Axios political reporter Jonathan Swan has a reputation of being an even-keeled reporter and appearing on multiple cable networks. However, Wednesday hits on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report and MSNBC’s Hardball saw Swan unload on only fellow journalists and elected officials for publicly spreading unsubstantiated allegations against VA Secretary nominee Ronny Jackson.
What was even more surprising was that Swan’s arguments were met on MSNBC with similar anger from Hardball host Chris Matthews.
Prior to Matthews, he spoke on Fox, admitting that he doesn’t “usually try to get angry on TV but I actually do feel a sense of, like, deep concern and anger at some of this because I broke that stupid story on Sunday” that there were concerns both in Congress and at the White House but he went no further not because he was unaware of the claims, but he instead couldn't confirm their veracity.
Swan continued as he raised his voice:
But I don't know if they are true. I have no earthly idea if they are true or not. So, I'm not just going to go, ‘oh, well, it's alleged, and I am hearing that this guy, you know, did all of these terrible things and these, you know, X, Y, and Z,” because I have no idea if it's true or not and, like, clearly neither does Jon Tester. I mean, this isn’t — surely, this is a problem.
Only minutes later, he switched to Hardball and Matthews was already skeptical of the alcohol and drug-fueled stories of abuse by Jackson. Matthews wondered to NBC chief White House correspondent Hallie Jackson on two separate occasions:
How could all this go unknown and all of a sudden he's up for VA and we're learning horrible stuff about him...Well, what do you hear about him? I mean, and he's the White House — he's the President's physician and he's supposedly now a boozer who drinks all the time on the job and nobody noticed it?
Prior to Swan, he told PBS Newshour’s Yamiche Alcindor that “this is...pretty clear cut” as to whether the allegations are true and how could this have not been exposed during his time in the Bush or Obama administrations.
When he moved to Swan, Matthews told him that it’s difficult to believe Jackson went from “some sort of impeccable being” to these claims, so “[i]t doesn’t hold up.”
Swan reiterated his points from FNC and when Matthews inquired about where these stories are “coming from,” Swan went nuclear (click “expand,” emphasis mine):
Chris, I don't know because I haven't spoken to one of the people who’s made these allegations. All I’ll tell you is I'm talking to people who are on the White House staff who’ve worked with him and they're not echoing is sort — these allegations. And you know, so it's very hard for me to know if it’s true or not....Again, I haven't seen the evidence of an organized campaign behind this. There's clearly a campaign against him and I’m not saying — I don't know one way or the other whether they're true or false. But I’m just — again, as a reporter, it makes me very uncomfortable when I see allegations out there that I cannot verify and as far as I can see from what these people are saying on TV, they haven't fully verified either. Like Tester has admitted he can’t — he's not sure yet about the veracity of them. Surely, they’re — this is not that clear-cut to me at all. I mean, what is clear-cut is that this was a guy who was completely unvetted, who had no relevant experience to run the second largest agency in the federal government, that the President tweeted out on an impulse over the objections of his chief of staff. That's the clear-cut part of this story. The rest we need more reporting to find out.
Before going to commercial break, Matthews noted that “these charges are serious” and “[e]ither the guy is a drunk on the job or he's not and you can't throw charges around like that unless you know they're true and somebody’s got to substantiate or undermine those charges or this guy’s career is going to be ruined now.”
He concluded:
And so, I think to go around and say, “oh, it's only about policy or it’s only about the executive responsibilities to run this agency” eludes the fact that somebody ought to be held responsible, somebody has fed all this stuff to people like Senator — Senator Tester and the question is, is it true? And I think that's the job of Congress to figure out because the Presidents haven't done a good job of checking this guy out. I hope Congress does the better job.
Editor's Note, 10:00 a.m. Eastern: This post has been corrected to more accurately reflect Swan's comments on Special Report concerning the accuracy of the allegations against Jackson.
To view the relevant transcript from FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier and MSNBC’s Hardball on April 25, click “expand.”
FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier
April 25, 2018
6:45 p.m. Eastern
JONATHAN SWAN: Can I just — I don't usually try to get angry on TV but I actually do feel a sense of, like, deep concern and anger at some of this because I broke that stupid story on Sunday. I said they’ve got deep concerns about him in the White House, on the Hill, his confirmation’s in peril and I said there have been allegations taken to Tester. The reason I wrote it that way is not because I didn't know what the allegations were. I was given them on Friday. I knew what these allegations were. But I don't know if they are true. I have no earthly idea if they are true or not. So, I'm not just going to go, “oh, well, it's alleged, and I am hearing that this guy, you know, did all of these terrible things and these, you know, X, Y, and Z,” because I have no idea if it's true or not and, like, clearly neither does Jon Tester. I mean, this isn’t — surely, this is a problem.
MSNBC’s Hardball
April 25, 2018
7:02 p.m. Eastern
CHRIS MATTHEWS: How could all this go unknown and all of a sudden he's up for VA and we're learning horrible stuff about him?
