Sean Spicer: King of Alternative Facts

[GrumpyGran]

58 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Another alternative fact from Sean Spicer"

  Hide contents

There is spin and then there is Sean Spicer, who is denying the objective reality of his media availability.

Witness this exchange Wednesday between the White House press secretary and conservative radio host Laura Ingraham:

INGRAHAM: How do you answer the press vipers? That’s my word, not yours. They’re very upset. They’re very, very upset. They want to spend more time — quality time — with you, Sean. They don’t want just, like, a brief drive-by with you, Sean. They want quality time to really have the relationship build on itself. So, what’s going on with the fewer briefings?

SPICER: Well, first of all, it’s not fewer briefings. And, again, this is part of the problem, I think, for people who don’t take the time to listen to your show or others that inform them entirely, they get this false impression.

To say there are “not fewer briefings” is false, plain and simple. As I noted Monday, the number of briefings and gaggles by Spicer and his deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has been declining since March. Here's an updated chart:

...

The sheer number of briefings does not tell the whole story. The Q&A sessions also are getting much shorter. The average duration was about 48 minutes in March and has been about 28 minutes in June.

That means the drop in total briefing time — “quality time,” as Ingraham sarcastically described it — has been even sharper.

...

In case you're wondering, President Trump's spokesmen also have held far fewer briefings than Barack Obama's had at the same stage of the last presidency.

...

By any measure, there are fewer briefings these days. That's a fact. Spicer's claim that there are “not fewer briefings” is an alternative fact.

That Spicer made the claim in an interview with Ingraham is just too perfect. Ingraham was a candidate for press secretary last fall, and the White House recently approached her about replacing Spicer. She has publicly played down her interest in the job, but it is easy to see why Trump might prefer Ingraham over Spicer at this point.

Just look at the way she posed the question about briefings. She insulted reporters (“vipers”) and delivered a strong dose of snark but acknowledged the decline in Q&A sessions.

Any press secretary who represents Trump is going to bring some attitude to the role. It's a prerequisite, actually. To maintain credibility, however, the press secretary must maintain a grip on reality. A person in Spicer's position can argue that a reduction in briefing time is warranted for any number of reasons but cannot pretend that the reduction is just a “false impression.”

Spicer still has not learned to draw the line at provably untrue statements, which is one reason that he could soon be moved behind the scenes.

I disagree with the last statement. In this administration, spouting untrue statements seems to move a person up, not down.

You are shitting me! They-Spicer and Ingraham- actually had that exchange at a press conference? In public?

So their latest ploy is to bring in friendly "reporters" to ask questions that insult everyone else in the room and in exchange the press secretary, who ever that may be, gives Trump approval, during a press conference, to the reporter's blog/column/network/podcast?

And the supporters can say, yes, the press secretary does answer questions! And at the same time they get their needed dose of propaganda. I've got to give them credit for coming up with a new plan. It's pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain, but the supporters don't have that so it will work for them.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The 55 things the White House has promised to get back to us on"

Spoiler

The Atlantic’s David Graham posed a simple question Tuesday: Why do we even bother with press secretary Sean Spicer’s daily briefings?

Theoretically, the press briefing is meant to meet the needs of both the White House and the media by providing a centralized place to answer questions. Instead of the White House replying to 10 outlets seeking the same information, just do it all at once. Easy enough. But, as Graham noted, Spicer (and deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders) often have no answers.

“Spicer’s vow to ‘get back to you on that’ has become practically a catchphrase,” Graham wrote. And it’s true. By our count, Spicer or Sanders have offered that reply on at least 55 different occasions during briefings or gaggles (less formal group discussions).

Before we walk through those promises, it’s worth noting at least one reason Spicer and Sanders default to a response of “I’ll find out.” One, obviously, is that they genuinely don’t know and are committing to get an answer. Another is probably that they’d rather not offer an answer. This has its own separate possible causes, including that President Trump has a habit of contradicting affirmations made by people who work for him. He’s given his press secretaries a get-out-of-trouble free card on Twitter, as seen below, but it seems clear that the risk of offering a response to even an obvious question sometimes outweighs the reward. Perhaps because that reward is “earning the respect of the media, a group that Trump hates.”)

...

Below, our list of all of the times someone from the White House communications office promised to get back to the American public with more information — and, to the best of our ability to determine the answer, whether they did. It’s important to note, by the way, that this includes only specific pledges to provide more information.

Feb. 1. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the president gets a verbal security briefing every day. Did he? Apparently not.

Feb. 1. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether Barack Obama will be invited to participate in Black History Month celebrations. Did he? No.

