On her MSNBC show on Wednesday, anchor Andrea Mitchell referred to the leaked e-mails from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta as “an incredible, rich narrative of what was going on inside the campaign” but then asked New York Times reporter Amy Chozick “what do we see as the really, you know, smoking guns, if you will, in these e-mails?”
Amazingly, Chozick claimed there were none: “I mean, it's incredible insight into a campaign....In terms of a smoking gun, we haven't really seen one....certainly we haven't seen anything that, as the Trump campaign would like, to be sort of that smoking gun.”
No smoking gun? How about the numerous journalists seen colluding with the campaign, including CNBC’s John Harwood? What about Clinton staffers going on anti-Catholic tirades?
Chozick went on to warn her press colleagues:
And I think, as journalists, we really have to be cautious because, you know, these dumps sometimes happen and everything’s authentic until something is doctored or inauthentic. And at the end of the day, these were – this was an illegal breach on John Podesta’s e-mails, and so I think we have to be cautious when we dig through these.
<<< Please consider helping NewsBusters financially with your tax-deductible contribution today >>>
Mitchell agreed: “And let me just say, what Podesta was saying last night, and this is from the perspective of a campaign chairman, but also a victim, this is stolen property. He was hacked.”
Chozick similarly promoted Podesta’s victimhood:
And I think to your point about it being an illegal breach, I think all our newsrooms are in a brave new world in which we really have to think. If burglars had broken into the Brooklyn headquarters and stolen physical files and handed them over to us saying, “There’s some scoops in here,” you know, we would probably give that more thought. And so, I think you saw Podesta last night also cautioning us all to make clear that this was part of an illegal breach.
Here is a full transcript of the October 12 segment:
12:13 PM ET
ANDREA MITCHELL: And it's another day and another Wikileaks dump of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s hacked e-mails. On the Clinton campaign plane last night returning from Florida, Podesta drew a direct line from the Wikileaks release to Trump confidante Roger Stone and Moscow.
JOHN PODESTA: Stone pointed his finger at me and said that the – I could expect some treatment that would kind of expose me and ultimately said – sent out a tweet that said it would be my time in the barrel. I think it's a reasonable assumption to – or at least a reasonable conclusion – that Mr. Stone had advanced warning and the Trump campaign had advanced warning about what Assange was going to do.
MITCHELL: New York Times political reporter Amy Chozick was also on that flight, along with me and a group of other reporters, all crowded in around Podesta, and is here with me now. Amy, Podesta has no doubt, based on the intelligence briefing, that the Russians are involved at some level. And what he said last night that was interesting was the coincidence of timing. He drew that line between the first Wikileaks dump and the aftermath, the immediate aftermath, of that embarrassing video being released on Friday afternoon. And that would suggest some kind of coordination between Moscow, Julian Assange and at least some sense of the timing of the American – you know, what's happening electorally regarding Donald Trump.
AMY CHOZICK: I mean, look, the Clinton campaign would certainly like to make that connection and there is, you know, circumstantial evidence that there is a connection. The FBI is investigating Russian intelligence for being involved, of course, in the DNC hacks that happened during the convention and other sort of election-related hacking that they believe is designed by the Russians to help Donald Trump in this election. That being said, they have not pointed to specific evidence that the Russians were behind the hack of John Podesta's e-mails. So we just have to be, I think, a little bit cautious until we see or the government confirms that they are also responsible for those hacks.
I mean, that being said, as you mentioned, the timing is very curious. As soon as the Access Hollywood video posted, you’ll remember, late on Friday was sort of the first dump of John Podesta's e-mails. And he said that, that was first he had heard of it. So he hadn’t been approached by law enforcement warning him that he had been hacked in advance.
MITCHELL: And another thing that they pointed out was that Roger Stone had tweeted in August, mid-August, that John Podesta would be “next in the barrel” after the DNC, the DCCC, you know, hits.
