Bob Woodward: White House said I would ‘regret’ it if I pursued the story

Longtime Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward is taking on the White House, saying in multiple interviews that the administration essentially threatened him to try to get him not to write a story.

Politico has an interview with Woodward and his correspondence with top Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling, in which Sperling apologizes for raising his voice at Woodward in a phone call but then proceeds to say Woodward would “regret” it if he pursued his story — about whether Obama had moved the goalposts on the sequester.
“But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post,” Sperling said in the e-mail obtained by Politico. “I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.”

Woodward, who didn’t name Sperling in his interviews, which occurred before the actual e-mails came out, said that last sentence amounted to a thinly veiled threat.

“‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo...atened-me/


this was the article which was written..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opi...story.html

It's slightly ammusing because the WH and Obama have gotten away with absolutely anything and everything in the MSM. Now that I look at info like this.. maybe that's because if they don't... there's a price to be paid? Is this how the 2012 election coverage was handled too?

If only we could see the email where woodward was "threatened" OH WAIT HERE IT IS:

http://www.politico.com/story/201...88226.html

Really terrifying stuff.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise.

Nabors has said, "We didn't actually think it would be that hard to convince them" - Reid and the Republicans - to adopt the sequester.

"It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table."

No it's not a weak threat. It's not a threat.

I think you will regret staking out that claim.

That is enough. That is a threat. This is how you deliver a threat and still allow for deniability. You don't have to be blatant when you have that much power and the person you are talking to knows how to read between the lines.

There is plenty of denability built in, so the Dems and Obama will get away with this one anyway.

woodward responded to the email, and interpreted it not as a threat:

"Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob"

What would you expect as a reply if he interpreted it as a threat? Outrage? (would be a fast track to that regret thing, wouldn't it?)

No, this is how the game is played. Hints and winks. You won't find hard evidence, if you did they wouldn't ever make it to POTUS, they would have been crushed shortly after making it to the Chicago courthouse, just after climbing from the alley.

Is denying access to Woodward for his next book not something he would regret?

"Regret" is completely ambiguous and includes perfectly legitimate retaliation, something every reporter knows is at stake.

The only surprising thing is that Sperling would spell it out in writing; it was a little heavy handed, for an experienced professional.