Tipsheet
Premium

Karine Jean-Pierre Was Playing All Kinds of Shoddy Defense During Tuesday's Press Briefing

Rebecca Downs
Rebecca Downs  |  June 14, 2023 1:30 PM

The Tuesday White House press briefing was a doozy for Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Her remarks go too often without a fact-check or even scrutiny. Jean-Pierre also struggles to provide adequate answers to questions and is even, at times, combative with journalists. She seemed to be particularly rattled on Tuesday, though. 

As Townhall has been covering, last Saturday's Pride Celebration at the White House South Lawn was not merely noteworthy for President Joe Biden's remarks but for how the progressive LGBTQ+ flag was draped alongside the American flag, as well as how a trans "influencer" exposed and fondled his fake breasts. The White House released a statement of condemnation, and that person has been banned. Jean-Pierre was also forced to answer for it at the briefing, as Katie covered. 

A reporter asked, "Is there going to be a greater effort in the future to communicate a code of conduct for White House guests?"

Jean-Pierre mostly re-emphasized the White House statement, saying that "the behavior was simply unacceptable," something they've "been very clear about," and that "it was unfair to the hundreds of attendees who were there to celebrate their families." 

The press secretary reiterated that it was "not appropriate" and was "disrespectful" but also added that "it really does not reflect the event that we hosted to celebrate the LGBTQ+ families – again, hundreds of families who were here to celebrate their community and who were here in attendance." She then offered that they're "going to continue to be clear on that," also mentioning that those in the video seen going topless and fondling each other "certainly will not be invited to future events."

Recommended

Merry Christmas, And Democrats Can Go To Hell Derek Hunter
60 Minutes Reporter Reveals Her Greatest Fear as We Enter a Second Trump Presidency Matt Vespa

But, again, the day was marked by a defensive Jean-Pierre, as she wished to reassure that "this was not a normal thing that has happened under this administration," before adding, once more, "We've been very clear about how we saw this particular behavior."

For however much Jean-Pierre wished to stress they've been "very clear" with such a statement, people aren't buying it. The statement, repeated condemnation, and barring of those individuals were necessary. The White House couldn't choose not to do it, and it shouldn't try to pretend, after repeatedly gaslighting about the appropriate outrage and action taken over sexually explicit, pornographic books being made available to school-age children, that this behavior is not reflective.

This is also the same White House that has a preoccupation with encouraging children who may be experiencing gender dysphoria to undergo irreversible medical procedures, including genital mutilation and sterilization along with hormone therapy and puberty blockers, and ignoring the health concerns that stem from that. With this "influencer" being trans, those breasts are not real. They were artificially added to this person's body. Had it been a woman transitioning to a man, that person would have had such breasts removed. 

The strong defense from Jean-Pierre only continued from there. She was immediately afterward asked about the Pride flag hanging at the White House beside the American flag.

In emphasizing that "the administration was proud, again, to display the Pride flag," Jean-Pierre not only failed to address the question but defended the administration for the move that was so rightfully criticized. "It centered around love and family. And I think that's important," she offered, as if adhering to the flag code isn't. 

In fact, it appears that such adherence would be a distraction, according to this administration. "And so, you know, we're not going to let anyone distract us from that – what was the meaning of the day, what was the meaning of having families here, and to celebrate a community," Jean-Pierre said. "I'm certainly not going to get into protocols from here, or I'll leave that to others. And so, you know, we're proud of this historic event that we were able to put together here on the South Lawn for families. And so I'll leave it there," she practically sneered. 

There was another elephant in the room, though, and one that more directly had to do with Jean-Pierre herself. It was revealed on Monday night that she had been found in violation of the Hatch Act for comments she made last November leading up to the midterm elections, where she demonized the president's political opponents as "Mega MAGA Republicans." She received a warning from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). 

Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, released a statement that was predictably unbelievable, claiming, "As has been made clear throughout the administration, we take the law seriously and uphold the Hatch Act. We are reviewing this opinion." Then again, he has had a habit of statements full of gaslighting, including when it comes to the president's supposed concern with an assassination plot against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

What followed during Tuesday's press briefing was a lengthy and testy exchange at times between Jean-Pierre and the reporter, as the press secretary claimed she was "really glad" the question was asked, presumably to clear the air. The question was, "What kind of guidance had you previously been given by the White House Counsel on that matter?"

"So as, we've made very clear throughout our time in this administration that we do everything that we can to uphold, certainly, the Hatch Act and take the law very seriously," she claimed, echoing Bates' statement. 

Given that other members of the administration, including Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and then White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, were also found to be in violation, it's hard to believe that they "take the law very seriously." 

Jean-Pierre once more hid behind letting someone else speak on the issue, as she mentioned she was "certainly not going to get ahead of how the White House Counsel is going to respond or what's going to come out from that action."

The press secretary then criticized the previous administration, another frequent habit of hers. "If you look at the archived Trump White House website, it contains about 2,000 – nearly 2,000 uses of 'MAGA' to describe policies and official agendas," she stated, missing the point about how the buck is supposed to stop with this president. 

She also tried to point out that "Congressional Republicans have also used 'MAGA' to refer to policies and official agenda frequently, for years now – even, clearly, before we entered the administration," missing another point regarding how top Democrats use the term as a pejorative, and that it was even the focus of a six-month long project to find out how Biden could best target his political opponents. 

Desperate to move on, Jean-Pierre tried to stick to how the matter will be "reviewed" and how there will be "a routine dialogue" between OSC and White House counsel. 

When asked further about her understanding of the limitations of the Hatch Act, Jean-Pierre once more sought the opportunity to brag about the administration's handling of it. 

Given that the 2024 election is in the news cycle so often, Jean-Pierre offered that "as it relates to an ongoing election right now," with regards to 2024, "we just are very careful," and the administration is "very careful to respect the law." 

Jean-Pierre did try to catch herself in offering that "anything that you all ask me about the campaign, I very often, if not almost every time, refer you to the campaign." It's worth pointing out, though, that when it comes to this election cycle, Jean-Pierre hasn't even been willing to share details about the president's schedule when it comes to direct questions about whether or not Biden will campaign. 

This White House has been tone-deaf on other matters as well. As much as this White House would like to promote all things Pride, there are other stories in the news cycle, ones Jean-Pierre likely wishes to avoid at all costs, and so her defense becomes even weaker.

The press secretary also took a question seeking "a little bit of a clarification on the Trump indictment." The reporter asked, "Can you say categorically that President Biden was not involved or influenced at all any of the decisions into indicting the president by..." before being cut off by Jean-Pierre answering "not at all" and stating that Biden "was not involved."

One more thing this administration believes Biden "has been very, very clear" on is that "the Department of Justice is independent. He wants to restore that independence of the Department of Justice, and that's what you have seen." In other words, don't believe your lying eyes. 

Seriously, who do they think is buying this? Also on Tuesday, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) announced he was holding up DOJ nominees due to the "unprecedented political prosecution" of former and potentially future President Donald Trump.

It's not just Trump being targeted, but everyday Americans. 

As Vance's statement and press release allude, the DOJ has selectively targeted pro-life Christian activists. One prominent example was how Mark Houck, a husband and father of seven, was arrested last September as SWAT teams raided his home in the early morning hours, terrifying his wife and children. Houck was found not guilty in January on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act charges brought against him, which local prosecutors had previously dismissed.

This all while the DOJ largely ignores violent pro-abortion extremists who have targeted pro-life organizations and churches since someone leaked a draft of the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision in May of last year. The DOJ could also hardly be bothered to stand up properly for U.S. Supreme Court justices who were targeted, earning harsh criticism. 

The FBI even looked to infiltrate Catholic churches and is now facing a lawsuit, along with the DOJ. 

Not many Americans, as it turns out, buy that the charges aren't politically motivated. A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll found that a plurality, 47 percent, believe they are. 

That the poll shows a plurality of respondents think that Trump should have been indicted actually hurts the DOJ since it has ended up politicizing an issue many Americans otherwise support.