The Briefing

by Sean Spicer

  In the span of twenty-four hours, I had gone from presenting the White House response to media questions and criticism about the FBI director’s firing, to being pilloried by a false meme about hiding in bushes, to having reporters question my service to the Navy. That last part really got me angry.

  Joining the Navy remains one of the greatest decisions of my life. I have had the honor of serving alongside some of the most talented, patriotic, and brave individuals I could ever hope to meet. Each of us decides how to serve and fulfill our duties as a citizen in our own way.

  On May 11, while I was still on duty at the Pentagon, the president sat down for an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt. It was recorded in the Cabinet Room and replayed on several NBC shows as well as other news outlets.

  “I was going to fire Comey—my decision . . . I was going to fire regardless of [the] recommendations” of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Trump said.2 The president also stated that Comey had to be fired because he was a “showboat” and a “grandstander”—observations that were well borne out by the behavior described in Rosenstein’s letter.

  I knew what Donald Trump was thinking: Here I am, a president who has begun to dismantle the regulatory state, reshape the appellate bench to conservative principles, establish policies that favor economic growth, and reset international relationships to better serve the needs of this country—yet day in and day out, I have to deal with this other narrative on Russia. I interpreted the interview as saying that Rod Rosenstein’s memo reaffirmed what the president had already been thinking—that America needed a new director of the FBI. But the media didn’t see it that way.

  The president was clear in the interview that he wanted any investigation into Russian interference in the election to be “absolutely done properly.” He also understood that firing Comey would not end any investigation and might lengthen it. That wasn’t the point. The president had decided to fire Comey, who, as director of the FBI, served at the pleasure of the president (as Comey conceded), and Rosenstein had valid reasons for recommending Comey’s dismissal.

  “Trump is putting a lot on the backs of his spokespeople, while simultaneously cutting their legs out from underneath them,” Alex Conant, a former Marco Rubio adviser told Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman at the New York Times. Newt Gingrich added that the president “resembles a quarterback who doesn’t call a huddle and gets ahead of his offensive line so nobody can block [for] him and defend him because nobody knows what the play is.”3

  Another curveball came our way when the president tweeted, “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

  For older Americans, talk of “tapes” brought back memories of Nixon and Watergate. The president later admitted that there had been no recordings made of his conversations with James Comey. So why this particular shot across the bow?

  A sense of injustice over double standards has been a sore point for Republicans for years. For anyone who has dealt with classified information, the rules are clear. You may not reproduce or distribute classified information, period. To do so is to commit a serious crime. Hillary Clinton and her long-time aide, Huma Abedin, had copied classified information and stored it on unsecure servers. Abedin sent her classified information to her husband, Anthony Weiner—now imprisoned for illicit sexual communications with a minor—for him to store on his computer and print out for her.

  Consider this exchange between Comey and Republican Senator John Kennedy of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary when the former was still director of the FBI:

  SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA: Morning, Mr. Director, I guess afternoon, now. I’ll assume for second that I’m not a United States senator and that I don’t have a security clearance to look at classified information. If someone sends me classified information, and I know or should know which classified information, and I read it, have I committed a crime?

  COMEY: Potentially.

  KENNEDY: Has the person who sent me the information committed a crime?

  COMEY: Potentially, if they knew you didn’t have appropriate clearance and a need to know.

  KENNEDY: OK. Was there classified information on—on former Congressman Weiner’s computer?

  COMEY: Yes.

  KENNEDY: Who sent it to him?

  COMEY: His then spouse, Huma Abedin, appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding e-mails to him, for him I think to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the Secretary of State.

  KENNEDY: Did Congress—former Congressman Weiner read the classified materials?

  COMEY: I don’t—I don’t think so. I think it is descriptive—I don’t think we’ve been able to interview him because he has pending criminal problems of other sorts. But my understanding is that his role would be to print them out as a matter of convenience.

  KENNEDY: If he did read them, would he have committed a crime?

  COMEY: Potentially.

  KENNEDY: Would his spouse have committed a crime?

  COMEY: Again, potentially, it would depend upon a number of things.

  KENNEDY: Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?

  COMEY: There was, it is—we completed it.

  KENNEDY: Why did you conclude neither of them committed a crime?

  COMEY: Because with respect to Ms. Abedin in particular, we—we didn’t have any indication that she had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn’t prove any sort of criminal intent. Really, the central problem we have with the whole e-mail investigation was proving that people knew—the secretary and others knew that they were doing—that they were communicating about classified information in a way that they shouldn’t be and proving that they had some sense of their doing something unlawful. That was our burden and we weren’t able to meet it.

  So, James Comey investigated the importation of classified information onto Anthony Weiner’s computer without interviewing either of the subjects. He then exonerated Huma Abedin (and, by association, Hillary Clinton) because “we didn’t have any indication that she had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law.”

