Former White House Press Secretary Peacock future host Jen Psaki joined the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics (IOP) Wednesday for her first post-Team Biden interview and dished on her affinity for Peter Doocy, threats to her family (and not expressing concern for what Supreme Court justices have faced), some of her mistakes, and how a Hillary Clinton administration press office might have had less on-camera briefings.
And during the Q&A portion, Psaki spared with a conservative student from the venerable Chicago Thinker over her encouragement of protests against the justices.
Faculty members of IOP and the far-left New York Times Jennifer Steinhauer, reporter for Doocy began her career because “[w]hether people follow politics, didn’t follow politics, the country was sort of mesmerized by these weekly, or often more than that, sparring that you had with the Fox News reporter in the briefing room.”
Psaki began by making it clear that she “do[es] like Peter Doocy, and that may not be popular with everybody” On her side.
Psaki said that Doocy and her work relationship were part of what she wanted. “to reestablish civility in the briefing room….people could hear information”As well as the opportunity to ask and engage in difficult questions.
She spoke more about Doocy, saying she knew from the beginning that there would always be someone for everyone. “treat[ed]…with respect” And “call[ed] on”Even though “Fox…didn’t always have positive reporting about the President or the Vice President.”
Lamenting the Trump administration was too focused on “disputing the legitimacy of institutions or the media,” Psaki returned to the liberal narrative that Fox questions were somehow less legitimate and seemed to have conceded some of the briefings were “performative” (click “expand”):
So, you see, we started a lot more sparring. It became sparring because he was always asking questions. He wrote the questions a lot of times, sometimes I’m sure they were worked out with people he worked with at Fox. These were the questions Fox was discussing on that particular day. It was easy to predict their potential outcomes. It skewed a lot more about immigration and the border and the Vice President and all sorts of things that may not have always been — were — were — they wanted to make into a controversy. But I will say, at the end of the day, we did not brunch, but we also didn’t hate each other. The middle was where it was. [LAUGHTER]My only comment is that it was a good, civil relationship. It is important to ask the right question. It’s possible that someone will ask this question. I’ll pose it for you. The relationship was good. In the briefing area, we had some sparring. Could that be performative? Perhaps it is. What does this say about the fact we went back-and-forth in the briefing area, as well as the fact that on social media I was cheered because I pushed back against Peter Doocy, while he was cheered because he pushed back on me? In many ways that we did have a good and civil relationship but it does show the divide in society as well as what social media drives. This was a very long answer. I’ll tryYou can find more information here make them shorter, but proceed.
On threats, Psaki said it’s been “very scary” to “have had a lot of threats against me, against my family, names of my kids texted to me with my home address” And “threatening mail.”
Of course, that wasn’t the case when she said back onApril 10 and 12 the White House “certainly continue[s] to encourage” protests “outside of judges’ homes” and other forms of protest (read: harassment) so long as it doesn’t turn to physical violence.
It was on that point that Chicago Thinker’s Daniel Schmidt stepped up in the Q&A to go “Peter Doocy mode” and read that quote to Psaki.
Of course, Psaki insisted she “never said that” (click “expand”):
SCHMIDT: Hey. Thank you for doing this. My name is Daniel Schmidt.
PSAKI: Hi, Daniel.
SCHMIDT: I’m a first-year here. Going to pull a bit of a, Peter Doocy mode right here.
PSAKI: Okay, Daniel.
SCHMIDT: So, here it goes. A week ago after the Roe v. Wade protests —
PSAKI: Yeah.
SCHMIDT: — were happening in front of the Supreme Court justices’ houses, you said, I quote, “We certainly continue to encourage that people protest outside of judges’ homes”
PSAKI – I have never done that.
SCHMIDT: I’m quoting from…
PSAKI – I spoke peacefully.
SCHMIDT: Yeah, sure. Peacefully.
PSAKI: That’s a key word in there, isn’t it?
SCHMIDT: Peacefully. Regardless, they’re protesting because they’re trying to impact the results. It’s a federal crime to protest outside of justices’ homes to impact the results. So my question is, do you regret encouraging people to protest outside of justices’ homes? Even though it’s peaceful, it’s still a federal offense.
PSAKI: Thank you so much for asking the question. Let me first say, because I think facts matter and facts are important, I never — I never encouraged anyone to protest. I encouraged them to do — engage peacefully, and to do it without violence, without threats, and without intimidation. And that’s something I said many, many times and I think is vitally important. You can also peacefully protest in areas where it’s legal. It’s legal in many parts of the country. And I’m not going to tell people, I don’t think it’s the role of the government to tell people where they can or cannot peacefully protest. If they’re breaking the law, of course, they shouldn’t do that. That’s what I said, too.
Psaki, unsurprisingly, was reluctant to admit her regrets. often “should have” made a point “more clearly”With “more context.”
Specifically, she insisted her tone on December 6 wasn’t up to standards due to a late night at the Kennedy Center as well as She replied to Bloomberg reporter Josh Wingrove’s question on February 2, 2021 about the Space Force.
Steinhauer also asked Psaki to name best and worst days and neither were entirely surprising with the best having been the celebration of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation vote and the worst having come when 13 soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.
Steinhauer asked Psaki questions about the 2006 remarks made by Mike McCurry, Clinton’s press secretary. regrettedNever having introduced cameras at White House briefings.
Psaki claimed that, had Hillary Clinton been elected, the Obama Administration would have asked Team Clinton to reduce the number on-camera briefings. It was amusing, considering Sean Spicer’s meltdown in the liberal media. That was it?2017
Prior to the Q&A, Steinhauer invited Psaki to list areas of disagreement with Biden and Psaki remained cagey with lame answers about wishing he had traveled more and held fewer meetings.
But there was one of substance, which was her complaint that he didn’t do enough media interviews seeing as how “he’s somebody who has a broad swath of knowledge about a lot of things over a lot of years, whether it’s politics or foreign policy.”
You can view the pertinent transcript starting March 18 by clicking here
About Post Author
