Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. Direct: +1 213.229.7804 Fax: +1 213.229.6804 TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com $XJXVW 0V 6WHSKDQLH *ULVKDP $VVLVWDQW WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW :KLWH +RXVH 3UHVV 6HFUHWDU\ 7KH :KLWH +RXVH 3HQQV\OYDQLD $YHQXH 1: :DVKLQJWRQ ' & 'HDU 0V *ULVKDP :H ZULWH RQ EHKDOI RI RXU FOLHQW %ULDQ .DUHP ZKR VHUYHV DV WKH :KLWH +RXVH FRUUHVSRQGHQW IRU 3OD\ER\ LQ UHVSRQVH WR \RXU $XJXVW OHWWHU LQIRUPLQJ KLP RI \RXU ³SUHOLPLQDU\ GHFLVLRQ´ WR VXVSHQG KLV KDUG SDVV IRU GD\V VXSSRVHGO\ ³GXH WR >KLV@ FRQGXFW DW WKH SUHVV HYHQW LQ WKH 5RVH *DUGHQ RQ -XO\ ´ DQG JLYLQJ KLP RQH EXVLQHVV GD\ WR VXEPLW D UHVSRQVH EHIRUH \RX ³PDNH D ILQDO GHFLVLRQ LQ WKLV PDWWHU ´ :H REMHFW WR WKLV DUELWUDU\ DQG XQIDLU SURFHGXUH WKUHDWHQLQJ WR GHSULYH 0U .DUHP RI KLV FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ SURWHFWHG OLEHUW\ DQG SURSHUW\ LQWHUHVWV LQ KLV KDUG SDVV ZKLFK ZRXOG IODWO\ YLRODWH WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW DQG WKH 'XH 3URFHVV &ODXVH DQG WKH SULQFLSOHV HVWDEOLVKHG E\ WKH ' & &LUFXLW¶V GHFLVLRQ LQ Sherrill v. Knight ) G ' & &LU DQG PDQ\ RWKHU FDVHV W@KH FUDS \RX WKLQN RI LV XQEHOLHYDEOH¶´ 7R VD\ WKH OHDVW LW ZDV D FRORUIXO DQG ERLVWHURXV FURZG 7KH H[FKDQJH LQ WKH 5RVH *DUGHQ IROORZHG 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS¶V SRVW VXPPLW UHPDUNV RQ $WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO %DUU¶V VWUDWHJ\ WR LQFOXGH WKH FLWL]HQVKLS TXHVWLRQ RQ WKH FHQVXV 0U .DUHP DVNHG ZKHWKHU 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS ZRXOG VWLFN DURXQG DQG DQVZHU VRPH TXHVWLRQV 0V 6WHSKDQLH *ULVKDP $XJXVW 3DJH ZKLFK KH GLG QRW 2QH FRQVHUYDWLYH VRFLDO PHGLD DFWLYLVW WKHQ PRFNHG .DUHP VD\LQJ ³'RQ¶W EH VDG GRQ¶W EH VDG ´ DQG 0U .DUHP LQ JRRG KXPRU PDGH D MRNH GRLQJ KLV 5RGQH\ 'DQJHUILHOG LPSUHVVLRQ ²³ORRNV OLNH D FURZG HDJHU WR EH GHPRQLFDOO\ SRVVHVVHG ´ $V WKH YLGHRV \RX FLWH PDNH FOHDU WKH MRNH ZDV ZHOO UHFHLYHG E\ WKH DVVHPEOHG DFWLYLVWV PDQ\ RI ZKRP ZHUH WDXQWLQJ DQG LQVXOWLQJ WKH :KLWH +RXVH UHSRUWHUV LQ DWWHQGDQFH ,Q UHVSRQVH 0U *RUND DV VKRZQ LQ YLGHRV DQG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKRVH LQ DWWHQGDQFH EHJDQ \HOOLQJ DW 0U .DUHP WDXQWLQJ KLP DQG FDOOLQJ KLP D ³MRXUQDOLVW ´ ZLWK PRFNLQJ DLU TXRWHV ,Q UHVSRQVH WR 0U *RUND¶V RQVODXJKW 0U .DUHP VWDWHG ³+H\ EURWKHU ZH FDQ WDON DQ\WLPH \RX ZDQW RU JR RXWVLGH DQG KDYH D ORQJ WDON ´ E\ ZKLFK KH ZDV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW KH DQG 0U *RUND DFWXDOO\ GLVFXVV WKHLU YLHZV RXWVLGH RI WKH 5RVH *DUGHQ QRW WKDW WKH WZR HQJDJH LQ D ³SK\VLFDO FRQIURQWDWLRQ ´ DV \RXU OHWWHU IDOVHO\ LQGLFDWHV $QG DOWKRXJK 0U .DUHP QHYHU FURVVHG WKH URSH OLQH VHSDUDWLQJ WKH SUHVV FRUSV IURP WKH HYHQW DWWHQGHHV 0U *RUND FKDUJHG DFURVV WKH 5RVH *DUGHQ WR FRQIURQW 0U .DUHP \HOOLQJ DW 0U .DUHP DQG DFFXVLQJ 0U .DUHP RI ³WKUHDWHQLQJ´ KLP DQG VKRXWLQJ ³0U *RUND ZRXOG@ NLFN \RXU SXQN DVV ´ 0U *RUND DOVR DSSDUHQWO\ UHIHUUHG WR RWKHU UHSRUWHUV DV ³DVV KDWV ´ DQG 0U .DUHP ZLWQHVVHG QXPHURXV DWWHQGHHV RI WKH HYHQW DFWLYHO\ KHFNOLQJ UHSRUWHUV LQFOXGLQJ &11¶V -LP $FRVWD 7KH HVFDODWLRQ RI WKLV VLWXDWLRQ ZDV WKH UHVXOW RI 0U *RUND¶V DFWLRQV DQG WKH FURZG¶V UHVSRQVH WR WKHP $W QR WLPH GLG DQ\ :KLWH +RXVH VWDIIHUV RU WKH 6HFUHW 6HUYLFH DWWHPSW WR VWRS any RI WKH JXHVWV IURP KHFNOLQJ WKH SUHVV QRU GLG WKH\ LQWHUFHGH WR NHHS 0U *RUND RU DQ\ RWKHU HYHQW DWWHQGHH IURP HQJDJLQJ LQ KDUDVVPHQW ,QGHHG 0U .DUHP DFWXDOO\ DSSURDFKHG 0U *RUND DIWHU WKH FRQIURQWDWLRQ LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR GH HVFDODWH WKH VLWXDWLRQ DQG WDON WKLQJV RXW 0U .DUHP RIIHUHG WR VKDNH 0U *RUND¶V KDQG %XW 0U *RUND UHEXIIHG WKHVH HIIRUWV DQG UHIXVHG WR HQJDJH ZLWK 0U .DUHP RWKHU WKDQ LQVLVWLQJ UHSHDWHGO\ WKDW 0U .DUHP ZDV ³GRQH´²ZKLFK PD\ KDYH IRUHVKDGRZHG 0U *RUND¶V HIIRUWV WR EULQJ DERXW WKH FXUUHQW VXVSHQVLRQ 6LPLODUO\ VXEVHTXHQW WR WKH -XO\ SUHVV HYHQW 0U .DUHP UHDFKHG RXW WR \RXU RIILFH PXOWLSOH WLPHV WR GLVFXVV WKH LQFLGHQW EXW \RX FDQFHOHG PHHWLQJV \RX DQG KH KDG VFKHGXOHG DQG WZR VXEVHTXHQW HPDLOV 0U .DUHP VHQW WR \RXU RIILFH HQGHG ZLWK QR VFKHGXOHG PHHWLQJ 0U .DUHP@ WKH ULRW DFW #6HE*RUND Twitter -XO 3 0 VXJJHVWLQJ KLV DJJUHVVLRQ DLPHG DW 0U .DUHP PD\ ZHOO KDYH EHHQ VWDJHG WKHDWULFV +H HYHQ FDOOHG RQ 0V 6WHSKDQLH *ULVKDP $XJXVW 3DJH RWKHUV WR IROORZ KLV ³H[DPSOH´ LQ FRQIURQWLQJ MRXUQDOLVWV KWWSV ZDVKH[ DP <$1Y Y 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS DSSODXGHG 0U *RUND RQ 7ZLWWHU ZULWLQJ ³#6HE*RUND :LQV %LJ 1R &RQWHVW ´ 7KH WZHHW LV QRZ ³SLQQHG´ DW WKH WRS RI 0U *RUND¶V 7ZLWWHU SURILOH 7KH 3UHVLGHQW¶V WZHHW LQ IDFW GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW KH GLG QRW YLHZ 0U .DUHP¶V FRQGXFW DV WKUHDWHQLQJ WR WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RU DQ\ RI LWV JXHVWV EXW UDWKHU WKRXJKW LW ZDV KXPRURXV ,Q WKH GD\ SHULRG EHWZHHQ WKH VRFLDO PHGLD VXPPLW DQG \RXU $XJXVW ³SUHOLPLQDU\ GHFLVLRQ´ WR VXVSHQG 0U .DUHP¶V KDUG SDVV 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS KDV UHVSRQGHG WR VHYHUDO RI 0U .DUHP¶V TXHVWLRQV DW SUHVV HYHQWV LQFOXGLQJ DQVZHULQJ WZR TXHVWLRQV²RQH DERXW SRWHQWLDO 'LUHFWRU RI 1DWLRQDO ,QWHOOLJHQFH QRPLQHHV DQG RQH DERXW SRWHQWLDO IDUP VXEVLGLHV GXH WR WKH &KLQD 7UDGH :DU²D OLWWOH OHVV WKDQ WZR KRXUV EHIRUH 0U .DUHP UHFHLYHG WKH HPDLO WHOOLQJ KLP RI \RXU SUHOLPLQDU\ GHFLVLRQ 2Q $XJXVW LQ IDFW²WKH GD\ EHIRUH \RX VHQW \RXU OHWWHU²0U .DUHP DVNHG WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR UHVSRQG WR SUHVLGHQWLDO FDQGLGDWH %HUQLH 6DQGHUV¶V FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW WKH 3UHVLGHQW ZDV D SDWKRORJLFDO OLDU D TXHVWLRQ WKH 3UHVLGHQW LJQRUHG 7KH QH[W GD\ GHVSLWH QR UHOHYDQW FRPPXQLFDWLRQV VLQFH WKH 5RVH *DUGHQ HYHQW \RX VHQW \RXU OHWWHU DGYLVLQJ RI \RXU ³SUHOLPLQDU\´ GHFLVLRQ WR UHYRNH 0U .DUHP¶V KDUG SDVV 0U *RUND LPPHGLDWHO\ FHOHEUDWHG WKH VXVSHQVLRQ RQ 7ZLWWHU WKDQNLQJ \RX DQG WKH 3UHVLGHQW ³>R@Q EHKDOI RI $PHULFDQV ZKR¶YH KDG HQRXJK RI )DNH1HZV SXQNV OLNH #%ULDQ.DUHP ´ ,, 7KH 3UHOLPLQDU\ 'HFLVLRQ WR 6XVSHQG 0U .DUHP¶V +DUG 3DVV 9LRODWHV +LV 'XH 3URFHVV DQG )LUVW $PHQGPHQW 5LJKWV V@´ DV WKH EDVLV IRU \RXU GHFLVLRQ WR WHPSRUDULO\ VXVSHQG 0U .DUHP¶V KDUG SDVV²D SDVV RXU FOLHQW KDV SRVVHVVHG IRU QHDUO\ D \HDU DQG LQ ZKLFK KH XQTXHVWLRQDEO\ KDV D ³)LUVW $PHQGPHQW OLEHUW\ LQWHUHVW ´ Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump 1R FY 'NW 1R ' ' & 1RY RUDO UXOLQJ ,Q Sherrill v. Knight ) G ' & &LU WKH ' & &LUFXLW PDGH FOHDU WKDW GXH SURFHVV LQ WKLV FRQWH[W UHTXLUHV WKH JRYHUQPHQW ³to articulate and publish DQ H[SOLFLW DQG PHDQLQJIXO VWDQGDUG´ JRYHUQLQJ WKH GHQLDO RI :KLWH +RXVH SUHVV SDVVHV LQ DGYDQFH RI DQ\ 7@KH SURWHFWLRQ DIIRUGHG QHZVJDWKHULQJ XQGHU WKH ILUVW DPHQGPHQW JXDUDQWHH RI IUHHGRP RI WKH SUHVV UHTXLUHV WKDW WKLV DFFHVV >WR :KLWH +RXVH SUHVV IDFLOLWLHV@ QRW EH GHQLHG DUELWUDULO\ RU IRU OHVV WKDQ FRPSHOOLQJ UHDVRQV ´ 7KDW LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK ORQJVWDQGLQJ 8 6 6XSUHPH &RXUW SUHFHGHQW UHTXLULQJ FOHDU DQG REMHFWLYHO\ DGPLQLVWUDEOH VWDQGDUGV SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHUH WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW LV FRQFHUQHG ³$ IXQGDPHQWDO SULQFLSOH LQ RXU OHJDO V\VWHP LV WKDW ODZV ZKLFK UHJXODWH SHUVRQV RU HQWLWLHV PXVW JLYH IDLU QRWLFH RI FRQGXFW WKDW LV IRUELGGHQ RU UHTXLUHG ´ FCC v. Fox Television Studios, Inc. 8 6 $QG ³>Z@KHQ VSHHFK LV LQYROYHG ULJRURXV DGKHUHQFH WR WKRVH