The source doesn't get to write the story, Maggie. That's *not* how this works.
Hope, having just admitted to *habitual white lies*, can say whatever she wants now about why she's leaving Trump's side, and no one is obligated to believe her given the exigencies of her situation.
Hope, having just admitted to *habitual white lies*, can say whatever she wants now about why she's leaving Trump's side, and no one is obligated to believe her given the exigencies of her situation.
2/ Those exigencies were clear to Hope months ago—so the idea she made the decision after being grilled for 9 hours by Congress on whether her boss should be impeached/imprisoned says nothing about her original reasoning *or* her present thinking on the timing of her resignation.
3/ I'd tell the aspiring reporters I teach to say, "Hicks says she began thinking about resigning months ago, a claim sources confirm." That's entirely separate from whether yesterday affected the timing or whether the whole Mueller probe led her to "begin thinking" of resigning.
4/ I don't understand why—and I say this sincerely to @maggieNYT—the reaction to reader response to the story is to quickly begin reporting facts not present in the original piece, like the new (at a minimum implied) claim Hicks leaving has *nothing* to do with the Mueller probe.
5/ If I read Maggie right, her sources say *only* Hope didn't suddenly choose to resign due to yesterday's grilling. They *don't* say whether it could've been a *factor* or if the Mueller probe was part of her broader reasoning on resignation. I think Maggie is implying too much.
6/ My strong reaction to Maggie's follow-up tweet wasn't intended to imply Maggie doesn't know what she's doing—she's an expert. But she has a demonstrated pattern of reporting then editorializing her stories in a way that makes me uncomfortable as someone who teaches journalism.
7/ Hope Hicks spoke to Mueller in early December—which is "months ago"—so when Maggie cites sources insisting Hope began thinking of leaving "months ago" that in *no* way alters the *distinct* possibility it was her questioning broadly writ (by Mueller and Congress) in play here.
8/ Moreover, both a House Intel source and apparently others are saying that there are signs the *timing* of this caught everyone unawares—another fact untouched by Maggie's I'm sure strong reporting. And if so, the *timing* could still well have to do with yesterday's grilling.
9/ NYT: "...thinking about it for MONTHS..."
CNN: "A source familiar with her thinking said she first seriously considered resigning in the wake of the scandal [TWO WEEKS AGO] involving former senior aide Rob Porter—whose public defense Hicks helped craft while also dating him."
CNN: "A source familiar with her thinking said she first seriously considered resigning in the wake of the scandal [TWO WEEKS AGO] involving former senior aide Rob Porter—whose public defense Hicks helped craft while also dating him."
10/ "Months" could put Hicks' decision pre-Mueller grilling (early December); "weeks" would definitely put it after the grilling, meaning Mueller interrogating her for two days in December 2016 *absolutely* could have played into her thinking, contra what I think the NYT implies.
PS/ Meanwhile, apparently MSNBC is implying that this *is* a classic "friends and family say get out now or go down with the ship" scenario.
So I really think Maggie and the NYT need to be careful about wanting to report a story *and* supply it with a pro-Trump editorial gloss.
So I really think Maggie and the NYT need to be careful about wanting to report a story *and* supply it with a pro-Trump editorial gloss.
