tv Jonathan Karl CSPAN July 21, 2020 7:21pm-8:01pm EDT
7:21 pm
the whitesident of house correspondents association. thanks for coming back here. we appreciate it. guest: thanks, steve. host: white house press secretary kaylee machen only, you wrote the following, "as a reporter of the white house press association, i have often advocated regular briefings by the white house press secretary, which lapsed in 2016. canmerits of the briefings be debated, but i think the white house has obligation to answer pronouncements of the executive branch. the white house press secretary's job differs fundamentally from those of a spokesperson, a candidate, or a political party, and the white house press secretary serves as the president of the -- pleasure of the president, but their salary is paid by the taxpayers." from your standpoint, we are not
7:22 pm
getting that from the administration, correct? guest: no. i am glad to see that briefings are taking place, but if you look at the briefings, they are very short events. they are almost always less than half an hour. sometimes no more than 15 minutes, and they have fallen into a pattern where there is kind of an opening monologue that is meant to, you know, either attack the people in that room, the reporters in that room and the news organizations, or to promote some political issue that the president is harping on. and then they closed in kind of precisely the same way. and it almost seems to me that the purpose of the briefing is, one, to promote the president's political prospects, and, and to, to go on the attack against reporters instead of trying to inform reporters.
7:23 pm
>> in your article, your essay, you point out one exchange in which you asked the press secretary about the president's tweet regarding nascar, let's watching a reaction. >> what is the president's position? does he think nascar made a mistake? >> he said, i spoke to him this morning and he said he is not making a judgment one way or the other. the intention of the tweet was to stand up for the men and women of nascar and those have who have gone to the rush to judgment to call this this was not intentional racist act. there is been a rush to judgment with other situations >> the confederate flag, does he think it was a mistake for nascar to ban it? >> the president said he was not making a judgment one way or another. you are focusing on one word at the bottom of the tweet and
7:24 pm
neglecting the rush to judgment on this. >> the president was noting the fact that this aggregate, stats nascar men and women who are gone and being demeaned and being held racist and accused of some venues of creating a hate crime, those allegations were just dead wrong. >> so jonathan carl, what is going on there? >> what is not going on there is the press secretary in good faith answering a question. you heard me ask a very simple question. i was only asking because the president had raised it with a tweet. so what is the president's position on nascar and the confederate flag? it looked like in black and white on the president's twitter feeds that it was at the stake, to ban the flake and that it caused nascar's ratings to go down. she i said i'm taking that presents words out of context,
7:25 pm
focusing on one word, and forceful it wasn't one word. and it wasn't taking anything out of context. i was asking a question. i was simply asking what the president's position was. and you know, it is -- she went into the elaborate explanation for the president's tweet that really bore very little semblance to what was said. and the press secretary is there to answer questions the good and the bug. the difficult questions. to give the semblance of truth. you can just go in there and make things up because it sounds better for the president. and to me that is what was going on there. and that is just one example i didn't even mention, but as you played it again it is actually, frankly shocking the. even after all the controversy generated by the president
7:26 pm
accusing bubba wallace of being behind a hoax somehow, he actually smollett, who actually did, you know, was involved in a hoax. i mean, bubba wallace did not do anything. somebody on his team found a noose operating as -- you know the story -- as a garage pull, and the fbi investigated, nascar investigated. bubba wallace -- there is no -- he did not do anything wrong, at all! and you have the spokesperson -- this is not a campaign person, this is not, you know, a political talking head on a cable tv show, this is the spokesperson for the president of the united states, for the executive branch of our government, to go out and suggest that bubba wallace is somehow equivalent to jussie
7:27 pm
smollett, i don't know, you know, it leaves me a little >> midafternoon on tuesday, we received word that the president was going to have a rose garden press terry. we carried it live in its entirety on the network. he spoke for 54 minutes in an opening statement and then took about nine minutes of culinary. what was your reaction to that? >> well i had never seen that before. we often talk about a rose garden strategy running for reelection, that usually means that the presidents you know, does a series of official acts that will ultimately help him in reelection, because the people see that the president is out there, doing work on behalf of the american people. it is usually about avoiding the messiness of the campaign by being above it all and
7:28 pm
acting as presidents. in this case, all the messiness of the campaign came right into the rose garden. i thought it was unusual. but back to the briefings, my good friend george kahn's and i, and i know you know well, a reporter for national journal, a historian for the white house and press relations, and just a really, you know, i think one of the true great reporters in washington, asked a very simple question the next day about that speech, noting, saying -- is there any place at the white house that the president would not engage in politics? that he believes, you know, it's kind of sacrosanct, that he would not bring politics into it, and the press secretary attacked george condon, that the hatch act protects the president. he did not say anything about the hatch act.
