Mr. Stern –

I understand the message that Slate wants to send its readers. You hate Trump - noted. I also understand that I cannot stop people from writing what they want, if they toss in a few words like “allegedly” or “likely”. But I cannot understand the zeal in trying to destroy an individual who has done nothing to deserve this tearing down. Someone who has never had an ethics complaint. Someone who supported his family though a variety of enterprises, some more successful than others, but never sinister or shady. Are you hoping that all future appointees’ qualifications are to have sat at a desk and pushed paper around for 30 years? Is life experience, both good and bad, somehow disqualifying? Matt is a really good person and is only serving his country. He’s also going to be back in the private sector at some point. It is a small comfort to me that the people who will want to work with him in the future are, let’s hope, really unlikely readers of Slate and similar publications. I happen to like things about Slate and I’m also not a fire-breathing Republican dragon, so it does distress me somewhat to read these things. I have ignored a lot of it, because it is all innuendo and/or outright BS, but you should know this is just too much. If you have a conscience, I hope you will consider reporting in a more ethical and fair manner than this article demonstrates.

Literally none of the awful things you and your co-author say are true. There is zero evidence that Matt is homophobic and if you knew how the US Attorney’s office worked and how multiple law enforcement agencies participated in the McCoy case, you would not print that. Mr. McCoy has for years attempted to spin it this way and it has never taken hold, except perhaps, to the very negatively motivated and gullible. To imply that Matt had visibility and knowledge of $25 million dollars of wrongdoing is preposterous. Would you characterize a sternly worded letter as threatening? [note: obviously, yes, you did, but really?] It was well-documented that Matt is a capable and affable person. He was at the right hand of Sessions for over a year. But sure, imply that he got the current appointment because of something he said over a year prior before he worked for anyone. The particularly on television part – LOL. What does that even mean? Nothing, that’s what. It does sound really suspicious if you put it that way AND when you ignore that he simply was well-liked and competent. It’s not in this particular article, but the “he auditioned for the job on CNN” part of the past months’ reporting has been among the most absurdly and tragically funny part of this whole experience. Who could have imagined this turn of events? No one. Not us, that is for sure. The idea that it was some calculated plan is silly. Work through that sequence maybe, and see if it seems plausible.

It isn’t really or shouldn’t be that controversial to state that the Mueller investigation should stay within the parameters given. Particularly when that is said more than a year prior as the investigation is just beginning. Why would a person need to recuse oneself for that mild statement? If abundance of caution is the standard, anyone who ever spent 5 minutes contemplating the topic would need to do so. And by all means, assume that a person who speculated on a hypothetical scenario would then put some dark plan into motion, when by all accounts, the investigation is wrapping up and they [sic] eyes of the nation are upon them. Yeah, that’s pretty realistic. Oh, and I guess you missed that the Supreme Court decided not to take up the temporary appointment challenge. Most organizations had given up on that angle of attack quite a while ago. Kudos to your perseverance, misguided though it may be. Finally, I don’t know how you print that he is “lying” about the academic All-American thing, while yourself writing all of these untruths. It is truly bizarre. All of that has been explained, if you cared to find out.

About the only thing that I can applaud you for is having the guts to link your email address. I hope you’ll consider whether the viciousness of your reporting is warranted. Given your apparent mindset, I’m sure there are many ways for your [sic] to turn the mental cartwheels to justify this. Because Trump! It’s a simplistic ending to any discussion and absolves you of actual journalistic integrity. Because Trump! And integrity! And if he had a conscience himself he wouldn’t be there! That’s sarcasm, btw. Matt is a conscientious and thoughtful person of integrity. I feel like I could write your articles for you. They’re that clichéd.

PS this is my work email and phone. Please do not use it in any ill manner. I like my job and I need to continue to earn a living, particularly in light of this shutdown. Thanks!