Feb. 3. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the government will track down and deport those whose visas were revoked under the travel ban. Did he? This became irrelevant when the ban was blocked by the courts.

Feb. 7. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the administration had accepted the credentials of the ambassador from Mexico. Did he? The ambassador was accepted.

Feb. 8. Spicer says he will get back to us on who paid for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Mar-a-Lago. Did he? The next day, Trump agreed to pay the costs.

Feb. 17. Sanders says she will get back to us on the timeline for replacing Michael Flynn as national security adviser. Did she? This was eventually revealed.

Feb. 17. Sanders says she will get back to us on who was paying for Air Force One’s travel to a Trump campaign rally. Did she? Apparently not.

Feb. 21. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the president will respond to a letter from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about arming Ukraine. Did he? Apparently not.

Feb. 22. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether Trump still feels that the program to delay deporting the children of immigrants in the country illegally was unconstitutional. Did he? Apparently not.

Feb. 27. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the administration will defend its first immigration ban. Did he? Yes.

Feb. 28. Sanders says she will get back to us on who was involved in drafting the strategy for combating the Islamic State. Did she? Apparently not.

Feb. 28. Sanders says she will get back to us on whether the Indian foreign secretary would meet with administration staff during an upcoming visit. Did she? The secretary met with Tillerson the following week.

March 1. Spicer says he will get back to us on who was involved in drafting the strategy for combating the Islamic State. This is the second such promise. Did he? Apparently not.

March 3. Sanders says she will get back to us on a reaction from the White House to an arrest related to threats against Jewish community centers. Did she? Apparently not.

March 6. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the administration would dismiss cases brought under the first immigration ban after the second was released. Did he? Spicer later explained that both bans would be defended.

March 7. Spicer says he will get back to us on specific legislation rolling back federal regulations. Did he? It’s not clear.

March 7. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether Trump will stop making accusations on Twitter that he later refuses to defend. Did he? No.

March 7. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether Trump will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Did he? This was eventually revealed.

March 8. Spicer says he will get back to us on how the president felt about the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. Did he? No, but Trump later told the Wall Street Journal that he liked low interest rates.

March 8. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether Trump has confidence in Janet L. Yellen. Did he? No, but Trump later told the Wall Street Journal that he likes her.

March 9. Spicer says he will get back to us on other groups that might meet with the president about health-care reform. Did he? Apparently not.

March 13. Spicer says he will get back to us on the repercussions for those who violate the lobbying prohibitions instituted by the administration. Did he? Yes, on March 16.

March 14. Spicer says he will get back to us on the repercussions for those who violate the lobbying prohibitions instituted by the administration. This is the second such promise. Did he? Yes, on March 16.

March 14. Spicer says he will get back to us on the senators who met with Trump at the White House. Did he? Apparently not.

March 20. Spicer says he will get back to us on which members of the administration weren’t taking any salary. Did he? Apparently not.

March 23. Spicer says he will get back to us on the White House’s nuclear posture review. Did he? It began in mid-April.

March 23. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the administration would release a statement about the Iranian New Year. Did he? The White House released a statement.

April 13. Spicer says he will get back to us on why the president changed his position on the Export-Import Bank. Did he? Apparently not.

April 17. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the president would ever release his tax returns. Did he? Not yet.

April 19. Spicer says he will get back to us on why a meeting with former Colombian presidents wasn’t made public. Did he? Apparently not.

April 25. Spicer says he will get back to us on how many regulatory reform offices had been established. Did he? Apparently not.

April 27. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether retirement plans would be protected under the administration’s tax plan. Did he? Yes.

May 8. Spicer says he will get back to us on the members of the president’s opioid commission. Did he? The names were released May 10.

May 9. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether a fired usher got a generous severance package. Did he? Apparently not.

May 9. Spicer says he will get back to us on when we could expect an announcement on the administration’s policy toward the International Monetary Fund. Did he? Apparently not.

May 9. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether a meeting between Ivanka Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt was canceled. Did he? Apparently not.

May 9. Spicer says he will get back to us on the president’s role in firing FBI Director James B. Comey. Did he? It was eventually revealed.

May 10. Sanders says she will get back to us on whether the president had been briefed on anti-gay violence in Chechnya. Did she? Apparently not.

May 10. Sanders says she will get back to us on whether the president had spoken to the attorney general about Comey after receiving his letter but before the firing. Did she? Apparently not.

May 12. Spicer says he will get back to us on why Trump repeatedly asked Comey if he was under investigation. Did he? It was eventually revealed.

May 12. Spicer says he will get back to us on how Comey ended up dining at the White House. Did he? It was eventually revealed.

May 15. Spicer says he will get back to us on how Comey ended up dining at the White House. This is the second such promise. Did he? It was eventually revealed.

