NBC Reporter Suggests Clinton Campaign Impropriety, Is Promoted By Trump, And Then Walks It Back

10:13 AM EST: NBC News Reporter Tom Winter Implies Impropriety Because Hacked WikiLeaks Email Revealed Clinton Press Secretary Communicated About Clinton Email Court Hearing. Winter wrote on Twitter, “NEW: Hacked e-mails from Wikileaks appear to show Clinton campaign spokesman in touch with DOJ officials regarding e-mail litigation.” The May 2015 email in question describes the scheduling of a routine “status hearing” involving representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) at a court overseeing the release of Clinton’s secretary of state work emails. Winter’s post has been retweeted more than 4,600 times (at time of publication):

NEW: Hacked e-mails from Wikileaks appear to show Clinton campaign spokesman in touch with DOJ officials regarding e-mail litigation: pic.twitter.com/nlBZ3aHZh5

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) October 11, 2016

11:03 AM EST: Winter: “What Is Of Potential Interest Is Whether Or Not A Former DOJ Employee Was Speaking With DOJ Officials While Working For Clinton Camp.” Winter called attention to the fact that Brian Fallon, Clinton’s press secretary, previously worked for DOJ, but he did not explain how this fact could amount to an impropriety:

What is of potential interest is whether or not a former DOJ employee was speaking with DOJ officials while working for Clinton camp. https://t.co/i1kIq81cKf

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) October 11, 2016

11:25 AM EST: Donald Trump: “Wow. Unbelievable.” Trump promoted Winter’s initial tweet, garnering more than 10,000 retweets at time of publication:

Wow. Unbelievable. https://t.co/RcBPCcmwnD

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2016

11:35 AM EST: Winter: “Of Course There Could Be Nothing Improper In This E-Mail At All. If Fallon Was The Designated Clinton Contact With DOJ For Scheduling.” After Trump promoted his claim, Winter introduced a major caveat. This tweet has been retweeted just 33 times at time of publication:

Of course there could be nothing improper in this e-mail at all. If Fallon was the designated Clinton contact with DOJ for scheduling.

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) October 11, 2016

11:37 AM EST: Winter: “And Certainly The Information About Court Schedules Is One That Is Available To Any Member Of The Public.” Winter introduced a second major caveat, garnering just 22 retweets at time of publication:

And certainly the information about court schedules is one that is available to any member of the public.

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) October 11, 2016

12:12 PM EST: NextGen Climate’s Jamison Foser: “This Is An Irresponsible Way To Do Journalism, And A Reminder That Breathless Reporting About Hacked Emails Is Dumb.” Foser, who previously worked for Media Matters, criticized Winter on Twitter:

This is an irresponsible way to do journalism, and a reminder that breathless reporting about hacked emails is dumb. pic.twitter.com/UaQYWEb7vs

— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) October 11, 2016

1:07 PM EST: CNN’s Brianna Keilar: “Isn’t It Inappropriate That There Was This Communication Between The Clinton Campaign And The Justice Department?” Keilar questioned Clinton surrogate Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) over the email that Winter brought attention to, strongly suggesting that the email was evidence of something improper and that it called into question the independence of the Justice Department. Keilar also falsely said that the hearing was related to an FBI investigation of Clinton’s emails; in fact the hearing was related to the scheduled release of those emails in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.  Keilar did not report any of Winter’s caveats. Israel said he hadn’t seen the email:

KEILAR: One of the latest ones that we’ve seen has to do with the campaign communicating with the Justice Department about the releasing schedule of emails, I mean that seems a little untoward at the very least that there was this communication between a campaign and between a Justice Department that is supposed to be independent.

[...]

KEILAR: Isn’t it inappropriate that there was this communication between the Clinton campaign and the Justice Department?  

[...]

KEILAR: Emails aside, should the Clinton campaign -- should a campaign be communicating with an independent Justice Department about something pertaining to the candidate doing something that was being investigated by the FBI? [CNN, Wolf, 10/11/16; Politico, 5/19/15]

 

1:07 PM EST: Conservative Legal Writer: “The Implication Here Goes Too Far.” Gabriel Malor, an attorney who who writes for the conservative website The Federalist, explained in a series of tweets how media are baselessly scandalizing the email:

Guys, the implication here goes too far. Easiest thing in the world to get confirmation on a scheduled status update. It's no secret. https://t.co/qJNbiS9tHf

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 11, 2016

Also, recall that develop'ts regarding cases involving production of Clinton emails were covered by press. @joshgerstein comes to mind.

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 11, 2016

There is no evidence for this. The hearing schedule was public info, as was the judge's order to work out a production plan. https://t.co/MDo17eRW7l

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 11, 2016

3:27 PM EST: Politico Reports That Evidence Disproves Trump Campaign’s Claims That The Email Indicates “Collusion” Between Clinton Campaign And DOJ. Politico reported, “Donald Trump's campaign is saying a hacked email reveals 'collusion' between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Justice Department that tainted the criminal investigation into Clinton's private email set-up, even though the message predates that probe.” Noting that an NBC News reporter's tweet brought attention to the email, Politico quoted Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer for the Bush administration, who told Politico, “Sounds like the type of communication I would routinely have with the [Republican National Committee] when I worked at the White House: giving them a status update”:

Donald Trump's campaign is saying a hacked email reveals 'collusion' between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Justice Department that tainted the criminal investigation into Clinton's private email set-up, even though the message predates that probe.

[…]

However, the email came two months before the FBI opened a criminal investigation into the email arrangement and the handling of classified information found on Clinton's server. Notice of the hearing, involving a FOIA case brought a Vice News reporter, was on the federal court's public website and the session was open to the public.

[…]

Federal government employees are generally prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity while at work, but one ethics expert said Tuesday that restriction does not bar all communications with campaigns.

“Sounds like the type of communication I would routinely have with the [Republican National Committee] when I worked at the White House: giving them a status update,” said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.

Painter also said it would be appropriate for Justice Department lawyers to advise Clinton's aides or lawyers of what position the government was taking on FOIA requests for her emails.

“Mrs. Clinton's office is certainly entitled to know what the U.S. is going to do in these [FOIA] cases to the extent the government is willing to share that,” said the former government ethics lawyer, now a law professor at the University of Minnesota. “I don’t think the fact that a former official is running for office changes that a lot. You do need to be somewhat careful that you are not engaged in advocacy or trying to coordinate with a political campaign a strategy for litigation or something like that.” [Politico, 10/11/16]