The Daily - The Perils of Reporting on an Investigation of the President

Episode Date: January 31, 2019

The special counsel’s office disputed an explosive BuzzFeed report claiming that President Trump had instructed his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress — and that investigators had evidence of this. The scrutiny that followed calls to mind another reporting team and its challenges in the 1970s. Guests: Bob Woodward, one of the Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, and Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

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.

Mike, what were you thinking when that BuzzFeed report first came out earlier this month? 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. Right. 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. 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, if true. Then we are likely on our way to possible impeachment proceedings. Immediately, there was a lot of pressure on us to match the story. So far, we have not been able to confirm BuzzFeed's report. And we spent much of the day trying to suss out what was going on. We should note CNN has not independently confirmed BuzzFeed's reporting, nor for that matter has anyone else. And we got a fair amount of pushback and struggled to get it confirmed. MSNBC, NBC News couldn't confirm that information. 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. And by that evening, we saw something highly unusual. 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. The special counsel's office, which rarely speaks publicly, put out a statement knocking down the story. 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. Right. Saying very forcefully and very clearly something in this story is wrong.

This was a reporter's worst nightmare. 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.

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. So the people are saying heads should roll at BuzzFeed. right now than anyone else, saying your story's not true. So the people are saying heads should roll at BuzzFeed. You're hurting the news business as a whole. What do you say? I've been a reporter for 20 years.

This is going to be borne out, Brian. This story is accurate. 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. Hello? Hi, this is Mike Schmidt. Is Bob there? Yes, a second.

Good to see you. How are you, pal? To the home of Bob Woodward. 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 31st. One, two, one, two. How's that?

We'll see if we can quiet the dog in the door on the phone. I'm sorry, it's the real world. It's the real Bob Woodward. Well, the life of living with the dog. It's fine. So what's the story that Woodward told you? The story Woodward told me starts with the Watergate break-in in June of 1972. The 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. It was 2.30 in the morning and by 9 o'clock the editors at the Post were getting on, you know, how are we going to cover this? Five people have been arrested and charged with breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the middle of the night. Bob Woodward and his partner, Carl Bernstein, jumped on that story. I was sent to the courthouse and saw burglars in the business suits. Didn't make sense.

Lead burglar worked for the CIA. So there was an immediate curiosity. In the weeks and months after the break-in, Woodward and Carl Bernstein are out front on this coverage. 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 GOP anyway.

Mr. Nixon, did you know about the burglary of our Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate? They are doing everything possible to figure out ties between the burglars who broke into the Watergate and Nixon's campaign. 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. And they kind of have the story all to themselves. They are out front, even when some news organizations are ignoring it.

Including The Times. The Post was ahead. Big time. including the Times. The post was ahead, big time. We started developing sources like the bookkeeper who kept the 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. And they discover this slush fund, this pot of money that Nixon's advisors 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. 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 treasurer. 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. So this reporting is starting to get closer and closer to President Nixon himself. Correct. And that October, Woodward and Bernstein thought they had a huge scoop. All roads led to Haldeman, the White House chief of staff. That's H.R. Haldeman. H.R. Bob Haldeman.

They had learned that H.R. Haldeman, the person closest to the president, controlled the slush fund. So we interviewed people, including Hugh Sloan, and he finally said it was Haldeman. And Hugh Sloan, the treasurer of Nixon's campaign, had testified about that to the grand jury investigating the president. A big scoop. Correct. This was the big story. If he was involved in this, if he could authorize money, that led right to Nixon's doorstep. Because this would be the first person inside the White House at the time who was also controlling the funds from the slush fund. Precisely. 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. 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. So Bernstein comes up with a workaround, and he says to the official, he said, I'll count to 10, and if it's okay, tell me it's okay. 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. And this was done in a very clever but direct way. So Bernstein starts counting. very clever but direct way. So Bernstein starts counting. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. And the lawyer said, you've got it straight now. You've got it straight now. Bernstein thanked him again and hung up. He told me about it. We have a fourth source.

They tell the editors and they publish. So then what happens? As they expected, the story lands with huge impact. The story came out, lead story, and we feel quite comfortable. 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... A reporter at the Post, education reporter Eric Wentworth, said, have you seen what happened on television? And we hadn't seen anything.

Did you guys just see what Hugh Sloan's lawyer said on television? And what had Sloan's lawyer said? I assume you're referring to the testimony before the grand jury is reported in the Washington Post this morning. Sloan's lawyer, with Slo assume you're referring to the testimony before the grand jury is reported in the Washington Post this morning. Sloan's lawyer, with Sloan standing right next to him. Our answer to that is an unequivocal no. Mr. Sloan did not implicate Mr. Holliman in that testimony at all. Had come out and knocked the story down.

