Politico corrected a report from last week on the role that Donald Trump‘s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles played preceding the exit of Katie Zacharia as White House press secretary.
But the media outlet’s attorney is warning the Trump administration not to seize on the correction for “unconstitutional retaliation,” following a threat from a top White House official.
The original Politico report claimed that Wiles helped set up Zacharia’s interview with Hannity, in which the press secretary faced tough questions from the host, including why she identified herself as a lawyer despite not passing the bar exam. She exited her post the next day, after less than a week in the position.
Politico published a revised story late on Wednesday, stating that “follow up reporting indicates [Wiles] did not play a direct role in setting up” an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. The new report stated that Wiles “offered positive reinforcement” to Zacharia for the interview, and that the previous report “mischaracterized” what she did.
On Monday, Will Scharf, counsel to Trump, wrote to Politico’s global editor in chief, Jonathan Greenberger, calling on the media outlet to correct or retract three articles on Wiles and to issue a “prominent and public apology” to the chief of staff and the president. He added that if Politico did not do so, it would “prompt an immediate review” of the media outlet’s “relationship with the White House, and, of course, consideration of all other appropriate and available legal remedies.” Axios first reported on Scharf’s letter.
In addition to the Wiles-Hannity report, Scharf cited two other Politico pieces, including one from Oct. 15 headlined “Trump’s ice maiden under fire,” reporting that Trump had been making calls about possible replacements for her. He also pointed to a follow up story the next day that appeared in the newsletter Playbook, reporting on a Trump “freakout” over the previous Politico story. Scharf wrote to Greenberger that “you nevertheless published false and defamatory information, thereby compounding your original false reporting with another sensationalized and false assertion designed to reinforce your preferred narrative without regards to facts or reality.”
Scharf also wrote that when it came to Politico’s report that Wiles was involved in setting up the Hannity interview, the White House “provided documentary evidence to the reporter demonstrating the falsity of the article’s premise, and several other outlets have now published text messages showing the press secretary initiated the scheduling for the interview itself.”
In a response letter from Scharf, Politico’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous Jr., wrote the media outlet “categorically rejects the false accusations in your letter that it ‘chose to publish fanciful fiction’ and ‘purposeful falsehoods designed to mislead the public.’ And we not that your letter largely ignores the actual substance of Politico’s reporting that you purport to criticize.” He noted that “one of the three articles you cite purportedly disregarded ‘information directly contradicting’ an ‘allegation’ when, in fact, the information you refer to — denials from senior administration officials — is included in the published reporting itself.”
He added that Politico reexamined all three articles and did follow up reporting, determining that “it was appropriate to correct one” of them.
“Promptly and transparently making corrections, as Politico has done here, is a hallmark of journalistic ethics and integrity, and of the very professionalism your letter falsely claims Politico is lacking,” Boutrous wrote.
Boutrous went on to write that “we would be remiss if we did not note that the timing and substance of your letter further confirms the unlawful retaliatory and viewpoint discriminatory motives” underlying Trump’s ban on Politico, MS NOW and CNN from the White House grounds.
A federal judge ruled that the ban violated the media outlets’ due process and First Amendment rights, and prohibited the White House from pulling their reporters’ hard passes. The Trump administration is appealing.
Boutrous added in his letetr to Scharf, “To the extent your letter is, as it transparently appears to be, an attempt to manufacture some justification predicated on vague ‘standards of professionalism’ for the White House to continue its patter of unconstitutional conduct targeting Politico, it fails.”
Boutrous went on to write that “any error that you could identify in Politico’s reporting about the president or his administration would not excuse the White House’s unconstitutional retaliation and discrimination against Politico for the content of its news coverage.” He noted that the Supreme Court, in the landmark New York Times vs. Sullivan decision, concluded that “erroneous statements” and “inevitable in free debate” and “must be protected if freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need to survive.”
Politico had no additional comment beyond Boutrous’ letter. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.