Here is my response to Helen Lewis’s email (published in full, linked here) in which she declares that she will be quoting from my response.
Lewis was not owed a better response, nor did she get one.
I was fully aware of what the receipts — evidence, if you will — looked like in its totality, and I was already made aware that Lewis was basing most of her article on the incomplete and redacted transcript. As a trained journalist, I knew that this was an extremely risky position from which to operate from, and as stated in the earlier pages, me telling her that she did not have the materials to factually report on this matter was me doing due diligence. I also knew that if this ended up in the legal realm, Lewis, Adrienne LaFrance (the Executive Editor who was cc’d on all of these emails) and The Atlantic could not say that they weren’t made aware. They were. They proceeded anyway.
I warned Lewis that “when I do speak, and share the receipts publicly and for the historical record, that we are all clear.” My warning was for her benefit, more than it was for mine, and I believe that Lewis thought she had me in a “gotcha” moment. Nothing could’ve been further from this truth. As a trained journalist, I understand these emails and warnings are due diligence, especially when the misinformation and false statements are liable to move into legal territory. Publishing facts about someone that you know are not true — and have not been properly fact checked — are grounds for a defamation lawsuit, which are never fun. Lewis knew that she did not have the full facts, which is why she was begging in her emails for my participation. (insert link) From my research and experience of dealing with White women who are out of their depth, these warnings usually mean nothing to them — they are never as smart as they think they are, and not nearly as irreplaceable as their hubris would have them believe.