May 16. Spicer says he will get back to us on what Trump views as the long-term goals of Russia. Did he? Apparently not.

May 30. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether Trump will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. This is the second such promise. Did he? It was eventually revealed.

June 2. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether Trump thinks climate change is exacerbated by humans — if he has a chance to talk to him. Did he? Not yet.

June 5. Sanders says she will get back to us on why there’s no ambassador to Britain yet. Did she? Apparently not.

June 5. Sanders says she will get back to us on who removed a reference to Article V from a speech Trump gave at NATO. Did she? Apparently not.

June 6. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the administration would release a statement about the anniversary of Tiananmen Square. Did he? Not yet.

June 8. Sanders says she will get back to us on whether Trump initiated all nine contacts between himself and Comey. Did she? Apparently not.

June 12. Spicer says he will get back to us on when there would be a news conference about the fight against the Islamic State. Did he? Not yet.

June 15. Sanders says she will get back to us on why Christopher A. Wray’s nomination to replace Comey hadn’t been sent to the Senate. Did she? Apparently not.

June 15. Sanders says she will get back to us on whether Trump would nominate an ambassador to Cuba. Did she? Not yet. It was promised this week.

June 19. Spicer says he will get back to us on Trump’s position on Yucca Mountain. Did he? Not yet.

June 19. Spicer says he will get back to us on replacing members of an HIV/AIDS council. Did he? Not yet.

June 20. Spicer says he will get back to us on whether the president thinks the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. Did he? No, but Trump had previously said he did believe that — and that he didn’t.

It is possible that we missed some of the responses that ensued to the promises made by Spicer and Sanders. (If we have, don’t hesitate to email.) Generally speaking, though, it’s clear that the goal is less frequently to tell the media that the information was not at hand and more frequently simply to deflect the question indefinitely.

Spicer and Sanders do provide useful information. But if the media wants to pin them down on something more controversial, the most effective strategy appears to be to ask over and over again.

I had a flashback to the movie, "Fast TImes at Ridgemont High" and the "I don't know" scene:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Spicey banned TV cameras again, so the WaPo annotated his briefing. This administration is just crazy.

[GreyhoundFan]

In another round of the "you couldn't make this shit up" sweepstakes: "Sean Spicer says he doesn’t face reporters on TV because it would distract from the president"

Spoiler

Howard Kurtz wanted to know what was going on with Sean Spicer and the cameras.

Or more like the lack of cameras.

Lots of people have been talking about that. President Trump's press secretary went more than a week without facing the press on TV, Erik Wemple noted in The Washington Post. The White House seems to be making a habit of restricting cameras and audio at briefings, the New York Times wrote.

“They are basically pointless at this point,” a CNN correspondent said recently after a no-TV, no-audio conversation with Spicer.

Kurtz, who works for Fox News, wanted to ask the man himself. And he did so on Sunday. On camera even — in an exclusive interview outside the White House.

“You've been criticized for, you know, for holding fewer briefings, and for moving some of them off camera,” Kurtz told Spicer. “Is the president so frustrated by the spectacle of these television briefings that he's trying to shrink the number?”

“We haven't held fewer briefings,” Spicer said. “We've held a briefing almost every single day.”

“The number has gone down since March,” Kurtz said.

“No, it hasn't.”

They stopped debating the number of briefings. Kurtz pressed his major point about the restrictions on recording them.

“In a couple instances, not even allowing the audio to be recorded,” he noted. “What are you trying to tell …”

Spicer interrupted. “It's a very one-sided discussion that's occurring now,” he said.

One day, Spicer explained, CNN had broken some rules and aired audio it wasn't supposed to.

“So we had to clarify” the rules, he said.

Anyway, he continued, off-camera briefings were a good thing. “They've been very substantive.”

The White House press secretary said no-camera press briefings were especially good because they didn't distract people on days when President Trump was making a speech.

He digressed a bit from this point to talk about a speech Trump had made about a bill he had signed, and how it was a good bill that would help veterans, and it was good for the press secretary to not distract from the speech by going on television.

Kurtz listened to this for a while, just him and Spicer beneath the White House's north portico. “EXCLUSIVE,” read a chyron on the screen.

“Going in a different direction here,” Kurtz said, finally. “Jim Acosta has gone on kind of a campaign against you.” He was talking about the CNN correspondent mentioned above, who called no-TV no-audio press briefings basically useless.

“It's sad if he believes if it doesn't occur on TV …,” Spicer said, without finishing the sentence.

“I think some of these reporters are more interested in their YouTube clips than they are in factual news,” he continued. “You look at the number of questions that get asked over and over again, just so a reporter can get a clip for themselves saying something or yelling at someone.”

