White House Hammers Press Corps For Reporting on Biden, Claiming ‘Incorrect Assertions’ and Contradictions

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Spokesman for White House Counsel’s Office Ian Sams wrote a letter this week to members of  the White House Correspondents Association over the recent press coverage of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on his investigation into President Joe Biden.

Sams begins by lauding the importance of a free press at at time when “there is so much noise and misinformation landing on people’s TVs and smartphones.” Sams argued Tuesday that “accurate reporting” is more critical than ever and adds:

This reality is why I write to express concern about how member organizations have reported on the recent report by Special Counsel Robert Hur. It is understandable, covering the report is challenging. It is nearly 400 pages long and written in a confusing, meandering way. It is not straightforward. And quite notably, under restrictions imposed by the Special Counsel, the White House and the President’s personal counsel were unable to brief the media with information or context prior to the report’s public release. It is also clear that the Special Counsel’s false and inappropriate personal comments have distracted from due attention to the substance.

By “false and inappropriate personal comments,” Sams appeared to be referring to Hur calling Biden an “elderly man with a poor memory” and detailing he forgot key dates during his official interview.

Sams goes on to slam the press coverage of the report, writing that “many outlets have reported striking inaccuracies that misrepresent the report’s conclusion about the President, and reporters in the White House Briefing Room have asked questions that include false content or are based on false premises.”

“We all make mistakes, but in the interest of presenting factual information to the public, I am compelled to help illustrate the facts in this matter and urge caution in the future with reporting that either is inattentive to detail or misconstrues the facts and evidence,” Sams adds, offering some specific examples:

Headlines and stories wrongly asserted that the report found that the President willfully retained and disclosed classified material.

For example: A CNN headline read: “Special counsel report concludes Biden willfully retained classified material”

A CBS News headline read: “Special counsel finds Biden ‘willfully’ disclosed classified documents”

The Associated Press reported: “President Joe Biden ‘willfully’ retained and disclosed highly classified materials when he was a private citizen.”

A Wall Street Journal headline read: “Biden Knowingly Kept and Shared Classified Material, Special Counsel Concludes”

The New York Times reported: “The special counsel investigating President Biden said in a report released on Thursday that Mr. Biden had ‘willfully’ retained and disclosed classified material after leaving the vice presidency.”

One reporter in the Briefing Room on Friday, February 9, stated: “In this report, it’s made clear by the special counsel that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified material.”

This is all incorrect.

Sams then goes on to make the case that Hur was investigating “willful retention of national defense information” and argues that journalists who “report that the Special Counsel “found” or “concluded” willful retention by the President” are explicitly “refuted by the conclusion that charges were not warranted.”

Sams adds that the fault and confusion also lies with Hur himself:

Perhaps the Special Counsel could have better written this sentence as “found some evidence” related to these two buckets, but after exploring the theory and reviewing the full totality of facts and evidence available—not just some of it—the Special Counsel determined that the evidence refuted willful retention or disclosure.

The letter then goes through the various specific documents that Biden retained and the explanations Hur gave in each instance for why Biden’s retention did not reach a criminal standard. Sams concludes by noting:

We understand that the members of the WHCA cover challenging and complex topics day in and day out. Your jobs are not easy. But they are important. When significant errors occur in coverage, such as essentially misstating the findings and conclusions of a federal investigation of the sitting President, it is critical that they be addressed. My colleagues copied here and myself are happy to address any questions you may have, and we are always available to discuss these matters, or ones like them, with you and your publications, as we respect the role the free press plays in informing the American people.

Read the full letter here.