Alana Goodman at the Washington Free Beacon reports that the Hillary Clinton camp held a secret meeting with editors and reporters at The New York Times to complain about their coverage. The message: Back off.
Goodman writes “sources familiar with the meeting describe it as an attempt to brush back and even intimidate the staff of the Times.” This could be especially intimidating after the newspaper's publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. tossed out female executive editor Jill Abramson.
During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper’s coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
Neither the Times nor the Clinton camp would discuss on the record specifics.
Isn’t it ridiculous that Hillary would get all the adoring attention and massive speaking fees of a president-in-waiting and then tell the press corps that she’s “left public office” and should face no scrutiny? Goodman referred to what stories may have been discussed:
Chozick’s recent reporting includes a story last month that suggested a family feud was brewing between the Clintons and Marjorie Margolies, Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law.
Margolies lost her Democratic primary bid for U.S. Congress in late May, and the Times reported that Hillary Clinton’s conspicuous absence from the campaign had rankled some Margolies allies.
In April, the Times also reported on Clinton’s difficulty defining her accomplishments at the State Department.
Scott Whitlock also noted a puffy Chozick front-pager on how the Clintons would seek to reclaim "populist" (i.e. ultraliberal) ground on income inequality, so it's not like the Clintons have a lot of complaining to do. But part of the Clintons maintaining their "inevitable" grip on the Democratic nomination clearly means keeping their partisan press operatives in line.