UHTXLUHPHQWV LV QHFHVVDU\ WR HQVXUH WKDW DPELJXLW\ GRHV QRW FKLOO SURWHFWHG VSHHFK ´ Id. DW ± ,Q WUXWK WKHUH DUH QR VR FDOOHG ³ZLGHO\ XQGHUVWRRG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ>V@´ WKDW ZRXOG VXSSRUW \RXU SUHOLPLQDU\ GHFLVLRQ DQG WKH VWDQGDUGV \RX KDYH FRQFRFWHG DUH VR YDJXH DQG VXEMHFWLYH DV WR EH XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO RQ WKHLU IDFH 1RWLRQV WKDW WKH SUHVV FRUSV KDV ZLGHO\ XQGHUVWRRG WKDW WKH\ PXVW PDLQWDLQ ³GHFRUXP ´ ³REH\ LQVWUXFWLRQV IURP :KLWH +RXVH VWDII ´ DQG UHIUDLQ IURP ³WDXQWLQJ RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH SUHVV´ DSSHDU WR EH QRWKLQJ PRUH WKDQ QHZO\ JHQHUDWHG SUHWH[WXDO UDWLRQDOHV VHHNLQJ WR MXVWLI\ WKH :KLWH +RXVH¶V GHFLVLRQ post hoc LQ WKLV FLUFXPVWDQFH ,QGHHG QXPHURXV DWWHQGHHV DW WKH -XO\ HYHQW YLRODWHG WKH DSSDUHQW QR WDXQWLQJ UXOH \HW \RX KDYH VLQJOHG RXW RQO\ 0U .DUHP IRU SXQLVKPHQW ZLWKRXW H[SODQDWLRQ 0RUHRYHU WKH YDJXH ³XQGHUVWDQGLQJ>V@´ UHIHUUHG WR LQ \RXU OHWWHU SODLQO\ GR QRW FRQVWLWXWH WKH ³SXEOLVK>HG@ H[SOLFLW DQG PHDQLQJIXO VWDQGDUGV´ UHTXLUHG XQGHU Sherrill v. Knight DQG RWKHU ELQGLQJ FDVH ODZ 7KLV LV SUHFLVHO\ ZKDW WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ SURKLELWV See, e.g. Fox Television Stations 8 6 DW ILQGLQJ EURDGFDVWHU¶V GXH SURFHVV ULJKWV ZHUH YLRODWHG DQG QRWLQJ WKDW WKH ³YRLG IRU YDJXHQHVV GRFWULQH DGGUHVVHV DW OHDVW WZR FRQQHFWHG EXW GLVFUHWH GXH SURFHVV FRQFHUQV ILUVW WKDW UHJXODWHG SDUWLHV VKRXOG NQRZ ZKDW LV UHTXLUHG RI WKHP VR WKH\ PD\ DFW DFFRUGLQJO\ VHFRQG SUHFLVLRQ DQG JXLGDQFH DUH QHFHVVDU\ VR WKDW WKRVH HQIRUFLQJ WKH ODZ GR QRW DFW LQ DQ DUELWUDU\ RU GLVFULPLQDWRU\ ZD\´ Reno v. ACLU 8 6 ± ³7KH YDJXHQHVV RI >D FRQWHQW EDVHG UHJXODWLRQ RI VSHHFK@ UDLVHV VSHFLDO )LUVW $PHQGPHQW FRQFHUQV EHFDXVH RI LWV REYLRXV FKLOOLQJ HIIHFW RQ IUHH VSHHFK ´ BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore 8 6 ³(OHPHQWDU\ QRWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV HQVKULQHG LQ RXU FRQVWLWXWLRQDO MXULVSUXGHQFH GLFWDWH WKDW D SHUVRQ UHFHLYH IDLU QRWLFH QRW RQO\ RI WKH FRQGXFW WKDW ZLOO VXEMHFW KLP WR SXQLVKPHQW EXW DOVR RI WKH VHYHULW\ RI WKH SHQDOW\ WKDW D 6WDWH PD\ LPSRVH ´ Giaccio v. Pennsylvania 8 6 ³>2@QH RI WKH EDVLF SXUSRVHV RI WKH 'XH 3URFHVV &ODXVH KDV DOZD\V EHHQ WR SURWHFW D SHUVRQ DJDLQVW KDYLQJ WKH *RYHUQPHQW LPSRVH EXUGHQV XSRQ KLP H[FHSW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH YDOLG ODZV RI WKH ODQG ,PSOLFLW LQ WKLV FRQVWLWXWLRQDO VDIHJXDUG LV WKH SUHPLVH WKDW WKH ODZ PXVW EH RQH WKDW FDUULHV DQ XQGHUVWDQGDEOH PHDQLQJ ZLWK OHJDO VWDQGDUGV WKDW FRXUWV PXVW HQIRUFH ´ 0V 6WHSKDQLH *ULVKDP $XJXVW 3DJH Second 0U .DUHP ZDV DIIRUGHG no SURFHVV EHIRUH \RX UHDFKHG WKLV ³SUHOLPLQDU\ GHFLVLRQ ´ ZKLFK ZDV UHYHDOHG WR 0U .DUHP DIWHU WKH IDFW OLPLWLQJ 0U .DUHP WR DQ ³DSSHDO´ RQ VKRUW QRWLFH RI D GHFLVLRQ DOUHDG\ PDGH See Sherrill ) G DW ³>1@RWLFH RI WKH IDFWXDO EDVHV IRU GHQLDO >RI DFFHVV WR :KLWH +RXVH SUHVV IDFLOLWLHV@ ZLWK DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR UHEXW LV D PLQLPXP SUHUHTXLVLWH IRU HQVXULQJ WKDW WKH GHQLDO LV >QRW@ EDVHG RQ DUELWUDU\ RU OHVV WKDQ FRPSHOOLQJ UHDVRQV ´ 7KHUH LV QR LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW UHVSRQGLQJ WR \RXU ³SUHOLPLQDU\´ GHFLVLRQ WR UHYRNH 0U .DUHP¶V SDVV SURYLGHV 0U .DUHP DQ\ PHDQLQJIXO RSSRUWXQLW\ WR EH KHDUG E\ DQ REMHFWLYH GHFLVLRQ PDNHU DV GXH SURFHVV UHTXLUHV WKXV UHQGHULQJ DQ\ ILQDO GHFLVLRQ \RX PDNH WR VWULS KLP RI KLV SDVV FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ LQILUP See Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co 8 6 QRWLQJ WKDW GXH SURFHVV YLRODWHG QRW RQO\ ZKHQ D ³MXGJH LV DFWXDOO\ VXEMHFWLYHO\ ELDVHG ´ EXW DOVR ZKHQ WKHUH H[LVWV HYHQ WKH ³SRWHQWLDO IRU ELDV´ H@DFK GD\ WKDW >D UHSRUWHU@ LV GHSULYHG RI´ KLV ³)LUVW $PHQGPHQW OLEHUW\ LQWHUHVW LQ D :KLWH +RXVH SUHVV SDVV´ ³ZLWKRXW WKH SURFHVV SUHVFULEHG E\ WKH FRXUW LQ Sherrill KH VXIIHUV D KDUP WKDW FDQQRW EH UHPHGLHG ´ Cable News Network, Inc. 1R FY 'NW 1R DW ± ± 7R WKH H[WHQW \RX XQODZIXOO\ GHSULYH 0U .DUHP RI KLV SUHVV SDVV IRU HYHQ RQH GD\ \RX ZLOO FDXVH LUUHSDUDEOH KDUP DQG ZH UHVHUYH DOO OHJDO ULJKWV WR VHHN D FRQFRPLWDQW UHPHG\ WR WKDW KDUP LQFOXGLQJ PRQH\ GDPDJHV IRU WKH YLRODWLRQ RI FOHDUO\ HVWDEOLVKHG IHGHUDO ODZ 0V 6WHSKDQLH *ULVKDP $XJXVW 3DJH RWKHU DWWHQGHHV RI WKH VXPPLW ZHUH LQ IDFW UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH ³JURVV EUHDFK RI GHFRUXP´ \RX LGHQWLI\ LQ \RXU OHWWHU DQG QRW 0U .DUHP \RX GHFLGHG LQVWHDG WR VLQJOH RXW 0U .DUHP IRU UHWDOLDWLRQ HYHQ ZKLOH WKH 3UHVLGHQW FHOHEUDWHV WKRVH LQFOXGLQJ 0U *RUND YLD SUHVLGHQWLDO WZHHW ZKR KDYH EHKDYHG IDU ZRUVH See, e.g. Trump Praises Montana Congressman Who Body-Slammed Reporter &1%& 2FW $0 KWWSV FQE F[ G <&5 QRWLQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQW¶V SUDLVH RI *UHJ *LDQIRUWH¶V ERG\ VODP RI D UHSRUWHU ³$Q\ JX\ WKDW FDQ GR D ERG\ VODP²KH¶V P\ NLQG RI JX\ +H¶V D JUHDW JX\ WRXJK FRRNLH ´ 7KLV H[KLELWV D FOHDU DQG SURKLELWHG ELDV EDVHG RQ FRQWHQW RI VSHHFK DQG WKH LGHQWLW\ RI WKH VSHDNHU See Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n 8 6 ³6SHHFK UHVWULFWLRQV EDVHG RQ WKH LGHQWLW\ RI WKH VSHDNHU DUH DOO WRR RIWHQ VLPSO\ D PHDQV WR FRQWURO FRQWHQW ´ 7KH IDFW WKDW WKH VXVSHQVLRQ LV FRQWHQW EDVHG LV DOVR VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW WKH :KLWH +RXVH ZDLWHG GD\V EHIRUH LVVXLQJ LWV SUHOLPLQDU\ GHFLVLRQ WR VXVSHQG 0U .DUHP¶V KDUG SDVV²ZLWK WKH 3UHVLGHQW DQVZHULQJ VHYHUDO RI .DUHP¶V TXHVWLRQV GXULQJ WKDW SHULRG² VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKH GHFLVLRQ LV OHVV DERXW SURWHFWLQJ VDIHW\ RU GHFRUXP WKDQ VLOHQFLQJ D MRXUQDOLVW NQRZQ IRU WRXJK TXHVWLRQLQJ RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW ,QGHHG WKH WLPLQJ RI WKH OHWWHU DSSHDUV PRUH FRQQHFWHG WR 0U .DUHP¶V TXHVWLRQLQJ RI 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS RQ $XJXVW UHJDUGLQJ %HUQLH 6DQGHUV¶V FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW WKH 3UHVLGHQW ZDV D SDWKRORJLFDO OLDU WKDQ WR D SUHVV HYHQW WKUHH ZHHNV HDUOLHU QRW WKH ILUVW WLPH 0U .DUHP KDV DSSHDUHG WR UDQNOH 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS DQG :KLWH +RXVH RIILFLDOV ZLWK WRXJK TXHVWLRQV 7KH IDFW WKDW \RX PDGH QR HIIRUW GXULQJ WKH WKUHH ZHHN GHOD\ WR LQTXLUH DERXW WKH LQFLGHQW RU SURYLGH D ZDUQLQJ UHJDUGLQJ FRQGXFW DW 5RVH *DUGHQ HYHQWV LV IXUWKHU HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH ³SUHOLPLQDU\ GHFLVLRQ´ WR VXVSHQG 0U .DUHP¶V KDUG SDVV LV QRWKLQJ PRUH WKDQ D SUHWH[W IRU SXQLVKLQJ 0U .DUHP IRU WKH FRQWHQW RI KLV TXHVWLRQLQJ DQG D PHDQV WR FKLOO 0U .DUHP DQG RWKHU MRXUQDOLVWV IURP DJJUHVVLYHO\ FRYHULQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQW DQG WKH :KLWH +RXVH E\ LQVWLOOLQJ IHDU RI KDYLQJ WKHLU KDUG SDVVHV VXVSHQGHG RU UHYRNHG Finally \RX DOVR SURYLGH QR H[SODQDWLRQ DV WR ZK\ VXVSHQGLQJ 0U .DUHP¶V KDUG SDVV LV D VXIILFLHQWO\ WDLORUHG UHVWULFWLRQ RI KLV )LUVW $PHQGPHQW OLEHUW\ LQWHUHVWV ZKHUH )RU H[DPSOH DV UHFHQWO\ DV -XO\ QHDUO\ WZR ZHHNV DIWHU WKH LQFLGHQW LQ TXHVWLRQ WKH 3UHVLGHQW FDOOHG 0U .DUHP DQG RWKHU MRXUQDOLVWV ³IDNH QHZV´ ZKLOH SRLQWLQJ KLV ILQJHU DW 0U .DUHP $V DQRWKHU H[DPSOH RQ -XQH .DUHP KDG D ZLGHO\ UHSRUWHG H[FKDQJH ZLWK 6DUDK +XFNDEHH 6DQGHUV LQ WKH :KLWH +RXVH EULHILQJ URRP ,Q UHVSRQVH WR D TXHVWLRQ IURP &11 :KLWH +RXVH FRUUHVSRQGHQW -LP $FRVWD DERXW WKH GHWHQWLRQ RI LPPLJUDQW FKLOGUHQ 6DQGHUV UHVSRQGHG WKDW LW LV ³ELEOLFDO WR HQIRUFH WKH ODZ ´ .DUHP WKHQ DVNHG 