Dean Baquet

Executive Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York
July 28, 2015
Dear Mr. Baquet:
I am writing to officially register our campaigns grave concern with the Times publication of an
inaccurate report related to Hillary Clinton and her email use.
I appreciate the fact that both you and the Public Editor have sought to publicly explain how this error
could have been made. But we remain perplexed by the Times slowness to acknowledge its errors
after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times editors have made. We feel it
important to outline these concerns with you directly so that they may be properly addressed and so
our campaign can continue to have a productive working relationship with the Times.
I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story was. The New York Times is
arguably the most important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the
front page charging that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of a
criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating
a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the
fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and
removing criminal from the headline and text of the story.
To review the facts, as the Times itself has acknowledged through multiple corrections, the papers
reporting was false in several key respects: first, contrary to what the Times stated, Mrs. Clinton is
not the target of a criminal referral made by the State Departments and Intelligence Communitys
Inspectors General, and second, the referral in question was not of a criminal nature at all.
Just as disturbing as the errors themselves is the Times apparent abandonment of standard
journalistic practices in the course of its reporting on this story.
First, the seriousness of the allegations that the Times rushed to report last Thursday evening
demanded far more care and due diligence than the Times exhibited prior to this articles publication.
The Times readers rightfully expect the paper to adhere to the most rigorous journalistic standards.
To state the obvious, it is hard to imagine a situation more fitting for those standards to be applied
than when a newspaper is preparing to allege that a major party candidate for President of the
United States is the target of a criminal referral received by federal law enforcement.

This allegation, however, was reported hastily and without affording the campaign adequate
opportunity to respond. It was not even mentioned by your reporter when our campaign was first
contacted late Thursday afternoon. Initially, it was stated as reporting only on a memo provided to
Congress by the Inspectors General from the State Department and Intelligence Community that
raised the possibility of classified material traversing Secretary Clintons email system. This memo
which was subsequently released publicly did not reference a criminal referral at all. It was not
until late Thursday night at 8:36 pm that your paper hurriedly followed up with our staff to explain
that it had received a separate tip that the Inspectors General had additionally made a criminal
referral to the Justice Department concerning Clintons email use. Our staff indicated that we had no
knowledge of any such referral understandably, of course, since none actually existed and further
indicated that, for a variety of reasons, the reporters allegation seemed implausible. Our campaign
declined any immediate comment, but asked for additional time to attempt to investigate the
allegation raised. In response, it was indicated that the campaign had time, suggesting the
publication of the report was not imminent.
Despite the late hour, our campaign quickly conferred and confirmed that we had no knowledge
whatsoever of any criminal referral involving the Secretary. At 10:36 pm, our staff attempted to reach
your reporters on the phone to reiterate this fact and ensure the paper would not be going forward
with any such report. There was no answer. At 10:54 pm, our staff again attempted calling. Again, no
answer. Minutes later, we received a call back. We sought to confirm that no story was imminent and
were shocked at the reply: the story had just published on the Times website.
This was, to put it mildly, an egregious breach of the process that should occur when a major
newspaper like the Times is pursuing a story of this magnitude. Not only did the Times fail to engage
in a proper discussion with the campaign ahead of publication; given the exceedingly short window
of time between when the Times received the tip and rushed to publish, it hardly seems possible that
the Times conducted sufficient deliberations within its own ranks before going ahead with the story.
Second, in its rush to publish what it clearly viewed as a major scoop, the Times relied on
questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering to seek corroborating evidence that could
have supported its allegation.
In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had not personally reviewed the
IGs referral that they falsely described as both criminal and focused on Hillary Clinton. Instead, they
relied on unnamed sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all clear that
those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This should have represented too many degrees
of separation for any newspaper to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all The New York Times.
Times editors have attempted to explain these errors by claiming the fault for the misreporting
resided with a Justice Department official whom other news outlets cited as confirming the Times
report after the fact. This suggestion does not add up. It is our understanding that this Justice
Department official was not the original source of the Times tip. Moreover, notwithstanding the
officials inaccurate characterization of the referral as criminal in nature, this official does not appear