  Huma Abedin had been the deputy chief of staff at the State Department. She would have had clear instructions about the handling of classified material.

  Now put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine if any one of us had illegally copied classified information and placed it on the computer of a sex offender. How many special prosecutors would that entail?

  It is this kind of double standard that stokes Donald Trump’s ire and erupts in his tweets and statements.

  I also saw the media straining to read hidden meanings in even the most mundane observations. Business Insider ran a piece on Gary Cohn’s salary that correctly reported the salary of the then director of the National Economic Council was $30,000 a year. In the White House pecking order, salaries—which are publicly reported—are usually clear markers, along with job titles, that signal where one stands in that order.

  The story also noted that Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway each made $179,700 per year.

  “It’s unclear why Cohn’s salary is lower than nearly every other employee on the White House payroll,” the story noted.

  The implication was that, judging by his salary, Gary Cohn’s place in the White House pecking order was lower than most junior staff. The reason why this was unclear is that the reporter never bothered to ask me. Cohn, who had a salary and bonus at Goldman Sachs worth more than $7 million, asked for this reduced salary. It was understood by his peers that Cohn was acting out of sheer patriotism by asking to be paid $30,000. That was the lowest amount he could receive and still get benefits.

  RawStory also published a piece about intrigue surrounding White House salaries. The premise of the story was the following: “Why does Steve Bannon make less per year than Omarosa?” The piece included a link to Politico’s list of White House staff salaries, which showed Steve Bannon’s salary
was exactly the same as Omarosa’s salary.4 The accurate list refuted the very premise of the story.

  Rachel Maddow jumped into the money game when she promised to reveal on-air an illegally leaked copy of Donald Trump’s 2005 tax return, which MSNBC had been hyping into a big “reveal” event. Like Geraldo Rivera when he opened Al Capone’s vault on live television in 1986, Maddow attracted a huge audience. And like Rivera, she found nothing . . . except that in 2005 Donald Trump had paid $38 million in federal income taxes on about $150 million in income, a rate of about 25 percent.5

  Or consider how the media spun the story when Democrat Jon Ossoff came close to beating Republican Karen Handel in a special election for a House seat in Georgia. The media treated the Democrats’ loss as a win that discredited the administration. Hallie Jackson of NBC asked if the president was spending “too much political capital on a race Republicans should be winning easily.”

  “The Democrats went all in on this race,” I told her. “They spent over 8.3 million dollars. They said on the record that their goal was to win this race. They lost, and the reaction has somewhat been that they almost won. No, they lost.”6

  As the relationship between the administration and the media grew more heated, the briefings began to feel less like press conferences and more like the British Parliament’s Question Time where opposing members of Parliament make faces, bang desks, grumble, and loudly protest statements with which they disagree. Many in the media were creating an environment that felt like an opposition party, less interested in reporting the facts than in contesting our positions and trying to undermine and embarrass the administration at every turn.

  This confrontational attitude began to infect almost all my interactions with the media, including with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks (AURN). April and I had initially gotten along well. AURN was one of the outlets I called on more often in my effort to broaden media access beyond the normal Beltway reporters. Things fell apart, however, in the March 28 briefing. My repeated “no’s” are in response to her vigorously shaking her head in dissent.

  Q: . . . [W]ith all of these investigations, questions of what is is, how does this administration try to revamp its image? Two and a half months in, you’ve got this Yates story today; you’ve got other things going on. You’ve got Russia. You’ve got, you’ve got wiretapping. You’ve got—

  MR. SPICER: No, we don’t have that.

  Q: There are investigations on Capitol Hill—

  MR. SPICER: No, no—I get it. But you keep—I’ve said it from the day that I got here until whatever that there is no connection. You’ve got Russia. If the president puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that’s a Russian connection. But every single person—

  Q: It’s beyond that. You’re making it—

  MR. SPICER: Well, no—I appreciate your agenda here, but the reality is—

  Q: It’s not my agenda.

  MR. SPICER: No, hold on. No. At some point, report the facts. The facts are that every single person who has been briefed on this subject has come away with the same conclusion. Republican, Democrat. So, I’m sorry that that disgusts you. You’re shaking your head. I appreciate it, but—

  Q: I’m shaking my head, and I’m listening. And I’m trying to get—

  MR. SPICER: Okay, but understand this—that at some point, the facts are what they are. And every single person who has been briefed on this situation with respect to the situation with Russia—Republican, Democrat, Obama-appointee, career—have all come to the same conclusion. At some point, April, you’re gonna have to take “no” for an answer with respect to whether or not there was collusion.

