to do the dirty political deeds that they thought needed to happen as Nixon was running for re-election.

bob woodward

So we found out that John Mitchell, who’d been the attorney general, who’d been Nixon’s campaign manager, controlled dispersal of the funds. So did Maurice Stans, who was the —

michael schmidt

As part of that coverage, Woodward and Bernstein were able to establish four people who had access to those funds, people very close to the president, including his campaign manager at the time.

michael barbaro

So this reporting is starting to get closer and closer to President Nixon himself?

michael schmidt

Correct. And that October, Woodward and Bernstein thought they had a huge scoop.

bob woodward

All roads led to Haldeman, the White House chief of staff —

michael schmidt

That’s H. R. Haldeman.

bob woodward

H. R. — Bob — Haldeman.

michael schmidt

They had learned that H. R. Haldeman, the person closest to the president, controlled the slush fund.

bob woodward

So we interviewed people, including Hugh Sloan, and he finally said it was Haldeman.

michael schmidt

And Hugh Sloan, the treasurer of Nixon’s campaign, had testified about that to the grand jury investigating the president.

michael barbaro

A big scoop.

michael schmidt

Correct.

bob woodward

This was the big story. If he was involved in this, if he could authorize money, that led right to Nixon’s doorstep.

michael schmidt

Because this would be the first person inside the White House at the time who was also controlling the funds from the slush fund.

bob woodward

Precisely.

michael schmidt

So they were reporting on this just weeks before the November election. They have three sources confirming Haldeman’s the guy. And on deadline, right before they’re about to publish, their editor asked them to get another source.

bob woodward

So Bernstein called a lawyer in the Justice Department and said, you know, we know it’s Haldeman. And the lawyer said, I’d like to help you, I really would, but I just can’t say anything.

michael schmidt

So Bernstein comes up with a workaround. And he says to the official —

bob woodward

He said, I’ll count to 10, and if it’s O.K., tell me it’s O.K.

michael schmidt

I’m going to count to 10. And if by the time I’m done counting you haven’t said anything, I’ll know the story’s true.

michael barbaro

Hmm.

bob woodward

And this was done in a very clever but direct way.

michael schmidt

So Bernstein starts counting. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

bob woodward

And the lawyer said, you’ve got it straight now.

michael schmidt

You’ve got it straight now.

bob woodward

Bernstein thanked him again and hung up. He told me about it. We have a fourth source.

michael schmidt

They tell the editors, and they publish.

michael barbaro

So then what happens?

michael schmidt

As they expected, the story lands with huge impact.

bob woodward

The story came out, lead story. And we feel quite comfortable.

michael schmidt

Everyone in Washington is buzzing about it. It shows just how high the conspiracy went into the White House. And Woodward and Bernstein are in the newsroom that day, basking in the glory of the story, when —

bob woodward

A reporter at The Post, education reporter Eric Wentworth, said, have you seen what happened on television? And we hadn’t seen anything.

michael schmidt

Did you guys just see what Hugh Sloan’s lawyer said on television?

michael barbaro

And what had Sloan’s lawyer said?

archived recording

I assume you’re referring to the testimony before the grand jury, as reported in The Washington Post this morning?

michael schmidt

Sloan’s lawyer, with Sloan standing right next to him —

archived recording

Our answer to that is an unequivocal no. Mr. Sloan did not implicate Mr. Haldeman in that testimony at all.

michael schmidt

Had come out and knocked the story down.

bob woodward

And Sloan’s our source and somebody we’d developed a close relationship with, as you know, with sources. And it is agony.

michael schmidt

Here you had his lawyer standing there on national television saying the story’s not true.

bob woodward

I can’t describe the emotions, but they included — we’re finished, we’re going to have to resign.

michael schmidt

It’s the worst feeling as a journalist, right?

bob woodward

Yeah. You have a sinking feeling that — it’s so intense you don’t even know where your stomach is. You know it’s somewhere in your body, and it’s crying out really hard.

michael barbaro

So what had actually happened? Had they gotten anything wrong?

michael schmidt

They didn’t know.

bob woodward

We were saying, well, we need to write some sort of story. We need to back down. Or we need to explain. And then Bradlee said, look, you’re not even sure whether you got it right or wrong. What part is wrong? You don’t know where you are. You haven’t got the facts. Hold your water for a while.

michael schmidt

So Woodward called Sloan’s lawyer.

bob woodward

He said, look, you don’t have to apologize for this. And essentially, it’s true.

michael schmidt

The general thrust of the story is right.

bob woodward

But you’re wrong on the grand jury testimony. You connected the dots that were not connectable.

michael schmidt

You guys were just off when you said that Sloan testified about this to the grand jury.

bob woodward

And then I finally got to Deep Throat, Mark Felt.

michael schmidt

So then Woodward went to Deep Throat.

bob woodward

I mean, this was 3:00 a.m., I think the next day or two days later. The days rushed together.

michael schmidt

And Deep Throat told him —

bob woodward

When you move on somebody like Haldeman, you’ve got to be sure you’re on the most solid ground. What a royal screw-up, he said. And then he said, look —

michael schmidt

The story was right.

