patrick.net

The Washington Post, interestingly, despite being a newspaper that claims to support transparency, did not provide either to Vance’s team earlier in the week when they were trying to respond to the newspaper’s inquiries or to its readers the full context of the conversations, including comments and questions that Gallagher made to Vance to prompt Vance’s comments in response that the Post deemed newsworthy. Vance’s team did not deny the authenticity of the messages – the senator’s advisers just asked the Post to be transparent about the full context of the conversations and with whom the messages were exchanged. The Post made clear in its story that it refused to do so.

“While Martin said Vance recalled the 2020 exchanges, he criticized The Post for not identifying the person who disclosed the messages and for not sharing with the campaign the entirety of the conversation, portions of which were withheld to protect the person’s anonymity,” Jamison wrote. “Martin said The Post was engaged in ‘nothing more than unethical journalism.’”

Interestingly, however, Jamison did not in his story reveal that he knew that Vance knew who leaked these messages as far back as earlier this week several days before the Post published its piece.

The Washington Post, Breitbart News can also exclusively reveal, knew before the publication of its story that Gallagher’s identity would become publicly known and decided to proceed anyway with withholding that information from its readers. On-record emails between Vance’s staff and the Washington Post reporter, Jamison, show that Jamison knew as early as Wednesday that he could not protect the identity of the leaker because Vance’s team told him on record in a quote that the Post refused to publish that Gallagher was the source.

On Wednesday evening, Martin told Jamison in an email that he subsequently provided to Breitbart News on record that Gallagher was his source.

“Senator Vance recalls these conversations with Kevin Gallagher, a principal at Deloitte, and we find it shocking that the Washington Post has refused to provide us with the full context of the conversation and is refusing to name their source in the story,” Vance’s spokesman, Martin, told Jamison. “They will likely cut this quote from publication because they clearly don’t believe in transparency for their readers. For a newspaper to run a story based on a leaked conversation while refusing to provide the subject of the story the entire exchange or even the name of the other party involved is nothing more than unethical journalism. Apparently, Democracy really does die in darkness at the Washington Post.”

Jamison, rather than being honest and transparent with the Washington Post’s readers, simply edited this full quote down, removing large chunks of it from the story and only using one part of one sentence from it.

Even more curiously, when the Washington Post had done a previous similar piece about Vance messages with Charles Johnson, the newspaper named Johnson and included the full context of the messages in its story. It’s unclear why the newspaper would shield Gallagher’s identity from publication, especially since he works for the world-renowned consulting firm Deloitte, but not Johnson.