7:29 pm
and then wrapped it up by saying, you are just upset that the president gave such a great speech in the rose garden. again, you cannot just say things because it sounds better for the president. i think it might have suppressed the following day, steve, when the president held the event on the south lawn, just, you know, steps away from the rose garden, that featured a red pickup truck and a blue pickup truck with massive weights in the back and a big crane lifting the weights off the red pickup truck -- get it? and the crane had a sign saying, "trump administration." it was this elaborate, again, political event on the white house grounds. it is something -- presidents engage in politics, that is what it is, they are politicians, but you do not usually see such blatantly political events there on white house grounds, as you know, someone who has spent a lot of time at the white house. >> let's turn to your book, then we will get our viewer and
7:30 pm
listener calls, because you explain in great detail when you first met donald trump included a photograph and that a headline from the new york post, where you were employed at the time come "inside michael jackson's honeymoon hideaway." explain. >> well, i go way back with donald trump. it is why i wrote this book. it has been an ordinary series of interaction, extraordinary relationship goes back 26 years now. that first meeting was in 1994. i was a young reporter for the new york post. i had been on the job just a number of months. rudy giuliani was the mayor, had just gotten elected, and michael jackson had just gotten married to elvis presley's daughter, lisa marie presley, in secret, and it was revealed that the new couple were actually staying at trump tower, in new york, right there on fifth avenue.
7:31 pm
so it was an all-consuming story in new york, as you can imagine. there were so many people that went to trump tower to try to get a glimpse of these famous newlyweds. and michael jackson was at the absolute peak of his popularity. the police had to kind of put police tape all around and push people to the other side of the block, camera crews, paparazzi, news organizations -- everybody was there. so i called up donald trump -- i did not know donald trump, and he definitely did not know me, but i just called the general number, and i eventually got him on the phone, and i said, i want to do a story about why the most famous newlyweds on the planet decided to start their honeymoon at trump tower. and he invited me over, and we spent an hour walking around trump tower. he showed me where they were staying, introduced me to their bodyguard, showed me the secret passageways where they could get outside on their own to get outside, showed me his own apartment. it was really a tour de force.
7:32 pm
i put that photograph in a box 20 years ago when i moved from washington to new york, and when donald trump that elected president, i went frantically trying to find it, and i found it in that box, and i look at it, and i am just amazed at how little he has changed. in my memory of that incident, and i wrote -- you saw the headline in the close, i wrote, like, five stories inside about what was transpiring. his approach to the media, his approach to, you know, promotion and self-promotion has not really changed, either. let's take a few phone calls. you are on with jonathan carl of abc news. >> good morning. i watch all of the acting so
7:33 pm
nicey nice. why can't you say anything positive? you come on this show, and you cut this poor woman down. she gives facts, which the media does not like. yeah, smile, you know i am right. why don't you stop this negative stuff? >> i do appreciate the question. i have been in that briefing room under now 15 different press secretary secretaries. our job is to ask hard questions. i certainly did that in the last administration, if you just rewind the tape and just watch the questions i ask of barack obama upon press secretary's. we are not there to sit there and praise the president and talk about what a great job he is doing. we are there to report on what is happening. we report on successes and also
7:34 pm
failures. i will say something nice, i think kelly is the most effective campaign spokesperson that trump has ever had. i think she comes into the room and she is well prepared. she is a very effective spokesperson for trump. my criticism is about being so heavily political and not always being more to the facts. facts are very important. we are there to report facts. that is what i do. i asked those questions. i do not shy away from asking tough questions of this president or spokesperson, and i certainly did not shy away from asking tough questions of the previous presidents and their spokespeople. that is our job, focused on the facts without fear and without favor. >> as you pointed out, stefan c
7:35 pm
grisham did not hold one conference, but are you saying that the current press secretary is more effective than sarah sanders? >> i think she is well spoken and quick on her feet. certainly more effective at that then sean spicer. i think again that the briefings, as i outlined in the article, the reason why its a different job is because you are the spokesperson for the executive branch of our government, somebody who gets paid by the taxpayers. you are somebody who the people rely on for information, not skewed by politics.