bob woodward

The whole thing — Watergate, all the espionage — is a Haldeman operation. He’s behind it.

michael schmidt

But you guys, by getting that one fact wrong about the grand jury, have done the improbable.

bob woodward

You’ve got people feeling sorry for Haldeman. I didn’t think that was possible.

michael schmidt

You’ve made people feel bad for Haldeman, one of the most disliked people in Washington.

michael barbaro

And one of the ringleaders of these dirty tricks, with access to the slush fund, a main character in this illegal plot.

michael schmidt

The person closest to Nixon.

michael barbaro

Mike, I’m curious what Woodward told you was the fatal error in this reporting that led to this error of the grand jury reference? Because four sources is a lot of sources.

michael schmidt

There were three things. One was that they were proceeding with confirmation bias.

bob woodward

Carl and I had heard what we wanted to hear.

michael schmidt

They thought the information was true. They were simply looking for sources to give them the O.K. to move forward with that.

michael barbaro

Mhmm.

michael schmidt

The second thing is that —

bob woodward

We didn’t go through that process of sitting with Sloan and saying, O.K., did they ask you at the grand jury about Haldeman’s role?

michael schmidt

They never went back to Sloan himself and walked him through exactly what they were going to be saying about his testimony. That really would have given them a chance to flush things out.

michael barbaro

Right, because he might have noticed them referring to a grand jury. And he would have said, no, what you are saying is right, but I never said it to a grand jury.

michael schmidt

Correct. It would have been a good way to catch it. And the third thing —

bob woodward

The whole Bernstein, you know, silent confirm or hang up method —

michael schmidt

Is that when Bernstein, on deadline, called the Justice Department official and used this confusing way of asking him about it, that failed too.

bob woodward

Everyone was just shaking their head, and that only made everyone more ill.

michael schmidt

And they missed a final opportunity to catch the mistake.

michael barbaro

But as Woodward went back to all these sources and learned that the heart of the story was true, was he able to report that?

michael schmidt

So what they did a day or so after the story was write a piece.

bob woodward

Let’s level as much as we can. And we were able in this case to level.

michael schmidt

And they said —

bob woodward

We were wrong on the grand jury, but it was a Haldeman operation.

michael schmidt

That while they had gotten the grand jury part wrong, Haldeman had indeed controlled the slush fund. And the general thrust of what they had reported was right.

bob woodward

I’m not sure it had any traction, because it looked like, in the beginning of 1973, Watergate might just recede, go away.

michael schmidt

So the story came at a critical time in the narrative because there were questions about whether this was really a story.

bob woodward

Yes, and whether we had it right.

michael schmidt

The initial splash of the wrong story overshadows the important news that is right.

michael barbaro

Hmm.

michael schmidt

The thing about big stories that are big deals is that if there is a part of it that is wrong, it allows the person who doesn’t like the story to drive a Mack truck right through it.

michael barbaro

Right.

michael schmidt

So while they were right in terms of the narrative and arc of what was going on and what had happened and how high this went into the White House, the mistake gave the White House the excuse to jump on that and say, see, look, this story’s wrong, and all their other reporting about this is just like it. It’s been wrong.

archived recording

I don’t respect the type of journalism, the shabby journalism that is being practiced by The Washington Post. And I used the term shoddy journalism, shabby journalism. And I’ve used the term character assassination.

michael schmidt

What you are saying is wrong. You have no credibility because of that.

archived recording

Mr. Vice President, Mrs. Agnew, all of our very distinguished guests here at the —

michael schmidt

Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected that November.

archived recording (president nixon)

I’ve never known a national election when I would be able to go to bed earlier than tonight.

michael schmidt

And the roots of fake news in the American discourse begin to grow.

bob woodward

That’s happened to you.

michael schmidt

Correct.

bob woodward

Happened to every reporter. And this is where I think the whole discussion has been confused. My observation of reporting — we all make mistakes, but the effort is good faith. We are trying to find out what really happened in here. There’s never a moment Carl and myself — saying, well, you know, let’s stretch. Let’s take it too far. We thought we had it. It was a good-faith, stupid, dumbass mistake, but we made it. Now, how much people are willing to accept good faith — there was no intent, there was no deception — I don’t know. And that’s why we have to in this era now, what, 45 years later, 46 years later, try to not make any mistake.

michael schmidt

So you’re saying all these decades later, this story is still in the back of your mind as you report.

bob woodward

Indeed it is. I’ve been sitting here with you — thank you for reliving this chapter of my life. You can’t have that experience and it not be embedded in your head of, how could I have been so stupid and careless? And we laid it out as best we could, but it’s not a very pretty picture about being careful.

michael schmidt

Great. I think we got everything, right?

bob woodward

O.K. Good. O.K.

michael schmidt

That was great.