  Q: How do you change the perception of—

  MR. SPICER: We’re going to keep doing everything we’re doing to make sure that the president’s—that what the president told the American people he was going to do—to fulfill those pledges and promises that he made, to bring back jobs, to grow the economy, to keep our nation safe—that’s what he’s been focused on since day one. We’re going to keep focusing on that every single day.

  Q: But when Condi Rice comes Friday. Condi Rice did not support this president. She did not go to the convention. She comes—what is on the agenda? And, and how is their relationship? Has it healed since 2006 when he used a very negative word to describe her?

  MR. SPICER: So, here’s what I’ll you—it’s interesting that you ask those two questions back-to-back. On the one hand, you’re saying what are we doing to improve our image. And then here he is, once again, meeting somebody that hasn’t been a big supporter of his. Hold on—

  Q: But he called her that negative name in 2006.

  MR. SPICER: No, no, but you—but, April, hold on. It seems like you’re hell-bent on trying to make sure that whatever image you want to tell about this White House stays because at the end of the day—

  Q: I am just reporting what—

  MR. SPICER: Okay, but you know what? You’re asking me a question, and I’m going to answer it, which is the president—I’m sorry, please stop shaking your head again. But at some point, the reality is that this president continues to reach out to individuals who’ve supported him, who didn’t support him—Republicans, Democrats—to try to bring the country together and move forward on an agenda that’s going to help every American. That’s it, plain and simple.

  Sarah Huckabee Sanders had her own moment when she took the lead for a briefing in June. She made an eloquent statement that a relentless focus on negativity caused the media to overlook stories that the American people want to hear.

  Sarah said:

  I think that there are a lot of things happening in this world that, frankly, a lot of people would like to hear about—whether it’s job growth, whether it’s deregulation, whether it’s tax reform, healthcare . . . .All we are saying is, you know, I think that we should take a really good look at what we are focused on, what we are covering and making sure that it’s actually accurate and it’s honest. If we make the slightest mistake, the slightest word is off, it is just an absolute tirade from a lot of people in this room.

  Exactly. While upholding the First Amendment right of journalists to question the administration, Sarah was upholding her own First Amendment right to question the way journalists report the news today.

  Enter Brian Karem, the White House correspondent for Playboy—apparently, it does have articles, and political ones at that. Sarah’s opinion left Karem so indignant that he shouted:

  You’re inflaming everybody right here and right now with those words! This administration has done that as well. Why in the name of heavens—any one of us, right, are replaceable, and any one of us, if we don’t get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve for four years at least. There’s no option other than that. We’re here to ask you questions; you’re here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, see, once again, the president is right and everybody else out here is fake media. And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.

  Sarah responded, “Well, I just—I disagree completely. First of all, I think if anything has been inflamed, it’s the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media. And I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question.”

  Sarah and I were frustrated the briefings had turned into rituals in which reporters asked the same questions about Russia-related issues—over and over—knowing that they would get no different answers but upping the volume and emotion with each pass, realizing full well that their self-serving eruptions on camera ensured them eternal YouTube fame if not CNN contracts. Realizing the cameras were too much of a temptation for some reporters, I began expanding our off-camera briefings during the summer. I told the president I wanted to create a space for more thoughtful interaction between reporters and, often, the president himself. The
media continued to rebel, sometimes in funny ways. (Acosta tweeted an image of his socks, and CNN engaged in a stunt by sending in a sketch artist to draw an image of me at the podium.) But the president supported me in doing what I had to do to try to improve our relationship with the press. Even after I relented to allow audio recordings of our off-camera briefings, the reaction among some in the media was fierce and predictable—that somehow the administration was trampling the First Amendment. But I received welcome support from former White House Press Secretaries Ari Fleischer (George W. Bush) and Mike McCurry (Bill Clinton), who both tweeted an interesting proposal: “We support no live TV coverage of WH briefing. Embargo it & let it be used, but not as live TV. Better for the public, the WH & the press.”7

  In a joint piece for the Columbia Journalism Review, the two former press secretaries elaborated on their proposal: “If the briefing is ‘embargoed’ until its conclusion, it will become just one of several raw ingredients that journalists can use to prepare their reports on the work of the president and the White House. It would instantly become a toned-down briefing, and reporters would use the information from the briefing and test it against other sources as they prepare coverage.”

  And here’s the kicker: “It would not be a ‘news event’ in and of itself.”8

  Ari and Mike hit on exactly what was eating away at me—the briefing should convey news, and it shouldn’t ever be the news.

  The media, however, wanted the briefings to be news and sought out any possible misstep as a “gotcha” moment.

  I knew my relationship with the press was radioactive, and I told the president and Reince that I would happily support the appointment of a new press secretary so that I could focus on being the director of communications, a post better suited to my disposition and talents. We approached a handful of people, but none of them were quite right.