6DQGHUV ZKHWKHU VKH KDG HPSDWK\ JLYHQ WKDW VKH KHUVHOI LV D SDUHQW /DWHU WKDW GD\ )R[ 1HZV KRVW -HVVH :DWWHUV VDLG WKDW .DUHP DQG $FRVWD ³GRQ¶W EHORQJ´ LQ WKH EULHILQJ URRP DQG WKDW WKH :KLWH +RXVH ³QHHG>V@ WR VWDUW ULSSLQJ SUHVV SDVVHV DZD\ ´ 7KH 3UHVLGHQW KDV PDGH FOHDU KLV GLVOLNH RI WRXJK TXHVWLRQLQJ E\ .DUHP 2Q )HEUXDU\ DIWHU .DUHP DVNHG WKH 3UHVLGHQW ZKHUH KH JRW KLV VWDWLVWLFV DERXW ERUGHU YLROHQFH 7UXPS WROG .DUHP ³6LW GRZQ 6LW GRZQ 6LW GRZQ ´ $ IHZ ZHHNV ODWHU RQ -XQH ZKHQ .DUHP WULHG WR DVN WKH 3UHVLGHQW D TXHVWLRQ 7UXPS WXUQHG DQG JODUHG DW .DUHP DQG VDLG ³4XLHW 4XLHW 4XLHW ´ 0V 6WHSKDQLH *ULVKDP $XJXVW 3DJH VHYHUDO OHVV VHYHUH UHVWULFWLRQV DUH DYDLODEOH Sherrill UHTXLUHV ³FRPSHOOLQJ´ UHDVRQV IRU UHYRNLQJ D KDUG SDVV DQG \RXU OHWWHU GRHV QRW DUWLFXODWH DQ\ VXFK FRPSHOOLQJ UHDVRQ ,QVWHDG LW DJDLQ PLVVWDWHV WKH IDFWV DQG VKLIWV WKH UDWLRQDOH ,,, &RQFOXVLRQ +DUG SDVVHV DUH QRW PHDQW WR EH ZHDSRQL]HG DV D PHDQV RI SHQDOL]LQJ UHSRUWHUV IRU FRYHUDJH ZLWK ZKLFK WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ GLVDJUHHV EDVHG RQ DPRUSKRXV DQG VXEMHFWLYH VWDQGDUGV 6XFK DFWLRQV XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ FKLOO WKH IUHH SUHVV :H WKXV UHVSHFWIXOO\ UHTXHVW WKDW \RX UHYRNH \RXU ³SUHOLPLQDU\´ GHFLVLRQ WR VXVSHQG 0U .DUHP¶V KDUG SDVV DQG FRQILUP WKH IXOO UHVWRUDWLRQ RI KLV SDVV ,Q WKH HYHQW WKDW \RX GHFOLQH WR GR VR ZH UHTXHVW WKDW \RX SURGXFH DOO FRPPXQLFDWLRQV EHWZHHQ \RX WKH 3UHVLGHQW DQG RWKHUV LQ WKH :KLWH +RXVH RU 3UHVV 2IILFH RQ WKH RQH KDQG DQG 0U *RUND RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG UHJDUGLQJ WKH -XO\ ³VRFLDO PHGLD VXPPLW´ DQG WKH LQFLGHQW WKDW RFFXUUHG WKHUH DQG DOO GRFXPHQWV UHODWLQJ WR WKLV SUHOLPLQDU\ GHFLVLRQ :H IXUWKHU UHTXHVW WKDW \RX PHHW ZLWK XV SULRU WR ILQDOL]LQJ WKH GHFLVLRQ VR WKDW 0U .DUHP KDV D PHDQLQJIXO RSSRUWXQLW\ WR UHVSRQG WR WKH HYLGHQFH :H UHVHUYH DOO ULJKWV WR FRQWHVW ZKDW ZRXOG EH DQ XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO VXVSHQVLRQ 5HVSHFWIXOO\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 7KHRGRUH - %RXWURXV -U Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. Direct: +1 213.229.7804 Fax: +1 213.229.6804 TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com August 9, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Ms. Stephanie Grisham Assistant to the President White House Press Secretary The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500 Re: Brian Karem Dear Ms. Grisham, This letter, and the enclosed statement from our client, Brian Karem, follow up on our meeting yesterday and provide additional information relevant to the events in the Rose Garden on July 11, 2019. As we have explained, those events provide no basis for suspending Mr. Karem’s hard pass. While I appreciate your meeting with my partners Tom Dupree and Anne Champion yesterday, that meeting falls far short of providing Mr. Karem due process. We still lack critical information that remains in your possession and that you have refused to disclose. For example, you have advised that you intend to rely on a witness statement you obtained from a Secret Service official who observed the events at issue, yet you have refused to give us the full statement, or even to disclose his identity. Instead, you read aloud to us what appeared to be a selected excerpt from the statement. We again ask that you provide us with the full statement, which may contain information that confirms that Mr. Karem did nothing wrong in the face of widespread taunting and even physical aggression and menacing from one of the invited guests. Your email of last night revealed that you failed to conduct a reasonable investigation before reaching your preliminary decision. Among other deficiencies, you admit that you did not speak to a single witness. You did not speak to Sebastian Gorka, Jim Hanson, or any of the other individuals who are seen on video taunting and/or threatening Mr. Karem. You did not speak to any of the journalists who were standing alongside Mr. Karem in the press pen and observed firsthand what happened. Nor did you speak to Mr. Karem himself, despite his efforts to speak with you. In fact, you claimed to lack evidence that Mr. Karem Ms. Stephanie Grisham August 9, 2019 Page 2 made any attempt to speak with you. Enclosed with this letter are emails reflecting his efforts. You have also elected to ignore publicly-available evidence that Mr. Gorka has trumpeted his confrontation with Mr. Karem, bragging that he took on the “fake news industrial complex,”1 as well as evidence that the President himself viewed the events as humorous.2 All of this information is highly relevant to your decision, yet you have deliberately chosen to ignore it. You have advised us that the potential basis for suspending Mr. Karem’s hard pass was that he insulted the guests and then “escalated” the situation by stating to Mr. Gorka, “Hey brother we can talk anytime you want or go outside and have a long talk.” As Mr. Karem explains in the enclosed statement, the alleged insult was intended as a humorous remark—and was understood by the crowd as such, as the laughter that followed makes abundantly clear. Mr. Karem also explains that, by asking Mr. Gorka to go outside and have a long talk, he did not intend to start a fight. Mr. Karem did not call on Mr. Gorka simply to step outside; rather, he asked Mr. Gorka to go outside so they could have a conversation. Those words cannot be reasonably understood as an invitation to fight. The Supreme Court has described “fighting words” as “those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942), and Mr. Karem’s statement does not remotely approach that standard. The President himself has used far stronger language and imagery. Among other things, he has tweeted an image of himself wrestling a CNN icon to the ground,3 and stated that a congressman who body-slammed a reporter is “my kind of guy.”4 He has also urged his supporters to “knock the hell” out of protestors at his rallies,5 and remarked about one protestor, “I’d like to punch him in the face.”6 If the President’s statements cannot reasonably be understood as endorsing or inciting violence, the White House cannot possibly 1 https://bit.ly/2KeBbyE. 2 The President tweeted about the incident, writing “@SebGorka Wins Big, No Contest!” 3 https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680 4 Trump Praises Montana Congressman Who Body-Slammed Reporter, CNBC (Oct. 19, 2018 6:19AM), https://cnb.cx/33d1YCR (noting the President’s praise of Greg Gianforte’s body slam of a reporter: “Any guy that can do a body slam—he’s my kind of guy . . . . He’s a great guy, tough cookie.”). 