CHOZICK: Well, I would say Donald Trump – sorry, Roger Stone has tweeted a lot of things to a lot of people, so that is –
MITCHELL: And we haven't drawn that direction connection to Donald Trump, either. He’s a firmer adviser and longtime associate, but we don’t know what the current – what is the current relationship?
CHOZICK: I think they're close. I think they talk every couple weeks. I think he listens to Roger Stone's advice. Certainly when you saw him bringing up Bill Clinton's past infidelities, that’s a line of attack Roger Stone has been trying to steer his friend Donald towards for a long time. But I think also Roger Stone met with Julian Assange in London at one point, and so there is sort of a connection. But what Podesta was trying to draw with the tweet, I think that’s a little bit tenuous. We haven't quite made that connection yet.
MITCHELL: So from what you have seen, you've been going through all of these, we've been reading as much as we can as we fly around madly on that rather crowded 737 that Hillary Clinton –
CHOZICK: Without great wifi.
MITCHELL: Without great wifi. And you know, middle seats and all the rest. But what do we see as the really, you know, smoking guns, if you will, in these e-mails? It is an incredible, rich narrative of what was going on inside the campaign during the primaries.
CHOZICK: Right, I mean, it's incredible insight into a campaign. And you get these dumps sort of after a campaign in the kind of Game Change books and things like that, but this is in the midst of a campaign where we're getting insight into their thinking. In terms of a smoking gun, we haven't really seen one. And I think, as journalists, we really have to be cautious because, you know, these dumps sometimes happen and everything’s authentic until something is doctored or inauthentic. And at the end of the day, these were – this was an illegal breach on John Podesta’s e-mails, and so I think we have to be cautious when we dig through these. And certainly we haven't seen anything that, as the Trump campaign would like, to be sort of that smoking gun.
MITCHELL: And let me just say, what Podesta was saying last night, and this is from the perspective of a campaign chairman, but also a victim, this is stolen property. He was hacked. He's not saying they were his, but certainly he says he can't authenticate them and that the Russians, as you point out, in the past have started out with authentic documents and then changed or altered documents and given – I mean, this is a very sophisticated intelligence op.
CHOZICK: Right.
MITCHELL: And at the same time, we don't know – it's taken out of the contest. There’s an example yesterday. Donna Brazile, well-known Democratic operative, at the time during the campaign she was a CNN contributor and panelist. And there's an e-mail that says, “I've been giving some access to some questions.” And because of the timing, everyone inferred, and this is what the Republicans wanted one to believe, that it was she was given questions in advance of a CNN town hall meeting and then was sharing that with the Hillary Clinton people, not with the Bernie Sanders people. Well, in fact, that's not true. Not only did she deny it and CNN deny it, but in fact she was being given narrative story lines for the CNN panel that they were doing, and according to Tad Devine, she was in constant contact with him, sharing the same information. She was a Democrat representing Democratic candidates on the CNN panel. And it was not at all what it was advertised to be.
CHOZICK: No, and I think that's why it’s – you know, we have to approach these things as something that needs greater reporting. You cannot just go on what you see in the e-mails. And I think to your point about it being an illegal breach, I think all our newsrooms are in a brave new world in which we really have to think. If burglars had broken into the Brooklyn headquarters and stolen physical files and handed them over to us saying, “There’s some scoops in here,” you know, we would probably give that more thought. And so, I think you saw Podesta last night also cautioning us all to make clear that this was part of an illegal breach. But certainly these things can be reporting tools, but they need additional confirmation, as with the Donna Brazile case.
MITCHELL: Caution to be observed. And by the way, ten years of e-mails, that's stunning.
CHOZICK: 50,000 e-mails.
MITCHELL: 50,000 e-mails. And it’s going to be a daily dump.
CHOZICK: We have a lot of reading to do.
MITCHELL: Amy, as well, thank you so much.
CHOZICK: Thanks.