But a few seconds later, Spicer said: “I think cameras are fine, and there's an opportunity to have that.”

There should be a mix, he elaborated: Cameras some days and no cameras on other days, for instance when Trump is speaking.

There were other topics discussed in this mini one-on-one press briefing, which lasted less than 10 minutes when it aired on Fox.

For example, Kurtz wanted to know about Trump's recent admission that he had not taped his conversations with an FBI director — contradicting the president's tweet weeks earlier: “James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

“He insinuated something that wasn't true,” Kurtz said.

“No,” Spicer said. “He said, 'I hope there's not [tapes].' "

That wasn't what Trump had tweeted, but Kurtz didn't press the point.

They moved on to the health-care bill. Kurtz wanted to know why Trump once praised, at a Rose Garden ceremony, a bill passed by House Republicans, but now says he wants a less stringent bill, like the Senate's version.

“The president made it clear from the beginning that he wants a bill with heart,” Spicer said. “He understands how important health care is to individuals and families.”

He didn't really answer the question, and Kurtz did not follow up.

Near the end of the interview, the Fox News host brought up reports that Spicer may be moving out of his job into a less visible role in the White House.

“Are you a little weary of the televised combat?” Kurtz asked, circling back to the matter of the cameras.

“Look,” Spicer said. “It's an honor to have this job. It's truly a privilege for me to be able to do this on behalf of the president.”

Now Kurtz interrupted; there were only a few minutes left in the interview.

“Are you enjoying the back and forth with the correspondents?” he asked. “With the cameras on?”

“What I like is doing my part to advance the president's agenda,” Spicer said.

I wonder if Spicey believes the crap he is spouting. I know I don't.

[candygirl200413]

Why can't the media just record anyway?!

[GrumpyGran]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

In another round of the "you couldn't make this shit up" sweepstakes: "Sean Spicer says he doesn’t face reporters on TV because it would distract from the president"

  Hide contents

Howard Kurtz wanted to know what was going on with Sean Spicer and the cameras.

Or more like the lack of cameras.

Lots of people have been talking about that. President Trump's press secretary went more than a week without facing the press on TV, Erik Wemple noted in The Washington Post. The White House seems to be making a habit of restricting cameras and audio at briefings, the New York Times wrote.

“They are basically pointless at this point,” a CNN correspondent said recently after a no-TV, no-audio conversation with Spicer.

Kurtz, who works for Fox News, wanted to ask the man himself. And he did so on Sunday. On camera even — in an exclusive interview outside the White House.

“You've been criticized for, you know, for holding fewer briefings, and for moving some of them off camera,” Kurtz told Spicer. “Is the president so frustrated by the spectacle of these television briefings that he's trying to shrink the number?”

“We haven't held fewer briefings,” Spicer said. “We've held a briefing almost every single day.”

“The number has gone down since March,” Kurtz said.

“No, it hasn't.”

They stopped debating the number of briefings. Kurtz pressed his major point about the restrictions on recording them.

“In a couple instances, not even allowing the audio to be recorded,” he noted. “What are you trying to tell …”

Spicer interrupted. “It's a very one-sided discussion that's occurring now,” he said.

One day, Spicer explained, CNN had broken some rules and aired audio it wasn't supposed to.

“So we had to clarify” the rules, he said.

Anyway, he continued, off-camera briefings were a good thing. “They've been very substantive.”

The White House press secretary said no-camera press briefings were especially good because they didn't distract people on days when President Trump was making a speech.

He digressed a bit from this point to talk about a speech Trump had made about a bill he had signed, and how it was a good bill that would help veterans, and it was good for the press secretary to not distract from the speech by going on television.

Kurtz listened to this for a while, just him and Spicer beneath the White House's north portico. “EXCLUSIVE,” read a chyron on the screen.

“Going in a different direction here,” Kurtz said, finally. “Jim Acosta has gone on kind of a campaign against you.” He was talking about the CNN correspondent mentioned above, who called no-TV no-audio press briefings basically useless.

“It's sad if he believes if it doesn't occur on TV …,” Spicer said, without finishing the sentence.

“I think some of these reporters are more interested in their YouTube clips than they are in factual news,” he continued. “You look at the number of questions that get asked over and over again, just so a reporter can get a clip for themselves saying something or yelling at someone.”

But a few seconds later, Spicer said: “I think cameras are fine, and there's an opportunity to have that.”

There should be a mix, he elaborated: Cameras some days and no cameras on other days, for instance when Trump is speaking.

There were other topics discussed in this mini one-on-one press briefing, which lasted less than 10 minutes when it aired on Fox.