5 https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html. 6 https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html Ms. Stephanie Grisham August 9, 2019 Page 3 deem Mr. Karem’s offer to “go outside and have a long talk” as over the line. See Nwanguma v. Trump, 903 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2018) (dismissing claims that President incited violence at a campaign rally and holding that “only speech that explicitly or implicitly encourages the imminent use of violence or lawless action is outside the protection of the First Amendment”) (citing Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)). Mr. Karem’s “have a long talk” statement must also be viewed in context. When he spoke those words, Mr. Karem was not in a barroom, but in the Rose Garden—one of the least likely places on earth to challenge someone to a fight. Moreover, Mr. Karem did nothing to suggest he wanted a physical confrontation. Throughout the incident, he remained standing in the press area and did not advance toward Mr. Gorka. In contrast, Mr. Gorka made a beeline toward Mr. Karem, shouting at him, making menacing and aggressive gestures, calling him a “punk” and not a real journalist—all to further whip the crowd into a frenzy. Indeed, Mr. Gorka’s behavior was so threatening that it caused the crowd to start yelling at Mr. Gorka to hit Mr. Karem, and prompted Mr. Hanson to declare that “just for the record, [Mr. Gorka would] kick your punk ass.” The videos show that, in the face of this onslaught, Mr. Karem folded his arms respectfully—body language making clear he had no wish to engage in a physical confrontation—and said to Mr. Gorka, “I’d be happy to talk to you.” Any reasonable viewer of the video of this event would conclude that Mr. Karem was not the aggressor and did nothing to escalate the situation. The aggressors were Mr. Gorka and a hostile crowd whose anger against Mr. Karem and his colleagues in the press pen had been stoked by the President’s constant references to the media as “fake news,” the “opposition party” and “the enemy of the people.”7 Indeed, after the event, both Mr. Gorka and the President celebrated Mr. Gorka’s aggression on Twitter as a “win” for Mr. Gorka over Mr. Karem and the “fake news industrial complex.” Under these circumstances, your decision to single out Mr. Karem—and not punish anyone else, even those who can be seen on video expressly calling for Mr. Karem to be attacked—conclusively establishes that a suspension would amount to arbitrary, discriminatory, content-based punishment arising from Mr. Karem’s viewpoint and the content of his reporting. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 388-91 (1992) (constitutionally impermissible to single out and punish content-based speech through prohibition on “fighting words”). Finally, you have asked what lesser sanctions might be appropriate. As we explained yesterday, we believe that Mr. Karem did not act inappropriately and no sanction is 7 https://cpj.org/blog/2019/01/trump-twitter-press-fake-news-enemy-people.php Ms. Stephanie Grisham August 9, 2019 Page 4 warranted. If you are nonetheless inclined to impose a lesser sanction, it could consist of a letter setting forth your position on these events—an approach that would be consistent with the way the White House resolved the matter involving Jim Acosta. We continue to reserve all rights to contest what would be an unfair, unlawful, and unconstitutional suspension. Respectfully, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. cc: Patrick Philbin, Deputy White House Counsel Attachments STATEMENT OF BRIAN KAREM I write to provide you with background about myself and to tell you my side of the story regarding what happened at the Social Media Summit on July 11, 2019. I have been a political reporter for almost 40 years. I have also covered crime and wars, and I have run community newspapers. I’ve been jailed, shot at, beaten, and threatened. I am currently Playboy’s senior White House correspondent and a political analyst for CNN. I am president of the Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia Press Association. In 1990, I was jailed for contempt of court after refusing to disclose the name of confidential sources who helped me arrange a telephone interview with a jailed murder suspect, after which I was awarded the National Press Club’s Freedom of the Press award. I went on to work as executive editor of The Sentinel Newspapers in Maryland and as producer and television correspondent for America’s Most Wanted. I have also authored seven books. I have covered six White Houses. While I have held my current hard pass since last year, in the past I also held hard passes. My experience in the White House is important because I can tell you, point blank, that the behavior of the press corps today is tame by comparison. The first time I walked into the White House I was 25. It was 1986 and Ronald Reagan was president. The first person I met was Helen Thomas, who covered the White House under ten Presidents, and who, as it turns out, knew my great grandfather from Lebanon. She offered to take me to her house and make me an authentic Lebanese dinner. Then she walked upstairs to Acting Press Secretary Larry Speakes’ office and began banging on the door, encouraging him to come outside and talk to her. I watched, amused and in awe. President Clinton’s Press Secretary, Mike McCurry, later told me that when Helen was around he would bring her coffee and a donut by seven a.m. every morning. It was a wild time, with other reporters like ABC News Correspondent Sam Donaldson and long-time White House reporter Sarah McClendon in the briefing room. “There’s nothing wrong with the president trying to put his best foot forward,” Sam told me. “But it’s our job to find out what’s really going on,” he added. “If you’re looking for friends, then you’re in the wrong business,” Helen told me. Sarah McClendon told me, “Watch and learn.” CBS White House Correspondent Bill Plante once, in a story widely told by his peers, nearly got into blows with a guest in the Rose Garden. They were a vocal bunch, those reporters of old, and pushed the envelope and pushed back—hard—against presidents and their agendas. I have come and gone in that briefing room over the years, rarely staying long enough to be a central player in the history of the White House and the battles with the press that have been memorable and an important part of the American tapestry. I’ve seen administrations learn from the questions asked by reporters and adapt their policy and strategy based on what was asked of them in briefings. The briefings have been contentious at times. Or silly. Or both. I remember a defrocked minister who always asked about UFOs or Big Foot. One day a press secretary walked in with the usual huge briefing book to refer to administration policy, facts and figures. He fielded a question from the minister who asked if we were hiding a Big Foot family or aliens. The administration official thumbed back and forth through the huge book, settled on a page. He opened it wide, ran down the length of the page, seemed to find the appropriate information and looked up. “No.” He said. Then he moved on. 1  I remember once tripping over myself in the White House (I am now an aging klutz and looked up to see President Reagan smile at me as I tried to pull myself up. I remember covering scandals, angering presidents, and laughing with them. I’ve often talked to sources in the White House, or invited them off the grounds for private conversations. I adopt an upbeat and jovial attitude inside the White House because there is so much of a serious nature going on that I find a little levity helps people make it through the day. I know I benefit from a sense of humor. When Rodney Dangerfield said, “I’m telling you it’s a tough room,” I used that in the White House. When I didn’t get answers, I have been known to say, “I’m tellin’ you, no respect.” Sean Connery and Curly from the Three Stooges have visited through my impersonations as well. All I have seen