to have told the Times that Mrs. Clinton was the target of that referral, as the paper falsely reported
in its original story.
This raises the question of what other sources the Times may have relied on for its initial report. It
clearly was not either of the referring officials that is, the Inspectors General of either the State
Department or intelligence agencies since the Times sources apparently lacked firsthand
knowledge of the referral documents. It also seems unlikely the source could have been anyone
affiliated with those offices, as it defies logic that anyone so closely involved could have so severely
garbled the description of the referral.
Of course, the identity of the Times sources would be deserving of far less scrutiny if the underlying
information had been confirmed as true. However, the Times appears to have performed little, if any,
work to corroborate the accuracy of its sources characterizations of the IGs referral. Key details
went uninvestigated in the Times race to publish these erroneous allegations against Mrs. Clinton.
For instance, high in the Times initial story, the reporters acknowledged they had no knowledge of
whether or not the documents that the Times claimed were mishandled by Mrs. Clinton contained
any classified markings. In Mrs. Clintons case, none of the emails at issue were marked. This fact
was quickly acknowledged by the IC inspector generals office within hours of the Times report, but it
was somehow left unaddressed in the initial story.
Even after the Times reporting was revealed to be false, the Times incomprehensibly delayed the
issuance of a full and true correction.
Our campaign first sought changes from the Times as soon as the initial story was published.
Recognizing the implausibility that Mrs. Clinton herself could be the subject of any criminal probe, we
immediately challenged the storys opening line, which said the referral sought an investigation into
Mrs. Clinton specifically for the mishandling of classified materials. In response, the Times reporters
admitted that they themselves had never seen the IGs referral, and so acknowledged the possibility
that the paper was overstating what it directly knew when it portrayed the potential investigation as
centering on Mrs. Clinton. It corrected the lead sentence accordingly.
The speed with which the Times conceded that it could not defend its lead citing Mrs. Clinton as the
referrals target raises questions about what inspired its confidence in the first place to frame the
story that way. More importantly, the Times change was not denoted in the form of a correction.
Rather, it was performed quietly, overnight, without any accompanying note to readers. This was
troubling in its lack of transparency and risks causing the Times to appear like it is trying to
whitewash its misreporting. A correction should have been posted promptly that night.
Regardless, even after this change, a second error remained in the story: the characterization of the
referral as criminal at all. By Friday morning, multiple members of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (who had been briefed by the Inspectors General) challenged
this portrayaland ultimately, so did the Department of Justice itself. Only then did the Times finally

print a correction acknowledging its misstatement of the nature of the referral to the Justice
Department.
Of course, the correction, coming as it did on a Friday afternoon, was destined to reach a fraction of
those who read the Times original, erroneous report. As the Huffington Post observed:
its unlikely that the same audience will see the updated version unless the paper were to send
out a second breaking news email with its latest revisions. The Clinton story also appeared [on] the
front page of Fridays print edition.
Most maddening of all, even after the correction fixed the description of the referral within the story, a
headline remained on the front page of the Times website that read, Criminal Inquiry is Sought in
Clinton Email Account. It was not until even later in the evening that the word criminal was finally
dropped from the headline and an updated correction was issued to the story. The lateness of this
second correction, however, prevented it from appearing in the paper the following morning. We
simply do not understand how that was allowed to occur.
Lastly, the Times official explanations for the misreporting is profoundly unsettling.
In a statement to the Times public editor, you said that the errors in the Times story Thursday night
were unavoidable. This is hard to accept. As noted above, the Justice Department official that
incorrectly confirmed the Times initial reports for other outlets does not appear to have been the
initial source for the Times. Moreover, it is precisely because some individuals may provide
erroneous information that it is important for the Times to sift the good information from the bad, and
where there is doubt, insist on additional evidence. The Times was under no obligation to go forward
on a story containing such explosive allegations coming only from sources who refused to be named.
If nothing else, the Times could have allowed the campaign more time to understand the allegation
being engaged. Unfortunately, the Times chose to take none of these steps.
In closing, I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New
York Times. But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report,
and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have
confidence that it is not repeated in the future.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Palmieri
Communications Director
Hillary for America
Cc: Margaret Sullivan,
Public Editor
New York Times