Ian Sams, the spokesperson for the White House Counsel’s Office, recently penned a letter addressed to members of the White House Correspondents Association, expressing concerns about the press coverage surrounding Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on the investigation into President Joe Biden. Sams commended the importance of a free press amid the current influx of misinformation and noise in various media channels.
In the letter, Sams highlighted the challenges of covering Hur’s extensive and convoluted nearly 400-page report, which lacked a straightforward narrative. He pointed out that due to restrictions imposed by the Special Counsel, the White House, and the President’s personal counsel couldn’t provide information or context before the report’s public release. Sams also alluded to what he deemed as “false and inappropriate personal comments” by Hur, particularly the characterization of Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory” who forgot crucial dates during the official interview.
Sams criticized the press coverage of the report, asserting that many outlets had disseminated inaccuracies that misrepresented the report’s conclusions about the President. He argued that some reporters in the White House Briefing Room posed questions based on false premises, creating a misleading narrative.
To illustrate specific examples, Sams pointed out headlines and stories that incorrectly asserted the report found that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified material. He cited examples from CNN, CBS News, The Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, among others, to highlight the purported inaccuracies.
Sams then delved into the substance of the report, emphasizing that Hur was investigating the “willful retention of national defense information.” He argued that journalists who claimed the Special Counsel “found” or “concluded” willful retention by the President were explicitly refuted by the report’s conclusion that no charges were warranted.
Acknowledging that the Special Counsel’s language may have contributed to confusion, Sams suggested that a better wording could have been “found some evidence” related to the investigated aspects. He contended that after a thorough exploration of the facts and evidence, the Special Counsel determined that there was no evidence to support willful retention or disclosure by President Biden.
The letter proceeded to analyze specific documents that Biden retained, providing explanations from Hur regarding why Biden’s actions did not meet a criminal standard. Sams concluded the letter by recognizing the challenging nature of the media’s role in covering complex topics. He emphasized the importance of addressing significant errors in coverage, especially when misstating the findings and conclusions of a federal investigation involving the sitting President.
Sams expressed a willingness to address any questions and engage in discussions with members of the White House Correspondents Association, emphasizing the administration’s respect for the role of the free press in informing the American people.
