While much of the questions during Friday afternoon’s White House press briefing centered on the Middle East, abortion, and Ukraine, Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich stuck to the border and got the ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to play dumb on a basic question: does the White House think the border is secure?
She arrived at that direction question by way of a recent House resolution: “What is the administration’s response to the 14 House Democrats who voted with Republicans the other day to denounce the ‘open border policies of the Biden administration’?”
Jean-Pierre expressed befuddlement, so Heinrich restated: “Would you have a response to 14 Democrats in the House believing that this President has open-border policies?”
The Press Secretary then decided to offer up an answer, insisting the White House has “been very clear” about “want[ing] to deal with...the border” and has been evidenced by “conversations, these negotiations in the Senate with Republicans and Democrats” (even though it’s a group of senators who decided to band together) and Biden’s supplemental funding request (i.e. throw money at it).
Among the many possible statements and exasperating one could make at hearing this, here’s one fact/question: If it’s so porous, why wasn’t the administration able to “deal with” it when their party also controlled Congress?
This led Heinrich to ask what should have been a yes or no question: “Is it — is it still the position of the administration that the border is secure?”
Like her predecessor Jen Psaki refused to call it a crisis, Jean-Pierre ducked what’s objectively a resounding no: “Our position is that we need to do more at the border. We have to do more at the border. That’s why these negotiations are currently happening. That’s our position.”
Heinrich used the reminder of her time to ask whether “the administration” sees “the efforts to impeach Secretary Mayorkas” as “unconstitutional.”
Of course, Jean-Pierre was somehow unprepared and instead blabbered about “shameful” “House Republicans...playing political games” and “not doing their jobs — the jobs that the American people want them to be doing” as evidenced by “the midterms in 2022.”
Heinrich knew she didn’t get an answer, so she kept pressing (click “expand”):
HEINRICH: On the constitutionality portion, though, I saw that there was a memo that came out that was touting this open letter from constitutional law professors making the argument that impeachment based on policy disagreements is unconstitutional. Is that the approach the administration is taking to this?
JEAN-PIERRE: What letter are you speaking to? Say more.
HEINRICH: There’s an Ian Sams memo that went out and it was included — an open letter from constitutional law professors who were arguing that impeaching a cabinet official on the basis of policy disagreements is forbidden in the Constitution.
JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m going to let my colleague’s letter stand of itself. I’ve been very clear on how we feel and what we think about these impeachment proceedings and a proceeding that is not even allow Secretary Mayorkas to testify.
Eventually, after yet another ask, Jean-Pierre punted to Sams, who responded to a video tweet of this exchange on X, posted by this author.
Rewind to the John Kirby portion of the briefing and the Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese had a short but important foreign policy question: “President Biden admitted yesterday that the retaliatory strikes against the Houthis aren’t working. Why aren’t they afraid of the U.S.?”
Kirby more or less shrugged, saying she’d have to find out from “the Houthis what’s in their mindset” because while they’ve falsely asserted their attacks on U.S. ships and commercial vessels in the Red Sea are “about Gaza” and U.S. and Britain “wag[ing] war on them.”
“We’re trying to defend our navy ships and sailors....and, two, protect international shipping. This is about self-defense...[T]he exchange of fire...doesn’t have to go on one day more if the Houthis would make the right decision,” he added.
Reese followed up: “But they’re a terrorist group attacking U.S. interests, you know, wouldn’t your response make them stop?”
Kirby again punted seeing as how “terrorists groups commit acts of violence...for political posturing or political messaging...or, perhaps, tied to religious fervor.”
He also pushed back on the idea of halting the retaliatory strikes: “I don’t know what the alternative would be. Should we just stop? Stop defending ships and just let them have their way with the southern Red Sea? I don’t think that’s in anybody’s interest.”
To see the relevant transcript from the January 19 briefing, click “expand.”
White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed]
January 19, 2023
2:25 p.m. EasternREAGAN REESE: President Biden admitted yesterday that the retaliatory strikes against the Houthis aren’t working. Why aren’t they afraid of the U.S.?
