By: Greg Mitchell Vicki Iseman, the Washington lobbyist linked to Sen. John McCain in a controversial front-page New York Times article this past February, finally sued the newspaper today over it (see separate story), charging defamation and damage to her career, and declaring that any claims of ?inappropriate? contact with the senator, romantic or otherwise, are false. The paper said it stands by its story. But how did it all begin and develop last winter?
The following are excerpts E&P Online articles that covered the emergence of this story, from its rumor stage (via Drudge more than a year ago) and then its blossoming two months later -- and the immediate reaction, outside and within the Times.
The critique by the paper's public editor, Clark Hoyt, may be key in the case. It was cited with emphasis in the legal document filed today by Iseman's attorney, who used the phrase it's "own public editor."
***
December 20, 2007A top-of-the-page (though without siren) story on the Drudge Report today declares that Sen. John McCain is appealing to The New York Times to halt an upcoming story that, allegedly, links him to some sort of improper activities involving a lobbyist.
Calls to several staffers at the Times by E&P have not been returned yet, but, oddly, the McCain campaign has responded in a rather oddly worded statement on the purported Times probe. Drudge headlines the story: "McCain Pleads with NYT to Spike Story."
The McCain response was emailed to E&P from Arlington, Va., and it comes from McCain's Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker: "It is unfortunate that rumor and gossip enter into political campaigns. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving this country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the important issues facing our country.
"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics. John McCain is the most experienced and prepared to lead as commander and chief, and he will continue to run a positive campaign on the issues."
Drudge also suggests that McCain "has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!" Now the story has gone "mainstream," with full reports by The Associated Press and Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post. Here are excerpts from those two reports.
*
AP: Sen. John McCain said Thursday he had "never done any favors for anybody?lobbyist or special interest group." McCain made the remark to reporters in Detroit when questioned about a report that The New York Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican.
He acknowledged that his presidential campaign aides have had discussions with the newspaper regarding its inquiries. "I have not had been in talks with The New York Times. They've been communicating with our staff and with us," McCain said. "I've never done any favors for anybody?lobbyist or special interest group?that's a clear, 24-year record."
McCain and four other senators were accused two decades ago of trying to influence banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate Ethics Committee said McCain had used "poor judgment" but also said his actions "were not improper" and warranted no penalty.
He questioned the timing of the allegations and compared them to the criticism he confronted in 2000 when he first ran for the presidency. "I do find the timing of this whole issue very interesting," McCain said. "And we're not going to stand for what happened to us in 2000. We're getting close to the primary. These allegations are coming out at a very interesting time, and I have never, ever done a favor for any lobbyist or special interest group."
Kurtz: The Arizona Republican has hired a prominent criminal attorney, Robert Bennett, to deal with the matter. "What is being done to John McCain is an outrage," Bennett said in an interview this morning.
Bennett is preparing answers to written questions submitted by a team of New York Times reporters who have spent weeks investigating questions about the senator and the lobbyist; she has also retained a lawyer, according to a knowledgeable source who asked not to be identified because he was discussing legal matters.
McCain called Times Executive Editor Bill Keller earlier this month to deny the allegations and to complain that he was not being treated fairly by the Times reporters, who have not yet interviewed him, the source said.
February 20, 2008It had the story back in December, rumor had it, but The New York Times did not run with it until tonight: detailing some kind of relationship between Sen. John McCain and a lobbyist more than 30 years his junior.
McCain has scheduled a press conference for Thursday at 9 a.m. One of his aides has charged that the Times only published its story now because The New Republic was about to carry a story claiming that there was great debate within the paper over the story. The magazine says its account will be posted on its site on Thursday. The Times has not yet responded to that charge.
The relationship from back in 2000 is part of a much longer story on McCain's ethics that carries multiple bylines: Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn Thompson, David Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton. Both McCain and the woman deny the reports, so it is interesting what changed to make the paper carry the story, quite prominently, now, at www.nytimes.com.
The Times story on Wednesday night reveals: "Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. 'I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,' he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper?s inquiries.
"The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December." The McCain campaign, in response to the story running, now says the Times is engaging in a "hit and run smear." But while it denied McCain had "never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists," it did not specifically deny a romantic affair.
The Times article opens: "Early in Senator John McCain?s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
"A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client?s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself ? instructing staff members to block the woman?s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
"When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist?s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
"Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
"In interviews ...two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
"Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after 'a discussion among the campaign leadership' about her."
Hours after The New York Times produced its newsmaking story, The Washington Post came out with a story that confirmed the Times report at least in part.