7:36 pm
it could be information in crisis, i have been in that room during some really weighty times, being in there in the aftermath of the boston marathon bombing, for instance. being there after terrorists attacks in france and london and during the rise of isis, some very tense times where people lie on the information that they are getting from that person. they need to know it is not just about putting the president in the best light. it is about providing the american people with facts. i was in there during the ebola crisis, and now obviously under the current pandemic, the information that comes from that podium has to be reliable.
7:37 pm
of course it will put the president in the best light. every press secretary does that. >> morning. >> good morning. for example the last question that was asked a press conference was directed to chanel, which appears to give kelly the opportunity to vent about whatever the latest course of the day is. i am surprised that nobody has reported on this, especially you guys. perhaps some comment on that. >> i'm not going to report on what other people in that room, their strategy, but i understand the point. the questions often seem
7:38 pm
designed to give the press secretary to tee something up. sometimes they seem to surprise the press secretary or the president when he calls on them, but i fully understand what the caller is saying. >> another moment from that briefing and the white house press secretary on doctor fauci. we will get your reaction in just a moment. >> is the white house trashing doctor fauci and sending out research like memos to reporters, the president has gone off on anonymous sources in the past, why not have the guts to trash doctor fauci with your own names? >> president trump, i will for you back, there is no opposition research being done to reporters. and we are asked a very specific question and that question was that president
7:39 pm
trump noted that doctor fauci had made some mistakes and we provided a direct answer. >> hasn't the president suggested that he made mistakes? he wants it checked it -- convinced americans to inject themselves with substances. why not send out these notes reporters with your name on these? it was sent out by a white house official the president has said he does not trust anonymous sources and you are sending sources, and you are sending out these notes to reporters anonymous ely. >> i would know in terms of the president and his record on the coronavirus, he stands by the steps he has taken. you have dr. fauci who said that the record of this president is impressive could i cannot imagine under any circumstance that anybody could be doing more and those are his words. we provided a direct response, and that is about it. to the notion that there is opposition research could not be further from the truth. dr. fauci and the president has always had a good working
7:40 pm
relationship. >> we should point out that the two talked on the phone for the first time in two months. >> listen to what was said, the notion that there is opposition research could not be further from the truth, again, you cannot just say it because it sounds better for the president. it has to be based in fact. the facts were that the white house press office, that jim acosta is 100% correct in what he asked. the white house press office put out information that they felt was critical of dr. fauci, a series of quotes, some of them taken out of context that amounted to opposition research. you also had just hours before
7:41 pm
that briefing dansk aveeno, the deputy chief of staff for communications and one of the people in that white house that have been there since the beginning of the trump campaign, as close to trump as anybody in that white house, dan put on his facebook page a cartoon ridiculing anthony fauci. you also had -- we did not know at the time, but peter novato -- peter navarro writing an op-ed that he submitted to usa today saying that dr. fauci had been wrong about everything that he had dealt with him about. there was a lot going on in that white house trying to take on dr. fauci and question his credibility. it was not the furthest from the truth. it was the truth. jim acosta asks pointed questions, and that was a pointed question.
7:42 pm
i think he had a good reason for asking it. the answer was not -- it may have been putting it in the best light for the president, but it was not factual. >> jonathan's op-ed in the washington post is available online and from his newest book, front row at the trump show, he writes the following, it is a reporter posture job to be skeptical of those in power. for all of the stonewalling i have encountered, the disregard for the truth that i witnessed at this white house is different. i have seen senior officials taking a cue directly from the president willing to just make things up. the president himself has waged a complaint to make people think the truth is a lie whenever he does not like the truth. this is an assault on truth itself. that is from the new book. john is on the phone from maryland.
7:43 pm
good morning. >> first i wanted to say thank you because i have become addicted to c-span going back 30 plus years. and i also wanted to say facts do matter and your last guest, for example when he opens by saying the democratic party was for slavery and so forth, he could lead us towards the shifting of parties in a way that is useful if you are deceiving people for trickle purpose. your shows have focused on history, which is so important, in the same way when people talk about the flag, they have to be truthful about what it represents, meaning the confederate flag and how it was reintroduced as part of proactive supportive jim crow, terrorism. when i heard of your book i was
7:44 pm
quite happy because i think facts matter. the last point on the concerns around the covid crisis, the president should do proper press conferences. you should have a chart that shows how many infections have occurred and how many people have died since the president has done a proper press conference and hold him accountable for that and for the facts. thank you. >> i think that is exactly right. you have to focus on the facts as a reporter regardless of where they lead -- daily. i think context is important, and the historic context is important. in the case of a pandemic, the question of trustworthiness with the information you're getting from the white house is a matter of life and death.