For example, Kurtz wanted to know about Trump's recent admission that he had not taped his conversations with an FBI director — contradicting the president's tweet weeks earlier: “James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

“He insinuated something that wasn't true,” Kurtz said.

“No,” Spicer said. “He said, 'I hope there's not [tapes].' "

That wasn't what Trump had tweeted, but Kurtz didn't press the point.

They moved on to the health-care bill. Kurtz wanted to know why Trump once praised, at a Rose Garden ceremony, a bill passed by House Republicans, but now says he wants a less stringent bill, like the Senate's version.

“The president made it clear from the beginning that he wants a bill with heart,” Spicer said. “He understands how important health care is to individuals and families.”

He didn't really answer the question, and Kurtz did not follow up.

Near the end of the interview, the Fox News host brought up reports that Spicer may be moving out of his job into a less visible role in the White House.

“Are you a little weary of the televised combat?” Kurtz asked, circling back to the matter of the cameras.

“Look,” Spicer said. “It's an honor to have this job. It's truly a privilege for me to be able to do this on behalf of the president.”

Now Kurtz interrupted; there were only a few minutes left in the interview.

“Are you enjoying the back and forth with the correspondents?” he asked. “With the cameras on?”

“What I like is doing my part to advance the president's agenda,” Spicer said.

I wonder if Spicey believes the crap he is spouting. I know I don't.

Wow, that didn't make any sense. And to a FOX news reporter. But I guess we've made one thing clear. If Trump is going to be on TV talking he doesn't want to share the limelight with anything or anybody. Doesn't he realize that's not working for him?

[GreyhoundFan]

Spicey, Spicey, Spicey: "Sean Spicer set a standard for collusion that could haunt President Trump"

Spoiler

What qualifies as collusion? It's a question that could eventually become important, whenever special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and congressional committees wrap up their investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race.

Suppose investigators determine that aides to President Trump's campaign did not participate in Russian hacking or disinformation schemes but were aware of the efforts. Would that make the Trump campaign guilty of colluding with the Kremlin?

The White House surely would argue no, if it were to come to that. But such an argument would be harder to make, after remarks made Monday by Trump and his spokesman, Sean Spicer.

Here's what the president said on Twitter:

...

Trump was reacting to a Washington Post report about Obama's response, in the months leading up to Election Day, to CIA intelligence showing that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered a cyber campaign aimed at disrupting the U.S. presidential race. Trump seemed to be suggesting that Obama's failure to stop further interference — Democratic National Committee emails had been hacked and leaked at that point — was tantamount to collusion with Russia.

This would be a classic Trump turnaround: I colluded? No, you colluded!

It also would be a remarkably tough standard: knowledge plus inaction equals collusion. It is not hard to see how such a standard could come back to haunt Trump, if investigators were to conclude that even one of his aides knew what Russia was up to and didn't blow the whistle.

To protect Trump from being held to this standard, Spicer could have attempted to clean up the president's mess during Monday's press briefing. He could have argued that Trump meant Obama colluded with the Clinton campaign by holding off on sanctions against Russia that might have been viewed as politically motivated attempts to help his chosen successor.

Instead, Spicer reinforced the idea that not stopping Russia is the same as colluding with Russia. Witness this exchange with a reporter:

Q: Can you clarify what he meant in his tweet? He accused former president Obama of colluding or obstructing. What evidence does he have?

Spicer: I think — again, what I will just leave it at is that clearly they, according to this report, knew back in August. If they were so concerned, why didn't they stop it? What did they do?

Q: Well, the report is very extensive. It goes into all of those details — that they were blocked in a number of different measures; that they were concerned about looking like they were intervening in the election on behalf of Hillary Clinton. President Obama did talk to President Putin —

Spicer: Well, they seemed to throw —

Q: So what evidence does he have that President Obama was colluding or obstructing?

Spicer: Well, again, I think it comes back to this idea that they've been very clear, they've been playing this card about blaming Trump and Russia. And yet, at the same time, they were the ones who, according to this report, knew about it and didn't take any action.

So the question is, were they — if they didn't take any action, does that make them complicit? I think that there is a lot of questions that have to get answered about who didn't know what and when.

If it turns out that Trump aides knew absolutely nothing about Russian meddling, then Spicer's suggestion that the Obama administration was “complicit” won't hurt the White House at all. But if someone on Trump's team was even vaguely aware of Russian disruption, Spicer will have hamstrung the White House's defense.

The stupidity of this administration knows no bounds.

[GreyhoundFan]

Here's the full annotated transcript of the off-camera briefing by Spicey where he put his foot in his mouth about collusion. There are so many dumb and clueless things uttered from that podium. He seems to be channeling Melissa McCarthy in the way he treats Jim Acosta from CNN.