and all I’ve been a part of in the last four decades, however, did not prepare me for the White House of President Donald Trump. Reporters covering the White House are routinely demeaned by the President and some of his allies, as “fake news,” “enemies of the people,” and other epithets. Reporters have been threatened—explicitly by some of the President’s more fringe followers—and sometimes the President implicitly supports this rhetoric. I myself have been subjected to ugly threats, in particular in the weeks since July 11, 2019. On July 11, 2019, we saw these forces collide. That day, I went to the White House, as I do most days when the President is in town. President Trump had scheduled that day with no open press events. But on his schedule was a Social Media Summit, or something similarly named. But as the day wore on, the President announced he would allow a pool spray during the summit at 3:45 p.m. and then would have a press conference for the open press at 5 p.m. in the Rose Garden. Rose Garden events are mixed blessings. It can be mid-January with an ongoing blizzard, but it always seems that in the Rose Garden it is 150 degrees, sunny, with no wind. Many reporters remember the day President Trump announced we were leaving the Paris Climate Accords and took it as a warning sign that many of us were close to a heat stroke in that sun. So, no one was looking forward to a Rose Garden press conference. And, as it turns out, the President did not have a press conference. He was fashionably late. It was hot. We waited. He came out. He made a statement—that could’ve been made in the 3:45 p.m. event. Then he turned and left. As the President did so, I said words to the effect of “Mr. President, do you mind sticking around to answer a few questions?” I think one or two others may have tried to ask a question. My voice is loud. I was heard. The President left and did not respond, but some of the bloggers apparently thought the President’s departure was an opportunity to try to humiliate the working press. Some of the guests had already been heckling the press corps. The heckling began anew. And I heard someone from the crowd say, “He talked to us, the real news.” Someone else taunted me, “don’t cry, don’t be sad” that the President hadn’t taken my questions, or something equally demeaning. I’m telling you. Tough Room. I get no respect... So, in an attempt to defuse the situation, I did my Rodney Dangerfield: “Hey, looks like a group eager to be demonically possessed.” I smiled. They smiled. We laughed. I thought that was that. Hey, at least I got a laugh. Then I heard Sebastian Gorka taunt me from across the lawn about being a journalist. I don’t know Gorka. I have only seen him twice in my life. I’ve never read anything that he’s written or listened to his podcasts. I only know about him from others, figured he was a character, and relished the idea of getting to know him—not fight him. So I said “Hey, we can 2  talk here brother, or we can go outside and have a long conversation.” I actually had a thought I could get him on my podcast and that might be fun. He said I wanted to fight and began calling me a punk and threatening me as he made a beeline toward me from across the lawn—getting in my face as I stood behind the rope-line. As he continued to yell at me, the crowd began to join in, jeering and yelling, “Gorka! Gorka!” I was a little discombobulated by his aggression, which I did not understand and did not feel I had provoked. I told him, “I’d be happy to talk to you,” assuring him I did not want to fight. I mostly remained motionless. I’ve invited dozens of people outside the White House during the last 35 years to talk. The optimal word of course is “talk”—not fight. Who would invite someone to a WWF smackdown in the White House Rose Garden in front of 200 people, dozens of television cameras? Certainly not me. I’m about to be a grandfather for the first time. The only thing I’m fighting is arthritis and a bad meniscus. A few days after I ran into Gorka I invited someone else I saw at the White House to go off campus and have a talk. It’s always better to talk where there are fewer reporters and listening devices. Privacy is hard to come by. I saw John McCain at the White House once and asked him that very same thing. “Can we go outside and have a conversation?” I asked. I remember him saying, “Where to?” I suggested “Off the Record Lounge.” He smiled. “Too many people know me there.” I settled for a short stroll in Lafayette Park. No one I’ve ever said this to has ever taken this to mean I wanted to fight them. At the White House, I come in with a smile. I sing. I dance. I entertain lower press. I’ve done that off and on over the years when I come to the White House. You might as well enjoy a laugh because life is too short. Most everyone who knows me knows that’s me. I’ve done my Rodney impression and a few other impressions (some like the Sean Connery and others like show tunes). I take my job seriously, but I do not take myself too seriously. Gorka escalated events. He wanted the fight. I just wanted to talk. I thought he’d be a fascinating guy to talk to for my podcast and still do. I’ve interviewed Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, Republican communications consultant Alice Stewart, former Trump White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, comedian Carl Reiner, and reporter Sam Donaldson, so why not Gorka? After he stormed off, we began to leave. The rope fell. I think I tripped over the rope as I was trying to leave. A Secret Service Agent said I had crossed the fallen rope. I apologized. I moved back. I never strayed too far. I certainly didn’t chase after anyone. As we left and the hubbub had died down, I passed Gorka and approached him to see if he was just playing things for the camera and to make peace with him. I offered to shake his hand, and he wouldn’t do it. I told him I had no intention of fighting with him and said we could talk any time. He wouldn’t shake my hand. I shook my finger in disappointment at him, not aggression, while he yelled at me over and over again, “You’re done!” I still wouldn’t mind having him on my podcast. I left. I never heard one word from the White House about this matter. Not once. White House logs should show that I was at the White House at least a dozen times from July 22 until my suspension on August 5. I interacted with the White House staff two or three times a day during those visits, including with Hogan Gidley and Stephanie Grisham, at least briefly. Not once did 3    this episode ever get mentioned by them, nor did they say they wanted to schedule time to talk to me about it. I had been trying to schedule an interview with the new press secretary Stephanie Grisham for some time. I had scheduled an interview prior to the Social Media Summit and she canceled it. After the event I tried to reschedule my meeting, hoping to discuss this issue with her—specifically I wanted to ask her if she could make sure White House guests could refrain from heckling and insulting working members of the press. She never rescheduled that meeting, though I asked her, and her secretary Annie LeHardy, in person at least once and via email twice, as late as July 17. On that day, I believe I was told she would be available that week. We are submitting some related emails. Later