7:45 pm
all of us want to know how we should deal with this threat, a threat to our health, to the health of our loved ones. having that information, without spin, not intended to frame things as good or bad for a political figure, but what is the information to help us protect ourselves, that is what matters. it is always important to be truthful and have a level of trust, but now we see truly what the consequences are of a lack of trustworthy information coming from officials. >> rick, you are next. good morning. savannah, georgia. >> morning. >> i've have been watching your show, which i really like, but i listen to him, and he talks about facts.
7:46 pm
how many times have we heard facts about the bidens, the quid pro quo as far as what joe did for his son or the release of his money to get him off. also for three years we have listened to to gotcha, going after trump, and in my opinion i just ask all of the newspeople, has he ever done anything right? to me the man has done right under the pressure he has been under as far as getting attacked every day, kelly is the greatest hire he has ever had because she stands up to people who are sharks and just want to destroy the man every second he wakes up. yet the bidens get off. they do not get asked any
7:47 pm
questions. i watch what is going on every time trump wakes up, i got to destroy him. yet the democratic party gets zero coverage for anything could we got a serious election coming up. >> what is your name again? >> rick. >> rick, i want to tell you in my book i address one of the points he made, the relentlessly negative tone of so much of the media coverage of trump since the day he walked into the white house. i do agree that the overall tone of the coverage has been one of every day, look at what he just did, look at this outrage. a lot of that, he has provided material to fuel that coverage. i do believe that it has obscured the fact that there
7:48 pm
have been real accomplishments of this administration. i acknowledge that point, but i think it is incorrect to say bidens do not get looked at. i actually asked, the very first question asked about hunter biden, i think before most people had any idea who he was, i asked about that in the white house at a briefing of jay carney right after he was named to the board. i said isn't this at the very least a conflict of interest? to have the vice president's son getting paid by this ukrainian energy company at the time when not only was the vice president dealing with foreign policy questions, but he was the point person on ukraine. i think that was legitimate. that is why i asked about it.
7:49 pm
i think you do have a point on a lot of the coverage, so totally negative, you cannot distinguish what a real story is and what a trivial thing is. reporters, good reporters asking tough questions and do investigative reporting on political figures, certainly candidates for president regardless of party. >> every administration has been trying to go after those who leak stories that are negative towards the president, but does this administration leak more than previous administrations? chief o f staff mark meadows is trying to figure out who is doing that. >> yes, the leaks are different than anything we have ever seen. they are different kinds. there are leaks that are less important about fighting
7:50 pm
between various factions in the white house, people turning to undermine others pretty remarkable amount of that in this white house, but there have been leaks that have been damaging to the president. i have a chapter on this. this is a president that has seen transcripts of his phone conversations with leaders leaked, entire transcripts in newspapers. that is an extraordinary breach. i think he had a right to be outraged. a president should be able to have a conversation with world leaders without thinking that the entire conversation will be splashed on the pages of the washington post. a lot of the leaking have been coming from the president's top aides. who knows where they came from? the president himself is
7:51 pm
somebody who is known, i can tell you from experience, to pick up the phone and talk to reporters. it is qualitatively different. this is a very leaky white house, and every chief of staff, now on number four, i believe, every chief of staff is determined to stop the leaks. none has been successful. >> the president on twitter this sunday, make america great again, and also looking into the situation in portland saying we are trying to help portland not hurt it. their leadership has for months lost control of the agitators. they are missing in action. we must protect property and people. these are not merely protesters. they are the real deal. rico is next, from michigan.
7:52 pm
good morning. >> i watch all of the news, and i understand a lot of people think the news is slanted, press conferences, speeches, news events, particulaly with this president, i've seen cnn and msnbc, they will say we will break away and we will monitor this and let you know if anything important comes up. i have even seen fox do it occasionally. i want to know what your thoughts are about this and what you are going to do about it to make sure that the american people get to see and decide for themselves what is important.