[GreyhoundFan]

Spicey is back: "Sean Spicer’s utterly clueless off-camera press briefing, annotated" Since it's annotated, I can't quote, but it's typical of the Spicey clueless statements and outright lies. I love the fact that he was over 30 minutes late and had to leave just 30 minutes after he arrived, so he couldn't take too many questions.

[47of74]

Sean Spicer, White House press secretary, resigns

Quote

White House press secretary Sean Spicer resigned Friday morning, according to three White House officials.

Spicer's resignation came after New York financier and former Trump campaign fundraiser Anthony Scaramucci accepted the position as White House communications director.

A White House official and top GOP adviser said President Donald Trump asked Spicer to stay on, but he resigned.

The resignation caps off one of the most tumultuous tenures for a White House press secretary, one that saw Spicer repeatedly undermined in his role as the White House's public-facing spokesman by the President's own public statements and tweets.

 

[fraurosena]

Oh noes... we're going to have to do without Melissa McCarthy's SNL skits now. 

Spicer resigns, Scaramucci to be White House communications director

Quote

White House press secretary Sean Spicer resigned on Friday following the appointment of wealthy financier Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director, according to a White House official. Scaramucci has previously had a tense relationship with both Spicer and White House chief of staff Reince Priebus. This story will be updated.

The chaos engulfing President Trump and his orbit intensified Friday, as Trump moved to shake up his legal and White House communications teams in response to the widening special counsel probe into his campaign’s possible collusion with the Russian government and its impact on the administration’s stalled legislative agenda.

Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz, will step back from his central role in the president’s outside legal team with John M. Dowd, a seasoned Washington attorney with a focus on white-collar crime, now taking the lead in managing the president’s defense. Mark Corallo, a longtime GOP operative who had served as a spokesman for Trump’s legal team, resigned Thursday.

Meanwhile, at the White House, Trump is considering installing ally and wealthy financier Anthony Scaramucci as his communications director. He was scheduled to meet with the president in the Oval Office at 10 a.m. on Friday, according to a senior White House official.

Bringing Scaramucci into the White House could touch off another round of intense backbiting and tension among Trump’s senior staff, especially with chief of staff Reince Priebus, with whom he has clashed in the past. The communications post has remained open since it was vacated by Michael Dubke in May.

[...]

If Scaramucci is brought into the fold, it would represent a significant shake-up for a communications shop that has struggled to amplify the president’s message on the administration’s core economic and national security priorities.

Scaramucci, a Trump campaign loyalist backed by Trump’s children, was slated to join the White House in another capacity early on, but he had challenges resolving ethical conflicts associated with his hedge fund, SkyBridge Capital, which he sold to a Chinese conglomerate with ties to the government just before Trump’s inauguration. Trump has also been impressed by Scaramucci’s frequent appearances as a defender on cable news.

On Friday morning, when asked if Scaramucci would join the White House, Conway praised him but did not confirm that the decision was settled.

“All I can say is in speaking with the president and others that, you know, we have a great communications team already,” Conway said. “Anthony Scaramucci is somebody who has been an incredible asset to President Trump all during the campaign, the transition, and now he is one of the killers on TV who goes out there, thinks the president is being treated very unfairly, and we don’t get any of the economic news out there, even though our press and communications shop tries.”

“The president has confidence in all of the people who work for him, and we know that Anthony is someone who is a friend to the administration,” she added.

3

Scaramucci, huh? So those ethical conflicts that stopped him from gaining office before have now somehow magically disappeared? 

I think Conjob had it right for once. "Anthony is someone who is a friend to the administration." Yep, fill the WH with Sycophants!

 

Jinx @47of74! 

Aha, and here's the reason why.

 

[onekidanddone]

Hot can of corn you two are fast!  I was just about to post as well.

[GrumpyGran]

Fox News job coming up fast for him? And that could be very interesting.

Will next week officially be "Say good-bye to Reince Priebus Week?"

[JMarie]

If Scaramucci is taking over for Spicer, does this mean no more Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

[fraurosena]

3 minutes ago, JMarie said:

If Scaramucci is taking over for Spicer, does this mean no more Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

Scaramucci is not taking over for Spicer. He's taking over from the former Communications Director, Michael Dubke, who resigned in May. Had he not resigned, Scaramucci would have been Spicer's boss. 

Spicer's resignation could mean that SHS will officially take his job now. She's been his proxy for quite some time now so we won't notice any difference though. 

[JMarie]

4 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Scaramucci is not taking over for Spicer. He's taking over from the former Communications Director, Michael Dubke, who resigned in May. Had he not resigned, Scaramucci would have been Spicer's boss. 