I was told Grisham would not be available until this week for a meeting—apparently after the preliminary decision to yank my press pass. Meanwhile, I’ve seen Gorka celebrating this confrontation with the “fake news industrial complex” and encouraging others to do as he did. He apparently used this episode for several days on his radio show, I’m told, to further drive home his desire to confront reporters. In the several weeks following the Summit, the President took several questions from me in appearances on the South Lawn. It was, frankly, business as usual. On July 17, I asked him if he’d ever been to a social function with Jeff Epstein and underage girls. He didn’t answer. On July 18, I asked him if he disavowed racism, and he told me he did. On July 24, he called me and others “Fake News” gratuitously and pointed his finger right at me. Then he singled me out again, saying I had been nice to him and could ask him a question—which I did and he answered. The day before I received the suspension letter, I asked the President to respond to Bernie Sanders’s statement that the President was a pathological liar, and the President didn’t answer. Then, on Friday, August 2, 2019, on the South Lawn he took two questions from me in a rather cordial exchange. At 4:55 p.m. in the afternoon, I received an email from Ms. Grisham attaching her letter informing me that my hard pass had been suspended for 30 days, and I could respond within one business day, by 5 p.m. Monday, August 5, 2019. Given that the letter came weeks after the Social Media Summit, I thought it had more to do with the question I had asked the day before about Sanders’ statement that the President was a pathological liar. I understand that Ms. Grisham says she has taken this action against my hard pass because I insulted White House guests and escalated the situation. The escalation ran the other direction, as did the insults. The crowd was heckling the journalists, and singled me out because of my parting question to President Trump. Then Gorka singled me out, and interpreted my friendly attempt to defuse the situation as a threat. At no point in time was I ever of the mindset I was going to fight anyone. As I said, I’m 58 years old, about to be a grandfather for the first time and I’ve got bad knees. I ain’t fighting anybody. Seriously. There would have been NO confrontation if Gorka hadn’t come after me. I wasn’t looking for him. I don’t cover Gorka. I cover the president. Of course, I ask questions and write things that the White House may not like. But reporters aren’t scribes and contention is normal. What is not normal is retaliation. Since the Social Media Summit, I’ve received a great deal of hate mail, a few death threats, threats against my children, and one anonymous caller who said, “I will stake you to a tree and make you watch while I rape your wife.” And now, of course, I face the prospect of having my hard pass suspended. At the same time, apparently no action has been taken against Mr. Gorka or other attendees of the Summit who escalated the situation. 4    All of this is perhaps not surprising when the President himself repeatedly insults journalists, smears the mainstream media, and threatened a Time magazine reporter who tried to take a picture of a letter from Kim Jong Un with prison time. As a journalist, it’s my responsibility to ask tough questions of President Trump and this administration. I was just doing my job on July 11, as I have done in previous administrations. Just today, I asked the President two questions regarding assault weapons bans and the NRA. After the news conference, as he walked by me and headed to Marine One, I asked if we could do this indoors sometime—he stopped, laughed, and waved. It’s essential that I hold on to my hard pass so that I can continue to carry out my responsibility. After all, that’s what the First Amendment is all about. And I still look forward to a one-on-one sit down with the President at his earliest convenience. I believe it would be informative and fun. _____________________ Brian Karem August 9, 2019 5    THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON August 16, 2019 Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071?3 197 Dear Mr. Boutrous: I previously informed your client, Brian Karem, that I had preliminarily determined that his hard pass should be suspended for 30 days due to his conduct at the press event in the Rose Garden on July 11, 2019. As explained below, I have now made a final determination to suspend Mr. Karem?s hard pass for 30 days, effective immediately through Saturday, September 14, 20 1 9. Process On August 2, 2019, I provided Mr. Karem with written notice that I had reached a preliminary decision to suspend his hard pass for 30 days due to his conduct at the press event in the Rose Garden on July 11, 2019.1 That letter provided notice of the factual basis for my preliminary decision, explicitly provided Mr. Karem with the opportunity to contest that decision by submitting a written response to me by 5:00 PM on August 5, 2019, and explained that I would consider any timely written response before makinga ?nal determination. On August 5, 2019, you submitted an eight-page written response on Mr. Karem?s behalf.2 That response did not include any supporting material, but did request, among other things, a meeting: ?We further request that you meet with us prior to ?nalizing the decision so that Mr. Karem has a meaningful opportunity .to respond to the evidence.?3 The next day, I acknowledged receipt of your response and informed you that my of?ce would be happy to meet ?with Mr. Karem and you or other counsel? on August 8, 2019.4 In light of your complaint that you had not had suf?cient time to prepare a written response and in light of this anticipated 1 See 8/2/2019 Letter from S. Grisham to B. Karem (Preliminary Decision). 2 See 8f5f2019 Letter from T. Boutrous Jr. to S. Grisham (initial Response). Your initial response complained that ?Mr. Karem was afforded no process before reached this ?preliminary decision. Initial Response at 6. That complaint is fundamentally mistaken. The first step in providing process is providing notice, which is exactly what my August 2 letter provided. While Mr. Karem may be entitled to due process before his hard pass is suspended, my preliminary decision did not suspend his hard pass. My preliminary decision merely provided written notice to Mr. Karem that I intended to suspend his hard pass, informed him of the factual basis for that decision, and gave him an opportunity to respond. Preliminary Decision at Mr. Karem 5 had pass has not been suspended or restricted in any way pending this ?nal decision. - 3 Initial Response at 8. - 4 8/6/2019 Letter from S. Grisham to T. Boutrous Jr. (emphasis added). meeting, I also explained that Mr. Karem could submit any supplement he wished to his written response by 5:00 PM on Friday, August 9, 2019.5 The next morning, you stated that your ?partners Thomas Dupree and Anne Champion are available to meet at 4 PM on Thursday, August 8, 2019.?6 I reiterated that I was ?happy to meet tomorrow, August 8, 2019 at 4:00 PM with Mr. Karem, along with Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion.?7 Mr. Dupree then responded that he and Ms. Champion would meet with me, but that ?Brian will not be accompanying us.?8 Despite Mr. Karem?s decision not to attend the meeting he had requested, 1 met with Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion at about 4:00 PM on August 8, 2019, along with attorneys from the Of?Ce of White House Counsel. During that approximately 45-minute meeting, I provided Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion with the opportunity to present whatever facts and arguments they wished until they were ?nished, and we asked some clarifying questions as well. Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion con?rmed that there was no reason for Mr. Karem?s absence other than a belief that he was not required to be there. They offered to have him come to another meeting if I wished to arrange a separate, second meeting to speak with him. An attorney from the Of?ce of White House Counsel also informed you of additional information that I would consider in making my ?nal decision?the observations of the U.S. Secret Service agent who intervened and spoke to Mr. Karem during the incident. Because Mr. Karem was not present at the meeting, we invited you to respond to the agent?s recollections in your supplemental response.9 On August 8, 2019, I sent you an email outlining all of the information on which I would base my ?nal decision.10 You submitted a supplemental, four~ page response on August 9, 2019 along with supporting materials, including a written statement by Mr. Karem.? - I I have thus provided Mr. Karem with written notice and three oppOrtunities to respond, in person and in writing, and the opportunity to submit any materials that he considers relevant. Facts 9 As I con?rmed on August 8, 2019,12 I have based my ?nal decision on the folldwing: 5 Id. 5 Email from T. Boutrous Jr. to S. Grisham (Aug. 7, 2019 9:17 AM). 7 Email from S. Grisham to T. Boutrous Jr. (Aug. 7, 2019 4:09 PM) (emphasis added). 3 Email from T. Dupree Jr. to S. Grisham (Aug. 7, 2019 5:06 PM). 9 See Email from S. Grisham to T. Dupree Jr. A. Champion (Aug. 8, 2019 9:02 PM). Your supplemental response speculates that the Secret Service agent may have provided exculpatory information that is not included in this ?nal decision. 8/9/2019 Letter from T. Boutrous Jr. to S. Grisham (Supplemental Response). Your speculation is factually incorrect. I have relied on the Secret Service agent?s statement only for the point that the agent approached Mr. Karem because he grew concerned, after Mr. Karem?s invitation to ?go outside? and Mr. Gorka?s response, that a physical altercation might break out and for the agent?s recollection of what he said to Mr. Karem. The Secret Service agent did not provide any information ?con?rm[ing] that Mr. Karem did nothing wrong? as you hypothesize, id. 1? Email from S. Grisham to T. Dupree Jr. A. Champion (Aug. 8, 2019 9:02 PM). 11 See generally Supplemental Response; 8/9/2019 Statement of B. Karem (Karem Statement). 12 Email from S. Grisham to T. Dupree Jr. A. Champion (Aug. 8, 2019 9:02 PM). 2 0 Seven publicly available videos, which show multiple angles of the incidents involving Mr. Karem in the Rose Garden on July 11, 2019;13 The observations of the US. Secret Service agent who intervened and spoke to Mr. Karem as shown on the videos and whose recollection concerning the incident we described during the August 8, 2019 in-person meeting; 0 Mr. Karem?s August 5, 2019 initial response; and The in-person discussion on August 8, 2019. I have also relied on Mr. Karem?s August 9, 2019 supplemental response, which includes a statement from Mr. Kai-em and several emails between Mr. Karem and my of?ce. As I also con?rmed to you on August 8, 2019,14 I have not conducted, and have not relied on, interviews with any other witnesses. After considering the sources listed above, I ?nd the following. After the conclusion of the President?s address in the Rose Garden to invited guests of the White House Social Media Summit, Mr. Karem attempted to ask the President a question as he walked away, but the President did not respond and continued walking. I credit Mr. Karem?s assertion that, at this point, a couple of the invited guests made comments to Mr. Karem, such as talked to us, the real news,?15 and at least one video shows that a guest said ?don?t be sad, don?t be sad.?16 In response, Mr. Karem, who was standing in the designated press area behind a rope line, insulted the President?s invited guests, stating that ?This is a group of people that are eager for demonic possession?? One of the guests, Sebastian Gorka, then asked, while gesturing sarcastically with air quotes, ?And you?re a journalist, right??18 In response, Mr. Karem escalated the exchange by calling to Mr. Gorka from across the Rose Garden, ?Come on over here and talk to me, brother. We can go outside and have a long conversation.?19 Mr. Karem accompanied the suggestion that they ?go outside? by gesturing with his right hand (closed hand, thumb extended, gesturing over his shoulder) and noticeably cooking his eyebrow?mas if to indicate, ?you know what I mean.?20 Under the circumstances, Mr. Karem?s ?3 Bloomberg TicToc, Sebastian Gorka Clashes with Journalist After Trump Refuses Media Questions, YouTube (July 11, 2019), (Video Baxter, Journalist Brian Karem picks a?ght with Sebastian Gorka, YouTube (July 11, 2019), (Video Terrence Daniels, Fights in The Rose YouTube (July 11, 2019), (Video Nicholas Ballasy, Sebastian Gorka and Reporter Get Into Shouting Match at White House, YouTube (July 11, 2019), (Video Washington Post, Gorka to Karem: ?You ?re not a journalist, you ?re a punk?, YouTube (July 11, 2019), (Video Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer), Twitter (July 11, 2019, 3:53 PM), 149451612227887104 (Video Reuters Top News (@Reuters), Twitter (July 11, 2019, 3:29 PM), 1.49445607288950784 (Video 7). ?4 Email from S. Grisham to T. Dupree Jr. A. Champion (8/8/2019 9:02 PM). ?5 Karem Statement at 2. ?6 E. g, Video 1, lines: //voutu. 3 (at 0: 13?0: 15); Video 4, f/voutu. be/vaSuQFh2YE (at O: 00? 0: 02). 17 E. g, Video 1, httos: f/voutu. (at 0: 17?0: 20); Video 4, httos: //voutu. (at 0: 04?0: 08). 13 Video 1, //vcutu. be/VNfPaZ41osw?t= 23 (at 0: 23~0: 25). 19 Video 2, (at 0: 10?0: 14). 20 See I'd. words and gestures together created the impression to a reasonable observer that Mr. Karem was suggesting a physical confrontation. Mr. Gorka then crossed the Rose Garden to approach Mr. Karem, shouting in response to Mr. Karem: ?Are you threatening me now in the White House? In the Rose Garden? You?re - threatening me in the Rose Garden??21'As Mr. Gorka approached, Mr. Karem moved towards him, while staying within the rope line designating the press area.22 The assertion in Mr. Karem?s supplemental response that Mr. Karem ?did not advance toward Mr. Gorka?23 is belied by the video of the event. Mr. Karem and Mr. Gorka then traded insults face to face. Someone shouted ?hit him, Gorka!?24 After calling Mr. Karein a ?punk,? Mr. Gorka turned and walked away, and some guests brie?y chanted, ?Gorka, Gorka, Gorka.? As Mr. Gorka turned to walk away toward the Palm Room, a US. Secret Service agent moved quickly from a position to Mr. Karem?s right, approached Mr. Karem, placed the ?ngers of his right hand on Mr. Karem?s right forearm and kept that position for a moment as Mr. Gorka continued to leave and as Mr. Karem shouted after him, ?Go home!?25 As videos show,26 the