We’ve written at some length about the reports of chaos in Kamala Harris’ office, that some are alleging it’s an abusive environment, that some staffers were even dumping her and heading for the door.
So Fox’s Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki for comment about the reports. He asked if the White House was concerned that staffers reportedly felt like they worked in an abusive environment? Jen Psaki’s response to staffers allegedly being abused? Oh, those are anonymous reports so I don’t have to respond to them.
Press Secretary Psaki deflects on question regarding alleged "abusive environment" of Vice Presidential staffers: "I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources." pic.twitter.com/RELZS48D5V
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 2, 2021
“I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources,” Psaki responded, trying to provide cover for Harris.
That’s when she got busted big time by Bloomberg’s Jennifer Jacobs.
“I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources,” says @PressSec Jen Psaki, whose team regularly organizes anonymous briefings on topics in the news. https://t.co/wmPMxEp5ps
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) July 2, 2021
“I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources,” says @PressSec Jen Psaki, whose team regularly organizes anonymous briefings on topics in the news,” Jacobs tweeted. Oh, my. What a way to call out Psaki on how she herself is behind such “anonymous sources” on other issues.
That ticked off Psaki to respond to Jacobs on Twitter.
I think everyone knows the difference between attacking someone as an anonymous source and providing details on a policy announcement to reporters in an effort to provide information and answer media questions
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) July 2, 2021
But that opened the door to other reporters questioning why she was doing “anonymous briefings” about policy announcements anyway? What would necessitate those being anonymous? Some pointed out this was really an abuse of the point of being anonymous, which is supposed to only be to protect a source from danger. But what they are saying here, under it all, is that she’s abusing the process to not go on record while feeding them things that she ultimately doesn’t want to have to be held responsible for, and that’s wrong.
Point taken. And this is true with every White House. But with all respect, why should “providing details on a policy announcement” be done anonymously in a transparent and open democratic society?
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) July 2, 2021
Actually, shouldn’t you have even less of a reason to be anonymous if you’re simply “providing details on a policy announcement…”? https://t.co/kLwp5jHD4g
— Nahal Toosi (@nahaltoosi) July 2, 2021
Agreed. Anonymity allows government to make claims it doesn’t have to stand by later. In that sense, it’s not providing information but rather providing spin.
— Michel Marizco (@BorderReporter) July 2, 2021
Of course, neither the Democrats or most of the media had an issue with running with “anonymous sources” behind virtually every attack on President Donald Trump. It’s why the attacks were always blowing up and being proven wrong, from Russia collusion that went on for years, to the Russian bounty story. But media went with it because it fit their narrative.
Psaki wants to have it both ways – deny the anonymous sources story about Kamala Harris while being the anonymous source to media. Just one more example of how hypocritical and dishonest the Biden team is.
“Anonymous sources are good when I orchestrate them.” https://t.co/DhvVPYygPi
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) July 2, 2021