And Sloan's our source and somebody we developed a close relationship with, as you know, with sources. And it is agony. Here you had his lawyer standing there on national television saying, the story's not true. I can't describe the emotions, but they included, we're finished, we're going to have to resign. It's the worst feeling as a journalist, right? 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. So what had actually happened? Had they gotten anything wrong? They didn't know. We were saying, well, we need to write some sort of story. We need to back down or we need to explain.

And then Bradley said, look, you're not even sure whether you've 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. for a while. So Woodward called Sloan's lawyer. He said, look, you don't have to apologize for this.

And essentially, it's true. The general thrust of the story is right. But you're wrong on the grand jury testimony. You connected the dots that were not connectable. You guys were just off when you said that Sloan testified about this to the grand jury. And then I finally got to deep throat, Mark felt. So then Woodward went to deep throat. I mean, this was 3 a.m. I think the next day or two days later, the days rushed together. And Deep Throat told him. 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. The story was right. The whole thing, Watergate, all the espionage, is a Haldeman operation. He's behind it. But you guys, by getting that one fact wrong about the grand jury, have done the improbable. You've got people feeling sorry for Haldeman. I didn't think that was possible. You've made people feel bad for Haldeman, one of the most disliked people in Washington. And one of the ringleaders of these dirty tricks with access to the slush fund, a main character in this illegal plot. The person closest to Nixon.

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. There were three things. One was that they were proceeding with confirmation bias. Carla and I had heard what we wanted to hear. They thought the information was true. They were simply looking for sources to give them the okay to move forward with that. The second thing is that... We didn't go through that process of sitting with Sloan and saying,

okay, did they ask you at the grand jury about Haldeman's role? at the grand jury about Haldeman's role. 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. Right, because he might have noticed them referring to a grand jury and he would have said, no, what you're saying is right, but I never said it to a grand jury.

Correct. It would have been a good way to catch it. And the third thing. The whole Bernstein, you know, silent confirm or hang up method. Is that when Bernstein on deadline called the Justice Department official and used this confusing way of asking him about it, that failed too. Everyone was just shaking their head. That only made everyone more ill. And they missed a final opportunity to catch the mistake. 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? So what they did a day or heart of the story was true, was he able to report that? So what they did a day or so after the story was write a piece. Let's level as much as we can, and we were able in this case to level. And they said... We were wrong on the grand jury,

but it was a Haldeman operation. 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. I'm not sure it had any traction because it looked like in the beginning of 1973, Watergate might just recede, go away. So the story came at a critical time in the narrative because there were questions about whether this was really a story. Yes, and whether we had it right. The initial splash of the wrong story overshadows the important news that is right.

Hmm. 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. Right. 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. I don't respect the type of journalism, the shabby journalism that is being practiced by the Washington Post.

And I use the term shoddy journalism, shabby journalism, and I use the term character assassination. What you are saying is wrong. You have no credibility because of that. Mr. Vice President, Mrs. Agnew, all of our very distinguished guests here at the showroom. Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected that November. I've never known a national election when I would be able to go to bed earlier than tonight. And the roots of fake news in the American discourse begin to grow. That's happened to you.

Correct. 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 those, not make any mistake.

So you're saying all these decades later, this story is still in the back of your mind as you report. Indeed it is. I've been sitting here with you. Thank you for reliving this chapter of my life. It's, 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. Great. I think we got everything, right? Okay. Good. Okay. That was great. We'll be right back. 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? You know, Peter, or at least 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. But come on, one paragraph? That's a dereliction of duty to send a three-sentence email. I would say, I would say,

and I think Anthony will be able to find a comment. But look, Ben, when I send emails 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, that's quite a statement. Process question number two Yeah. Why publish Thursday night as opposed to waiting for a third source or a fourth source, knowing the stakes of this story? 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? I mean, it was not like Anthony walked into my office on Thursday 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. Mike, why did this story that Woodward told you remind you of the BuzzFeed story? Because in both cases, they were really reporting two things. 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 Holdeman 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. 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. Yes. But it was the second part that they didn't have locked down that undercut them in their reporting in the story. It 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. 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. 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. Right. And their errors seeming very small. 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. 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. 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. Mike, thank you very much. Thanks for having me. Here's what else you need to know today. 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, 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. All right, water, water. Woo! And it's evaporating. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.