JOHN KIRBY: Well, you have to ask the Houthis what’s in their mindset. I’m going to get in-between the ears of Houthi leaders. They claim it’s about Gaza. It’s not. They claim that this is some sort of, you know, U.S. and Britain effort to wage war on them. It’s not. We’re simply trying to do two things. We’re trying to defend our navy ships and sailors. And the navy ships and sailors of other nations that are in the Red Sea with us. And, two, protect international shipping. This is about self-defense. And, again, this conflict — well, first of all, we don’t seek a conflict. There doesn’t need to be conflict. But the exchange of fire that we have seen in recent days doesn’t have to go on one day more if the Houthis would make the right decision to these attacks.
REESE: They’re a terrorist group attacking U.S. interests, you know, wouldn’t your make them stop?
KIRBY: Again, terrorists groups commit acts of violence, oftentimes not just for the sake of committing acts of violence, but for — for political posturing or political messaging of some sort — or, perhaps, tied to religious fervor. And, they are a designated terrorist group. They are conducting terrorist attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and we have to respond to that. I don’t know what the alternative would be. Should we just stop? Stop defending ships and just let them have their way with the southern Red Sea? I don’t think that’s in anybody’s interest, so we’re not going to — we’re not just going to lie down here and — and wait for them to come to a different approach. They need to stop the attacks. If they don’t, we’ll continue to defend ourselves and make it harder for them to conduct them.
(....)
2:40 p.m. Eastern
JACQUI HEINRICH: What is the administration’s response to the 14 House Democrats who voted with Republicans the other day to denounce the “open border policies of the Biden administration”?
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: I — what do you mean? What’s our — our comments on — what?
HEINRICH: Would you have a response to 14 Democrats in the House believing that this President —
JEAN-PIERRE: Oh the [inaudible].HEINRICH: — has open-border policies?
JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, we’ve been very clear. We want to deal with what’s going on at the border. That’s why we’re having these conversations, these negotiations in the Senate with Republicans and Democrats. The President understands that this is an issue that matters to the American people and we feel like those conversations that are happening — those negotiations are heading in the right direction. And, so, the President understands. He put the border security — right — there — that was part of the supplement. His request on funding for border security was part of that national security ask — that emergency ask. So, we believe we need to do more. The President understands we need to do more and we — we Republicans and Democrats in Senate want to do more.
HEINRICH: Is it — is it still the position of the administration that the border is secure?
JEAN-PIERRE: Our position is that we need to do more at the border. We have to do more at the border. That’s why these negotiations are currently happening. That’s our position.
HEINRICH: And, is it the position of the administration that the efforts to impeach Secretary Mayorkas are unconstitutional?
JEAN-PIERRE: What we believe is that what House Republicans are doing is playing political games. That’s what we believe. And they’re not doing their jobs — the jobs that the American people want them to be doing. And let’s not forget. They won’t even let Secretary Mayorkas even testify. They want to impeach him, but they’re not even allowing him to testify. And, so, it is shameful. That is what we believe. It is shameful and what we’d encourage these House Republicans to do and this is something we saw coming out of the midterms in 2022. American people want to see Republicans and Democrats working together to deliver for them, to address the issues that matter. That’s what we would rather see.
HEINRICH: On the constitutionality portion, though, I saw that there was a memo that came out that was touting this open letter from constitutional law professors making the argument that impeachment based on policy disagreements is unconstitutional. Is that the approach the administration is taking to this?
JEAN-PIERRE: What letter are you speaking to? Say more.
HEINRICH: There’s an Ian Sams memo that went out and it was included — an open letter from constitutional law professors who were arguing that impeaching a cabinet official on the basis of policy disagreements is forbidden in the Constitution.
JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m going to let my colleague’s letter stand of itself. I’ve been very clear on how we feel and what we think about these impeachment proceedings and a proceeding that is not even allow Secretary Mayorkas to testify.
HEINRICH: I’m just trying to gather though, because it came to us from, you know, the White House, obviously —
JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
HEINRICH: — that, you know, is this something that the administration is going to fight in court on the — on a constitutional basis that this is not something that could happen.
JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. And I will say I’m going to let my White House colleagues at the counsel — counsel’s office respond to that.