Later February 20The McCain campaign calls story a "hit and run smear campaign" -- but while it says he has not violated the ethics of his job it does not specifically deny any romantic link....It will be interesting to see how Rush Limbaugh et al play this tomorrow: Who do they hate more, McCain or the NYT?
February 21McCain denies 'NYT' claims, Weaver Confirms One Part
At a 9 a.m, presser today, with Cindy at his side in Toledo, John McCain refuted the Times story and said he was "disappointed" by it. He claimed that no one had come to him and tried to steer him away from the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. He called her just a friend. "I intend to move on," McCain said. I bet he does.
Next move: New York Times. McCain's denial today that anyone came to him to warn him off the woman does not square with the Times' sources -- so someone is telling a big lie.
Marc Ambinder at TheAtlantic.com reports an email from McCain associate Weaver who was quoted in Times story: "The New York Times knew about my meeting with Ms. Iseman and asked me about it and why it occurred. I informed the Times, in a written reply, that Ms. Iseman's comments about having strong ties to John's committee staff, personal staff and to him I felt were harmful and not true. And so I informed her and asked her to stop and desist. The moment I answered the inquiry from the New York Times I sent that answer also to Mark, Steve and Charlie. All of this happened in December. I've wanted John McCain to be president since I first approached him in 1997. I do so today. I love John McCain and I believe the country badly needs him."
***
In the proud tradition of candidates in both parties making the most (money) out of allegedly unfair attacks, both the McCain campaign and the RNC already have letters out fundraising around The New York Times blast.
In the wake of denials by McCain of certain claims, the paper's Executive Editor Bill Keller released this statement today: "On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats.
"This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it." Defenders of McCain have charged that the Times held the story and only released it once he had the GOP nod wrapped up. A McCain aide has claimed that the paper moved after it learned that the New Republic was about to release a story asserting that the paper was debating what to do with the story.
That Gabriel Sherman piece is now up at the New Republic site. He concludes: "The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable."
***
Gabriel Sherman of The New Republic, whose online piece today detailed months of backroom maneuvers that led to the bombshell New York Times story on John McCain, does not believe his piece prompted the Times to run its story early.
"That is the McCain campaign spin and we never set out to force the Times' hand or preempt the Times' piece," Sherman, a former New York Observer scribe, told E&P. "We were curious why the Times came close to publishing it and sat on it. We didn't try to force anything."
Sherman's story, which was posted just hours after the Times' story broke, offered a lengthy tale of the Times' efforts dating back to November 2007 to report on McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman.
His piece contends that the Times had several internal battles over publishing the piece, which has been criticized for its use of anonymous sources and weeks of delays following a report in December that the story was in the works.
Sherman reported today that he began looking into the back story on Feb. 4. Some have speculated that the Times posted its piece online Wednesday evening in anticipation of the New Republic story.
"They are The New York Times, they make decisions on when they are going to publish," Sherman said. "I have no way of knowing other than that we did experience some [Times] push back. We have no way of knowing if that pushed them to run their piece or not. We thought it was a compelling media story."
Sherman's piece also claimed that Marilyn Thompson, one of the four Times reporters on the story, left the paper recently for The Washington Post in part over frustration with the delays. "According to sources, Thompson became increasingly dispirited with the delays, and worked around the clock through the Christmas vacation on the piece, only to see the investigation sputter," he wrote.
Thompson today denied that the McCain story was the cause. In an e-mail to Radar Online, she stated: "I consider that assertion to be incorrect. The Post offer allowed me a chance to return to management and guide stories and reporting that I care about. If anything, this story made me realize I need to return to management."
Asked about Thompson's denial, Sherman said: "I'm sure that The Post wooed her with the opportunity to tackle some projects. It is also clear there were some serious frustrations that came out of this piece."
Times editors have not responded directly to E&P inquiries for comment. In a statement today, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said, "On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."
Sherman declined to comment on the Times' decision to publish the story, saying: "I don?t want to pass judgment on their decision. Only the editor and reporters know why. They are all professionals and immensely talented."
February 23Editors and reporters at The New York Times have been replying online to readers' queries about its bombshell Sen. John McCain/lobbyist story since yesterday but many have wondered: What would the paper's public editor have to say? Now we know.
Clark Hoyt's column for the Sunday paper has been put up at www.nytimes.com. After reviewing the story and Executive Editor Bill Keller's claim that the story really wasn't about "sex," Hoyt concludes as follows:
"A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.
"The stakes are just too big. As the flamboyant Edwin Edwards of Louisiana once said, 'The only way I can lose this election is if I?m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.'
"The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising 'poor judgment' by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients.
"Much of that story has been reported over the years, but it was still worth pulling together to help voters in 2008 better understand the John McCain who might be their next president.
"I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. 'That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,' she said.
"But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here