Spicer's resignation could mean that SHS will officially take his job now. She's been his proxy for quite some time now so we won't notice any difference though. 

Sorry, my excitement got me confused.  Scaramucci is going to be the Communications Director, which is different from the Press Secretary (but probably not much difference in the two jobs).  So I guess Sanders gets a promotion from Principal Deputy Press Secretary to (Grand Poobah) Press Secretary.  Seems like a lot of overlap among jobs.  Aren't Republicans for a smaller government?

[JMO]

I knew Sean would be the first to go!!  He has been out of the lime light for the last few weeks.  Do you think  we will get any dirt?  Probably not, Trump seems to use a mixture of intimidation and money to keep people quiet. 

[JMarie]

CNN just mentioned that Spicer will be on Hannity's show tonight.  Of course he is.

[Audrey2]

So, I've been wondering... Since Vegas takes odds on everything else, are there off on various people in the Trump administration, with bets taken on who will be gone next?

Edited July 21, 2017 by Audrey2
Another Autocorrect fail

[GrumpyGran]

7 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

So, I've been wondering... Since Vegas takes off on everything else, are there off on various people in the Trump administration, with bets taken on who will be gone next?

Probably so, they bet on everything there.

My money's on Priebus. Major Garrett from CBS just said the Scaramucci/Priebus relationship is rough. Scaramucci blames Priebus for his not getting an administration job initially. And this did not look like a guy who lets slights go unpunished. He will have Trump's ear, perhaps on the same level as Jared. I will be surprised if Priebus makes it through the next week.

[fraurosena]

Aww, Spicey tweeted his goodbye...

 

Do read the comments, they're hilarious.

[GreyhoundFan]

I love Alexandra Petri, she's as snarky as many of us on FJ! "Sean Spicer is free!"

Spoiler

The enchantment is finally broken. Sean Spicer has been set free.

For just over 180 days, he toiled under the watchful eye of the ogre, performing acts that made his whole soul shrink in revulsion. From the first day, when he had to come out and bear false witness to the numbers present for the inauguration, to the very last, when you could still hear his voice echoing dimly from far off camera, insisting that the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act was an excellent idea, he was forced to spew one horrifying imbecility after another. Even his suits shrank in revulsion.

But he could not help it. They had his whole family in an hourglass, and whenever President Trump shook it, horrible things would happen. All his brothers had been transformed into swans.

And so his punishment was to go to the lectern each morning. The curse held him. He had to stand there and say nothing (in as many words as possible). He had to stand there pronouncing hateful phrases about how the House’s American Health Care Act was superior to its predecessor since it required fewer pages, and saying it was necessary to vet a five year-old because Who Knew Who Might Radicalize these refugee babies, and admitting that, after all, Even Hitler never used gas on his own people.

This was something he was doing under duress and certainly not of his own free will. Each morning the sun rose and the hideous transformation would once more seize him, accompanied by chants of “Maga, Maga.” He would be just plain Sean Spicer, and then he would step to the lectern and be transformed into Sean Spicer, Donald Trump’s Press Secretary.

Once he had been an enormous rabbit, but that transformation was not painful like this. They had not made him speak then.

Now, horrible half-statements came skittering out of his mouth on long spindly legs in response to even the simplest questions.

He could still remember the days when he would actually get back to people with information when they asked for him. There had been a time, once. Before the curse.

Once he caught sight of his reflection in the lens of a camera and fled to the bushes, but the bushes would not cover him. He lifted his eyes to the Hill, but no help came.

The nonsense that came out of his mouth began to matter less and less.

“Holocaust Centers,” he said. It took him three tries to apologize. His mouth was beginning to forget the shape of an apology.

His answers grew vaguer and vaguer. Not that they had ever been anything less than vague. He began to forget who he had been. “Sean Spicer” he murmured, into mirrors. But when he said his name three times, Sarah Huckabee Sanders appeared in his place.

At night he worked and worked and worked, though he could scarcely recall what he was working for. He must finish knitting the thistledown shirts for his brothers or they would be stuck as swans forever. He must break the enchantment or he would have to go to the lectern another morning.

He was beginning to forget that he had ever worn another shape.

Even rabbits shied from him now. His flag pin turned upside down. He could not let the pope see him like this. He hid in a bush, but the bush spat him back out.

Soon the memories started to vanish, too. He could swear Trump did not own a bathrobe. He could swear anything.

Campaign manager Paul Manafort played a “limited role,” he could say. He could say anything. Covfefe probably meant something. Someone knew.

There were whole days when he vanished altogether.

He and Sanders took the stage together but only she appeared. They had to turn the cameras off.

