Trump administration admits Secret Service 'statement' used to ban Playboy journalist from White House does not exist
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Trump administration has said in court that a written statement by the Secret Service agent that was reportedly used in part to revoke White house access for Playboy correspondent Brian Karem does not actually exist.
The non-existent statement was said to have been used by White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham as she determined what punishment was appropriate for Mr Karem after an incident at the Rose Garden in July. At that event, videos and documentation of the incident show, Mr Karem and former White House aide Sebastian Gorka yelled insults at each other.
The Trump administration's admission regarding the Secret Service agent's written statement was disclosed in a new filing by Justice Department, in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr Karem is suing the Donald Trump and Ms Grisham, claiming that the decision to revoke his so-called "hard pass" violates his First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.
The filing notes that the Secret Service agent who intervened between Mr Karem and Mr Gorka in July was later interviewed by lawyers in the White House counsel's office, and that written notes exist from that interview. It does not appear as though the notes were provided to the court.
The filing on behalf of the Justice Department comes just a day after judge Rudolph Contreras, an appointee of Barack Obama, heard nearly two hours of arguments on whether to restore Mr Karen's pass following the high-profile incident.
During the arguments, Mr Contreras said that it was "less than credible" that Mr Karem intended to invite Mr Gorka onto his podcast, when he said: "Come on over here and talk to me, brother, or we can go outside and have a long conversation."
Mr Contreras also said, however, that the White House had applied "murky" standards for professionalism in pulling Mr Karem's access to the White House, and that the application of those standards may have violated Mr Karem's constitutional rights.
"As this event proved, the nature of journalism has changed quite a bit," Mr Contreras said. "I'm trying to figure out where the lines are."
Mr Contreras also questioned the decision making process as it was explained by the White House, specifically Ms Grisham's decision to rely on the Secret Service agent's account, which Mr Karem was never able to see. The Secret Service agent had stepped in to deescalate the conflict between Mr Gorka and Mr Karem, which took place during a social media summit.
Mr Karem's lawyer, Ted Boutrous, said that the issues at stake strike at the very core of conflict between the American press and the White House, and that the whole effort was a part of Mr Trump's effort to deligitimise the media.
"This case raises really important issues that go far beyond this case," Mr Boutrous said, according to POLITICO. He said that it is "part of a campaign president Trump has been very open about that he's waging on 'fake news' and the 'lamestream media.'"
The revocation is the second time that the White House has limited access to a journalist over an alleged altercation, with CNN reporter Jim Acosta. Mr Acosta and CNN also took the White House to court, where they received an injunction, before the Trump administration dropped its effort to keep Mr Acosta out of the White House.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments