Bernstein’s scoop on Cohen takes hit as 1 source recants
The Washington Post
Carl Bernstein is no stranger to anonymous sources and big scoops. The former Washington Post reporter became a journalistic legend more than four decades ago by relying on unnamed sources when he and Post colleague Bob Woodward were breaking stories about the Watergate scandal.
But Mr. Bernstein’s latest blockbuster story has come under heavy fire, beset by a troubling question: Is it accurate?
Mr. Bernstein, now with CNN, was one of three reporters for the network who broke what seemed like a bombshell on July 26. Citing “sources with knowledge,” Mr. Bernstein and others reported that Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, claimed that he was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller about Mr. Trump’s involvement in a fateful meeting at Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The June meeting involved senior campaign advisers to Mr. Trump, including his son Donald and Russian representatives who were purportedly bearing damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent. Mr. Cohen, according to CNN, was prepared to tell Mr. Mueller that Mr. Trump knew in advance about the meeting and had approved it.
If true, such a statement would directly implicate Mr. Trump in a conspiracy with Russian agents to sway the 2016 election. Mr. Trump and his son have repeatedly denied that the candidate had any foreknowledge of the meeting.
One big problem with the story: Since its publication in July, one of the story’s sources — Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis — has recanted. Contrary to his original comments, Mr. Davis told CNN and The Washington Post over the weekend that he is no longer sure that Mr. Cohen knew of any foreknowledge on the part of Mr. Trump or that Mr. Cohen is ready to discuss any such knowledge with the special counsel’s investigators.
“I made a mistake and I have to take the hit,” Mr. Davis said in an interview late Tuesday, commenting again on the issue. “I should have been much clearer [in the original interview with CNN]. I should have said. ‘I can’t answer that question. Don’t depend on me. I’m not confident’ “about what Mr. Cohen might have known. “I don’t blame Bernstein or [his co-writers]. I blame me.”
Despite Mr. Davis’ walkback, CNN continues to stand by its July story. A spokeswoman, Allison Gollust, said Mr. Bernstein and co-writers Jim Sciutto and Marshall Cohen had “more than one source” on their original story and the organization is “confident in our reporting of it.”
Mr. Bernstein declined to comment when reached on Tuesday.
In comments he made on CNN when his story was published last month, Mr. Bernstein stressed that his story relied on multiple sources, not just Mr. Davis. He also said that Mr. Cohen had an incentive to cooperate with prosecutors by turning on Mr. Trump because doing so might help him avoid a long prison sentence.
“What we also know is that Mr. Cohen, up until this point, does not have a great record of credibility,” he said, adding, “[Mr. Cohen] is also shopping for a get out of jail card.”
CNN’s insistence on the story’s accuracy appears to turn on a subtle point: The network’s reporters faithfully reported what their sources, including Mr. Davis, told them at the time, making the story accurate in the moment. Although one of these sources — Mr. Davis — has now bolted, another source, who remains unnamed, has stood firm, enabling CNN to stand behind its reporting.
Mr. Davis said in an interview Tuesday that he does not know who Mr. Bernstein’s and CNN’s other sources might be, but he ruled out Mr. Cohen.
WASHINGTON — White House Counsel Don McGahn, a consequential insider in President Donald Trump’s legal storms and successes and a key figure in the administration’s handling of the Russia investigation, will be leaving in the fall, the president announced Wednesday.
Mr. McGahn’s exit continues the churn of top officials as the administration sets records for turnover and the White House struggles to fill key vacancies.
Unlike some less-amiable separations, however, Mr. Trump praised Mr. McGahn as “a really good guy” who has done “an excellent job.”
Mr. Trump said Mr. McGahn’s departure had nothing to do with his interviews with the special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russiain the 2016 election.
Pressed by reporters, Mr. Trump said he had approved the attorney’s interviews and was unconcerned about anything Mr. McGahn might tell prosecutors.
“We do everything straight,” he said. “We do everything by the book.”
The departure of Mr. Trump’s top lawyer, which has been expected, will create a vacancy in one of the most critical — and yet least visible — positions within the West Wing. Besides dealing with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Mr. McGahn has had important input on a range of issues from policy to personnel to national security. He will remain at the White House until after the expected Senate confirmation vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump said in a tweet.
Mr. McGahn, a top election lawyer who served as general counsel on Mr. Trump’s campaign, has