7:53 pm
>> and c-span does carry all of these without interruption. >> i was going to make that point. if you want to watch the remarks in their entirety, you will be able to do that. c-span is right here. even the white house on the twitter feed puts out a lot of the stuff completely unedited. eight news channel is not there to simply be a conveyor belt for white house statements. it is entirely appropriate for a news channel to say we will monitor and see what news came out of it and bring you the news. i do not think there's anything wrong with that. if you want to see the presidentès full remarks, you got c-span. you mentioned that the press secretary with the parting comment, here's one example. well >> i was asked probably 12 questions about the confederate flag, this president is focused on action. i am dismayed that i did not receive one question on the deaths in the country this weekend.
7:54 pm
not one question about new york city shootings doubling, not one question that i did not receive one question about five children killed, and i will leave you with this remark, one dad of an eight-year-old lost in atlanta, they say black lives matter. you killed a child. she did not do nothing to nobody. we need to be focused on securing streets, making sure no lives are lost because all black lives matter. thank you. and then she walked off the podium. you've seen that quite often lately. >> what is she trying to say, she is trying to suggest that the reporters in the room do not care about people getting murdered on the streets of new york. it was a short briefing, about 22 minutes long. the only reason why the confederate flag was brought up was because the president brought it up.
7:55 pm
the only reason they were several questions, not 12, by the way, but because the question was not being answered so reporters were following up, which is important. furthermore, regarding the shootings in new york city, that would be a serious issue, and if i was at a new york city conference, i probably would be leading with that. it was not as if the president had put out any new initiative dealing with crime in new york. we are there to report on the activities of the president. by the way, if that press conference had gone on longer than 22 minutes, including the opening and closing, you would've seen, may have seen questions. if she wanted to bring up new york, she could have. if you listen after the walk off, you hear one of my
7:56 pm
colleagues saying, can you stick around, we will ask you right now about new york. but, no, you have to have that walk off, and lecture the press and walk out. >> sheila you are next, massachusetts. >> good morning, it is nice to see you on tv. i have enjoyed you for many years on your show. anyway, my point is i am very upset, number one, c-span has not covered anything on what is going on in seattle. i have watched every single morning. it just dismayed me that there was no coverage on what is going on up there. secondly, jim acosta is a hostile reporter and he takes
7:57 pm
everything he takes out of context for the one thing that really gets me is that business of trump told people to inject themselves with whatever. he never meant that. we all know what he meant. scientists show there are antibiotics that work just like disinfectants in the body that is really disturbing. every single day for three hours on c-span we listen to, he is incompetent, he has done this and that. i rarely see a guest on who is positive. there are a lot of things wrong in this country one of the things that really needs to change is the attitude of the black community must take some responsibility for the positions they are in. >> we appreciate the call. >> i think jim acosta is a good
7:58 pm
reporter, a tough reporter. he asks questions to get under the skin of a press secretary and a president, and he did that under the obama administration. you mentioned the injecting, i do know if jim said anything about that, but i was in the briefing when the president did bring up the idea of having this effect that's used inside the body. he did not say inject it it was an odd moment. he also said somehow putting uv light inside the body and asked if it could be researched. something happened there. i agree with you, if somebody said the president told people to inject disinfectants, that is not what he said. he implied something along those lines. >> the chief white house correspondent for abc news, his
7:59 pm
new book, front row at the trump show, and before we let you go, a quick question about what we can expect this week, the house and senate back in session, and the president and his team part of the negotiations. what is going to happen? >> i think there is significant incentive for both sides to get something done, but they are far apart. the interesting wrinkle that we have seen now is that in what the republicans propose, the white house is trying to strip away money for additional coronavirus. testing which seems to be kind of an odd move. my sense is that republicans on capitol hill not go along with that. it is a huge issue. this crisis is clearly going to be going on for sometime.
8:00 pm
and i think both sides will want to show that they are doing something going into this election to help people who have been hit very hard by this crisis, both in terms of the fear of the health and obviously the peer of the impact. it's been great to be on. you are a, you've handled this with incredible grace and you are always fair and always balanced, and i think you are our model. thank you for having. ian >> thank you for having us on, we will let you go to the other day job. i appreciate you being with. us tonight, on american history tv, our series on landmark cases, produce in cooperation with the national constitution center, we explore the issues, people, and places involved on some of the nation's most significant supreme court cases
42 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on