The NYT is fighting back in defense of its “blockbuster” story about Rosenstein. But its defense is extraordinarily weak.

“The New York Times Stands By Its Rod Rosenstein Scoop”

In fact, as I read it (and I’ve read it three times), the interview (between Isaac Chotiner of Yahoo! and NYT co-author Michael Schmidt) actually CONFIRMS that the Times reporters didn’t speak to anyone who was in the room, and equally damaging, that the reporters haven’t seen the memos, but have only heard descriptions of them.

That, I think, is the most natural interpretation of this exchange:

Chotiner (Yahoo): …That this is all based on either second-hand accounts — people who were in the room told these people you spoke to — or in a way, third-hand, which is from the memos?

Schmidt: I wouldn’t assume that. I would say that we took the sourcing as far as we could take it, and sometimes if you’re more specific in sourcing incidents, you get concerned that you could jeopardize a source. So it’s a balancing act between how much you can show the reader and how much you need to protect someone, and just in general, that’s the decision we have to make all the time. So I would just say that we took the sourcing as far as we could.

This really doesn’t make any sense. Suppose Schmidt had said in the interview: “Look, we did have someone on deep background who was in the room and who told us the remark was not sarcastic.”

Would that clear and unequivocal statement have jeopardized this source any more than s/he is jeopardized now (assuming there is such a person)? After all, Goldman and Schmidt have First Amendment protection. They cannot be forced to disclose the identity of such a person.

And how could such a clear and unequivocal statement have jeopardized a source’s standing INSIDE the DOJ? If there were such a person, s/he would be at risk of being “outed” by someone like Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and the jeopardy is the same whether the individual gave permission to the NYT reporters to say that s/he was in the room or not.

So I think the most natural interpretation is this: “Don’t assume we don’t know what went on in the room. At least one of our sources is very close to that event, and although s/he wasn’t actually in the room, believe me, his or her account is more reliable than the source who has come out in defense of the department and as a spokesman for the department on the issue, and claimed that the statement(s) were ‘sarcastic.’”

Schmidt claims that the story was not leaked — that the Times worked on the story for months and had to extract the story from the sources with great difficulty.

So why was the story put out only yesterday? Did the story just come together enough in the last few days for it to be published yesterday?

Benjamin Wittes, who has come to the defense of the Times, believes that the story can be explained as the outcome of a battle between Rosenstein and McCabe.

But it is unlikely that McCabe (or one of his allies) would be rash enough to give the kind of “deep background” interviews that the Times got. McCabe’s already in a lot of trouble, and he will undoubtedly be subpoenaed over the whole matter.

Furthermore, although McCabe has not spoken publicly about this, his lawyer Michael Bromwich has said that his client doesn’t know how the memos (or word about them) found its way to the Times.

I continue to believe Rosenstein, and Rosenstein’s claim that this story was moved by people who wished to harm not just him, but the DOJ, the FBI (and by implication) the Mueller probe.

After all, It is easy to believe THAT. It was predictable, and in fact it is what (almost) happened — and might still happen.

To counter the only narrative that really makes sense on its face, we only have Schmidt’s claim that the Time’s sources were “reliable.”

My question: As reliable as the NYT article by Eric Lichtblau, published on the eve of the Nov 6 2016 election, that asserted that the FBI had found no evidence of collusion? (We know now that US intel had opened Operation Crossfire Hurricane in mid-July of 2106!)

Finally, as I’ve pointed out in a previous thread, this story threatens great damage even if the remarks WERE sarcastic. (“Ironic” might be a better term.)

It would be surprising if people in the FBI and DOJ didn’t discuss their concerns about Trump, and discuss ways of dealing with the situation that would antagonize and even infuriate Trump.

As Schmidt himself says in the Yahoo article:

“I think that, since the day Donald Trump took office, folks ranging from law enforcement, to political appointees, to career officials have been unnerved by the president and are more willing to talk. And we have seen that throughout the entire presidency. I have not seen that go up or down. I’ve seen that be pretty steady.”

The only question at this point is the motivation of the people who leaked their interpretations and accounts of the memos; gave “deep background” interviews that impugned Rosenstein; and whether the Times is right that RR behaved so “erratically,” and was so discombobulated, that he said and did the things alleged about him in all seriousness.

Unlikely yesterday, and it remains unlikely today — even in the wake of the defense of the Times that Schmidt tries to make in the Yahoo interview.