Though FNC’s Peter Doocy might be the best at setting Psaki off with a simple question, he’s not the only one in the press pool who manages to do so.
In fact, any reporter can so long as they ask questions that are not 100% obsequious and full of scraping and bowing down to Team Biden and its infinite wisdom on every issue. Whenever asked about something that doesn’t make Team Biden and its cronies look like angels above reproach, Psaki tends to get upset and snippy.
Such was the case last week, on May 5th, when NBC News’ White House correspondent, Peter Alexander, pressed Psaki to condemn the illegal leaking of Justice Alito’s draft opinion on the Dobbs case, an opinion that would overturn Roe and return the abortion issue to the states.
Psaki, shockingly, refused to do so and wouldn’t condemn the illegal leak, a leak which poses a major problem for the court and the legitimacy of its decisions, as leaks and political pressures could make its decisions look like they’re motivated by politics rather than impartial constitutional law.
That happened when Alexander tried to geet Psaki to condemn the leak, saying:
Let me ask you: Yesterday, you were asked — I know that you guys have been heav- — that the White House has been heavily focused on the substance, obviously, as it relates and has the biggest impact on Americans broadly.
But you were asked about the leak itself. And given the historic nature of the leak, which was so unprecedented, as you acknowledged, you said: “I don’t think we have a particular view on that other than to say that we certainly note the” historic — or “unprecedented” — excuse me — “nature of it.”
Why wouldn’t the White House condemn this leak? Are there any concerns — do you have concerns about the, sort of, further politicization of one of the branches of government?
A fair question and, what’s more, a surprisingly good one from NBC, a media outlet normally on the side of Psaki and the Democrats.
But Psaki couldn’t give a good answer, as she was for some reason unwilling to condemn the leak. So she responded to his question with a question, asking “Have you ever reported anything that’s been leaked to you?”
But Alexander wasn’t dissuaded or chastened by her response. So he fired back, acknowledging that he has but also reminding Psaki that the White House has condemned past leaks, saying:
I am — and you guys have criticized leaks before as it’s been provided. So, I’m ask- — you’ve criticized in the past. Why not criticize this leak?
Psaki got snippy and tried to return to the abortion issue rather than the leak itself, saying “Again, because I think what is happening here, and what we think is happening here, is there’s an effort to distract from what the actual issue here —”
Alexander, again not backing down or letting her off the hook by changing the subject, said “Can’t both — can’t both be true, though?”
Then, after a bit more back and forth, he finally got her to somewhat answer, though she again tried to return the topic to how terrible stopping baby murder is:
Well, look, I think there has been a call for an investigation by leaders of the Supreme Court. Decisions on that and how it will be pursued will be made by the Department of Justice and others. And that’s certainly their space and right to — to make that decision in government. That’s how government is set up.
But at the same time, what we’ve also seen, Peter, is many Republicans, who are trying to overturn a woman’s fundamental rights, try to make this about the leak. This is not about the leak. This is about women’s healthcare and women having access to healthcare and making choices with their doctors.
No Jen, it’s about the indefensible leak, which is why you’re so upset.