So the e-mail comes out and it's not the "threat" Bob Woodward comes out claiming it was:
1. He makes an apology. Good start to a threat I always say.1. I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — 2. but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.
But 3. I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start.
2. Tells him he's not focusing properly. Again, good lead up to a threat.
3. Big bad threat boiled down: Your opinion is wrong, and you'll be proven wrong eventually.
I was waiting for: We'll ruin your journalism career or you'll never work in this town again!
I guess it was too much to hope for. Once again, much ado about nothing. The fact that Bob Woodward himself replied with the long version of 'it's cool dude', pretty much destroys any credibility the OP and Woodward had on calling the e-mail a threat.