HALLIE JACKSON: So the argument from the White House, Chirs, that Sarah Sanders made from the podium today is that this a guy who has been and passed four background checks for his position inside the administration. They're arguing, hey, he's at arm's length — literally not just with one President, but with three presidents, former Presidents Bush, Obama and Donald Trump now. That's sort of what they're laying out. Now, I will tell you that the public line. Privately, there is an acknowledgment of concern in and around the White House how the Jackson nomination was rolled out, Chris, about how this was handled from the very beginning given that there is some concern that Jackson's story wasn't fully told, that he hadn't had a chance to talk about his resume, his biography, his experience and his credentials. Now, I ran into Ronny Jackson along with my colleague her Kristen Welker in a surprise interview. I think he was a bit taken aback to see reporters upstairs in the West Wing although did he answer a couple of questions regarding specifically some of those explosive allegations that have now come out in this document obtained by NBC News which you've discussed put together by Democrats on the Veteran Affairs Committee. He says he's never wrecked a car. That is one of the allegations that he got drunk after a Secret Service party and crashed a government vehicle. Jackson multiple times denied that that ever happened. He said he doesn't know where the allegations are coming from. He says he is still moving forward and we are told by a White House official that he told the President these accusations are false and misleading. So, listen, if you're going to pick a word to describe the mood at the White House tonight, it seems to be defiant.
MATTHEWS: Well, what do you hear about him? I mean, and he's the White House
JACKSON: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: — he's the President's physician and he's supposedly now a boozer who drinks all the time on the job and nobody noticed it?
(....)
MATTHEWS: Yamiche, this is — this is — this — really pretty clear-cut. It's not do you like the guy or not? Do you like his temperament or not? Did you crash the car? Does he drink a lot when they get on the plane together with the President as his number one patient? And he's drunk. It's not like he has a few drinks. He's drunk a lot and this thing about concierge medicine where he’s giving out pills all the time, having a nickname candy man because he’s good for the kind of drugs people like to have for recreational purposes, perhaps. This is pretty flagrant. It's one or the other.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the thing is the key question here is, if all of these allegations are true, how did he survive three Presidents? How did he go from George Bush —
MATTHEWS: Who has been covering for him?
ALCINDOR: — exactly. How — what's the vetting process been when he's been passed over to the next — to the next President because it is undeniable there are hand written notes from Obama. Not like — this is not — we're not talking about somebody who typed this up on a computer. I saw it with my own two eyes the signature of Obama saying he needs to be promoted up, he's a great doctor, he's doing great. So, those are the things that the white house is saying. The problem is, though, that I think that Ronny Jackson has the been backing the White House publicly, but the president did not roll out the Obama taking points. Yesterday, he made it clear, if I was Ronny Jackson, I would probably be backing out of this issue. So, to me, he's given him an off-ramp here and I’m not sure if he’s going to get it, but I would not surprised if Ronny Jackson said: “You know what? I don't want to go to this hearing and get all this stuff on the record. I’m just going to bow out?
MATTHEWS: I would think that too. Let me go to Jonathan Swan. Jonathan, it seems to me that if this guy continued as the President's doctor, none of this would have come out. The only reason any of it’s coming is he's about to run a 400,000 employee agency of the government, the Veterans Administration, and finally we realized he drinks a lot, gives away medicine he shouldn't give away, acts as a sort of concierge doctor, a candyman to the White House staff and is abusive to people below him and, all of a sudden, we're learning this after having served three Presidents and being treated as some sort of impeccable being and now this. It doesn't hold up. It sounds like the Vietnam War where we hear one story from the generals and another story from the troops.
JONATHAN SWAN: Well, that's one way of looking at it and the other way of looking at it is there are a whole bunch of allegations that have been aired and are now out there in the media that we actually don't know if they're true and I’ve been trying — I reported all of this on Sunday that he had huge problems that the White House was concerned about him, that Capitol Hill was concerned about him and there were allegations that had been taken to Tester. The reason I didn't write them is cause I actually still, to this day, don't know if they're all true. I've been trying to corroborate them.
MATTHEWS: Where they coming from, generally?
SWAN: I’ve been making calls.
MATTHEWS: Are they coming from inside the White House staff or are they coming from — where are they coming from?
SWAN: Chris, I don't know because I haven't spoken to one of the people who’s made these allegations. All I’ll tell you is I'm talking to people who are on the White House staff who’ve worked with him and they're not echoing is sort — these allegations.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
SWAN: And you know, so it's very hard for me to know if it’s true or not.
MATTHEWS: Was there an organization that’s out there that’s — you know, we’re used to this. We all know about this — certain organizations left and right who promote bad stories about people and gin up these commentaries by people. Is there any evidence of an organized campaign against the doctor?
SWAN: Again, I haven't seen the evidence of an organized campaign behind this. There's clearly a campaign against him and I’m not saying — I don't know one way or the other whether they're true or false. But I’m just — again, as a reporter, it makes me very uncomfortable when I see allegations out there that I cannot verify and as far as I can see from what these people are saying on TV, they haven't fully verified either. Like Tester has admitted he can’t —
ALCINDOR: Yeah. Mmhmm.
SWAN: — he's not sure yet about the veracity of them. Surely, they’re — this is not that clear-cut to me at all. I mean, what is clear-cut —
MATTHEWS: Yamiche?
SWAN: — is that this was a guy who was completely unvetted, who had no relevant experience to run the second largest agency in the federal government, that the President tweeted out on an impulse over the objections of his chief of staff. That's the clear-cut part of this story. The rest we need more reporting to find out.
(....)
MATTHEWS [on the behavioral allegations being linked to his inexperience in management]: The trouble with that is, it frees people from having to back up what they've claimed and these charges are serious. Either the guy is a drunk on the job or he's not and you can't throw charges around like that unless you know they're true and somebody’s got to substantiate or undermine those charges or this guy’s career is going to be ruined now. And so, I think to go around and say, “oh, it's only about policy or it’s only about the executive responsibilities to run this agency” eludes the fact that somebody ought to be held responsible, somebody has fed all this stuff to people like Senator — Senator Tester and the question is, is it true? And I think that's the job of Congress to figure out because the Presidents haven't done a good job of checking this guy out. I hope Congress does the better job.