archived recording

Let’s take a look at what BuzzFeed did to request comment from the special counsel. This first email is from Jason Leopold, the co-author of the story, sent to the special counsel’s office. It says here, “Peter, hope all is well. Anthony and I have a story coming up stating that Cohen was directed by Trump himself to lie to Congress about his negotiations relating to the Trump Moscow project. Assume no comment from you, but just wanted to check. Best, Jason.” Ben, to me, this is a shockingly casual way to ask for comment for such a serious story. Do you think that was an appropriate and sufficient way to ask for comment?

archived recording (ben smith)

You know, Peter, the spokesman for the special counsel, has told The Washington Post, I believe yesterday, or people close to him on background, that if we had asked differently, he would have given us more information.

archived recording

But come on, one paragraph? That’s a dereliction of duty to send a three-sentence email —

archived recording (ben smith)

I will say — [MUSIC] And that was the choice he made, right?

archived recording

But when I send e-mails to BuzzFeed spokespeople, and I’m about to write about you, it’s a bullet-point, long email, everything that’s going to be included. I want to make sure everything has been checked first. Why didn’t Jason do that? Carr has now said that he would have responded in more detail if he had more detail. He could have said that two minutes later, right? He could have said — [MUSIC] O.K., process question number two, then.

archived recording (ben smith)

Yeah.

archived recording

Why publish Thursday night as opposed to waiting for a third source or a fourth source, knowing the stakes of this story?

archived recording (ben smith)

We published because we were very, very confident in the sourcing of this story in the way that you would — and, you know, we had been waiting, right? It was not like Anthony walked into my office on Thursday at noon and said, I have this. This is a story we’ve been developing over a long period of time, that we’ve been working on with sources.

michael barbaro

Mike, why did this story that Woodward told you remind you of the BuzzFeed story?

michael schmidt

Because in both cases, they were really reporting two things — one was the existence of the information. In the BuzzFeed story, it’s the fact that Cohen said Trump asked him to lie to Congress. The second thing they were reporting is that investigators knew about it. It was the same situation that Woodward found himself in because they had reported that Sloan knew about the slush fund and that Haldeman and controlled it, and he had told it to the grand jury. The fact that the investigators knew about it gave the fact validity. It said, this is not just something that’s floating out there that we figured out on our own. This is something that the people investigating the president have figured out. If you don’t have the validity, the backing of investigators knowing it, the reporting at times feels shakier.

michael barbaro

Right, which is why the moment BuzzFeed reported that Mueller knew Trump had done this is when Democrats in the House and the Senate were saying, we have to act, this is the moment to impeach the president.

michael schmidt

Yes. But it was the second part that they didn’t have locked down, that undercut them in their reporting in the story, that allowed the White House to attack them. So when the public finds out that the second part is not true, that the investigators do not know this, it negates the primary fact that they were reporting on.

michael barbaro

Right, and that’s why when the second part is challenged, the first part is so fundamentally undermined. The first part no longer feels like it can be true if the second part also isn’t true. They’re highly linked.

michael schmidt

Right, but what will ultimately matter is whether the fact they were bringing forward, that Trump asked Cohen to lie to Congress, is true. That will be the most important thing. When Woodward is in the middle of it and he made this mistake, he thought he was going to have to resign. The public turned on him. The White House went after him. Now, looking back on that, that seems ridiculous to imagine, because most of us don’t even remember that mistake. His reporting on Watergate is remembered as heroic and historic, but that’s because of how the investigation ended. We’re sort of back in that situation now with the BuzzFeed story. Will it be proven out that Trump asked Cohen to lie and that be a central part of the Trump story? If so, the BuzzFeed reporters will be looked at as being at the front of this and really have uncovered important information.

michael barbaro

Right. And their error seeming very small.

michael schmidt

Right. But if history doesn’t go in that direction, it will be a story that critics and defenders of Trump will point to in the years to come as examples of the media going too far as it tried to cover the investigation.

michael barbaro

So what you’re saying is right now, it’s too early to know if the BuzzFeed reporting is what Woodward’s mistake ultimately turned out to be — a small factual error along the way when the big picture of the reporting is accurate, or a sign that what the media thinks might be true, what the president would argue the media perhaps wants to be true, is not, in fact, what the investigators have found.

michael schmidt

And the problem is that the public wants an answer now. And usually that takes a lot of time. As Woodward often says, it takes a long time for history to be sussed out.

michael barbaro

Mike, thank you very much.

michael schmidt

Thanks for having me.

michael barbaro

Here’s what else you need to know. One day after his own intelligence chiefs contradicted him on the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, and ISIS, President Trump lashed out at them in a series of tweets questioning their intellect. The president wrote that the officials, including the heads of the CIA and the FBI, are quote, “naive and passive,” especially about the dangers of Iran and North Korea and suggested that, quote, “perhaps intelligence should go back to school.” And on Wednesday, local police said that the deep freeze that has settled over the Midwest has killed at least eight people, including some who froze to death after exposure to the cold from Milwaukee to Detroit. The record low temperatures in cities like Minneapolis and Chicago reached minus 28 degrees with a wind chill of minus 53, resulting in widespread flight cancellations, school closures, and even the suspension of mail delivery throughout the region.

speaker 3

Woo. And it’s evaporating.

michael barbaro