The magic took its toll on him, but he held on, knitting his fingers to the bone, praying for deliverance. If Dippin’ Dots could stay in business, surely he could make it. If he could just hold on one more day —

And then one morning that deliverance came. The curse was broken. The hourglass cracked. His family was set free. He did not have to go stand upon the Hated Spot and spew the vile ambiguous words. He could reclaim his dignity. He could resume his true self, with no recollection of the past months.

Certainly you do not expect me to believe he stayed there of his own free will, and it was the appointment of a man named Anthony Scaramucci as communications director that pushed him over the edge? That Trump’s apparent total disregard for facts, precedents and democratic norms were not enough to do it, but bringing on a man named “Mooch” would be the deciding factor?

Never! He would not have stayed there all that time and said all those things if he could at any time have gotten up and walked away. Especially not looking so miserable. He has more character than that.

He did not bring this suffering on himself. How could he have? Who would do such a thing? It is far more likely that it was an enchantment, and therefore we should pity him.

No, congratulations to Sean Spicer for finally breaking the enchantment.

There can be no other explanation for why he remained.

Her "audition" video in the article is a hoot.

Edited July 21, 2017 by GreyhoundFan

[JMarie]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGran said:

Probably so, they bet on everything there.

My money's on Priebus. Major Garrett from CBS just said the Scaramucci/Priebus relationship is rough. Scaramucci blames Priebus for his not getting an administration job initially. And this did not look like a guy who lets slights go unpunished. He will have Trump's ear, perhaps on the same level as Jared. I will be surprised if Priebus makes it through the next week.

Priebus or Bannon.  Neither have been in the spotlight lately.

[fraurosena]

8 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Priebus or Bannon.  Neither have been in the spotlight lately.

Priebus and Bannon. Especially Bannon. And Priebus. Him too. Oh yes. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Jennifer Rubin's take on Spicey's bye-bye: "The inevitable, fitting end to Spicer’s miserable tenure in the White House"

Spoiler

In the end, Sean Spicer couldn’t even manage to resign on principle. The hapless, widely ridiculed and frequently dishonest White House press secretary defined by Melissa McCarthy’s searing “Saturday Night Live” portrayal left in fear of his new boss. The stated reason for his leaving apparently was the decision to hire Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director, another rich Trump flunky and surrogate who “previously had a tense and fraught relationship with both Spicer and White House chief of staff Reince Priebus,” The Post reported. In other words, Spicer quit rather than work for and possibly be fired by another Trump attack dog.

In a real sense, Spicer’s fate was sealed as soon as he agreed to show up at the White House briefing room, the day after President Trump was sworn in, to holler at the press and flatly lie, saying the president’s inauguration crowd was the biggest ever. If he would say that — debasing himself and lying to the press — he’d say anything. That of course would not be disqualifying in this White House; his problem was that he lied poorly and wrestled with the English language, making himself the butt of numerous jokes and YouTube highlight (low-light) reels.

There is a moral argument, I suppose, for men and women who chose to go into this administration to serve in Cabinet-level or sub-Cabinet positions out of a sense of obligation to the country. (The better argument is that working in this administration inevitably leads to enabling wrongdoing and horrible policy decisions, but I understand the rationale of those who disagree with me.) However, there is no moral argument for going directly into the president’s senior/political staff, which in this administration means defending indefensible conduct, denying reality and encouraging others to lie in defense of the administration. You cannot serve in a dishonorable White House honorably.

Spicer willingly embraced the effort to intimidate and silence the press. He accepted his role in trying to demolish objective reality. He relished the mission to discredit every independent source of information that might contradict the president. In doing so he, more than any predecessor, did harm to the First Amendment and to the White House. He lowered the standard set by administrations of both parties — spin, advocate and sidestep but never lie.

For young, ambitious men and women in Washington and elsewhere, Spicer is an object lesson. Ambition and yearning to be in the “know,” in the center of power (what C.S. Lewis called the “inner ring“), can lead one to cast aside principle, values and simple decency. Lewis described the impulse to be an insider:

And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man’s face—that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face—turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel. … Of all the passions, the passion for the Inner Ring is most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things.

Ultimately, bargains with devils never work out. Spicer didn’t last — and now look at him. The brief months in the West Wing, the ultimate inner ring, leave him pitied, mocked, disgraced. No, it was not worth it. It is never worth it. “To a young person, just entering on adult life, the world seems full of ‘insides,’ full of delightful intimacies and confidentialities, and he desires to enter them,” Lewis warned. “But if he follows that desire he will reach no ‘inside’ that is worth reaching.” If nothing else, perhaps Spicer’s ruinous journey will serve as a warning to others.