Secret Service agent then crossed in front of Mr. Karem and began to move in the direction that Mr. Gerka had gone. Mr. Karem yelled after Mr. Gorka: ?Go home! Go Home!? and ?Hey Gorka, get a job!? Mr. Karem then left the designated press area and paced in front of other members of the press and in front of the rope that marked the designated press area (which had partially fallen to the groand). One of the guests said, ?Just for the record, he?d kick your punk ass.? The Secret Service agent turned around and saw that Mr. Karem had stepped outside of the designated press area. The Secret Service agent approached Mr. Karern, put his hand on Mr. Karem?s chest, and said something to Mr. Karern that is not audible on the videos, at which point Mr. Karem stepped back into the press area. In an interview,27 the Secret Service agent explained that he approached and intervened during Mr. Karern?s exchange with Mr. Gorka because he believed there was a risk of a physical altercation. He also explained that when he approached Mr. Karern the second time, he said words to the effect of, ?Take a look around, remember where you?re at, and please step back into the press pen. Let?s calm down a little bit.? 21 E. g, Video 1, (at 0:28?03 Video 4, 15 (at 22 Video 2, edUc?t:17 (at 23 Supplemental Response at 3. 2? E. g, Video 2, (at 25 E. Video 1, (at 0:39u0:40); Video Video 1, (at Video 2, (at Video 3, (at Video 4, (at Video 5, (at 0:1 l?O:3 Video 7, 149445607288950784 (at 27 The facts in this paragraph are the only ones that came solely from the interview of the Secret Service agent. While these facts supplement my understanding of the events, they are not critical to my ?ndings or decision. I would reach the same ?ndings and decision without them. 4 As video shows,28 after leaving the Rose Garden, Mr. Karem found Mr. Gorka in the Palm Room and again tried to_- engage with him. As he persisted in attempting to engage Mr. Gorka, Mr. Karem ignored a White House staffer?s repeated directions to leave and instructions that ?the press are leaving now.? I credit Mr. Karem?s assertion that he attempted to say some words to Mr. Gorka ?to make peace with him? and that he ?offered to shake his hand.?29 When Mr. Gorka made clear that he would not shake Mr. Karemis hand, however, Mr. Karem turned this exchange into a confrontation as well. Mr. Karem repeatedly said ?you won?t shake my hand,? and then wagged his ?nger in Mr. Gorka?s face. . Mr. Karem asserts that he ?shook [his] ?nger in disappointment at him, not aggression.?30 However, after a confrontation that included an invitation to ?go outside? and shouted insults, a reasonable obserVer would view shaking a ?nger in another adult?s face as only renewing the confrontation. Mr. Gorka then referred to the instructions to leave from the White House staffer, repeating ?You?re done!? and saying ?Listen to him. Get out. Get out.?31 As he said this, Mr. Gorka gestured toward the staffer. Mr. Karem eventually left after Mr. Gorka rebuffed him. In defense of Mr. Karem?s conduct, you have not disputed the basic outline of events. Instead, you primarily argue that Mr. Karem?s actions should be characterized as nothing .more than a good?natured and humorous exchange with the invited guests and as an attempt 'to de- escalate aggression initiated by Mr. Gorka when he crossed the'Rose Garden to Mr. Karem?s spot. That argument depends on two assertions: (1) Mr. Karem?s ?demonic possession? comment was good natured and part of what you call Mr. Karem?s ?Rodney Danger?eld? routine, and (2) Mr. Karem?s invitation to Mr. Gorka to ?go outside and have a long conversation? was genuinely asking Mr. Gorka for a conversation and was an effort to de- escalate the situation. Based on the totality of the circumstances, I ?nd that these assertions are not credible Moreover, even if I found that these assertions were consistent with Mr. Karern?s subjective intent, Mr. Karem still should have known how his actions would have been received by a reasonable observer. First, Mr. Karem?s ?demonic possession? comment cannot credibly be understood as mere light-hearted comedy. Mr. Karem has asserted that he made that comment as a Rodney Danger?eld impersonation. I do not ?nd that assertion credible. During our August 8, 2019 meeting, Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion conceded that Mr. Karem?s ?demonic possession? comment is not a quotation (or a variation of one) from any Danger?eld movie or. routine. And I do not believe that any reasonable observer would have seen anything about Mr. Karem choice of words, mannerisms, or in?ection that remotely evoked Rodney Danger?eld. In addition, Mr. Karem has asserted that? everyone ?in the press pool knows that he does a Danger?eld impersonation, but, despite having the opportunity to do so, he has not provided any statement from press members familiar with his impersonation stating that Mr. Karem was performing that impersonation on this occasion. In any event, even if Mr. Karem had been doing an impression, it would not alter the fact that he insulted White House guests. An insult to guests is still an insult even if delivered while mimicking a comedian. 23 Video 4, i ?73 (at 2:53?3 29 Karem Statement at 3. 30 Id. bemevSuOFh2YE?t? ?86 (at 3: 06?3: 11); Video4, f/voutu be/vaSuOFh2YE?tm 200 (at 3 :20 ?3 You have placed a great deal of weight on the fact that there was some laughter after Mr. Karem?s comment about demonic possession. I do not believe that laughter in that situation somehow establishes that Mr. Karem was having nothing more than a good-natured exchange. Mr. Karem?s comment was not light-hearted; it denigrated the mental state of the gathered audience. And the laughter in response was equally consistent with a reaction in disbelief at the bizarreness of Mr. Karem?s taunt. In any event, the comment was certainly taken as an insult by some members of the audience, as evidenced by Mr. Gorka?s response. That obj ective response, no matter Mr. Karem?s subjective intent, reinforces the fact that the comment was inappropriate and unprofessional. Second, Mr. Karem?s invitation to Mr. Gorka to ?go outside and have a long conversation? cannot objectively be understood as an effort to de?escalate by making a? genuine invitation for a conversation in another forum. Any characterization of this comment as a neutral comment or an attempt to denescalate' the situation is belied by the facts shown on the videos. As a threshold matter, the videos plainly show that it was the suggestion to ?go outside? that escalated the situation. Before that comment, Mr. Karem had made his ?demonic possession? comment and Gorka had responded from across the Rose Garden by suggesting that Mr. Karem was a ?journalist? only with air quotes. It was only after Mr. Karem invited Mr. Gorka to ?go outside? that Mr. Gorka asserted that he had been threatened and began to cross the Rose Garden to confront Mr. Karem. In particular, any suggestion that the invitation to ?go outside? was designed to defuse a situation a?er Mr. Gorka had acted aggressively is ?atly contrary to the sequence of events. In addition, when Mr. Karem made this comment, his body language did not remotely suggest an effort to defuse tension. Instead, Mr. Karem?s hand gesture (a closed hand, thumb extended, gesturing over his shoulder), his noticeably cocked eyebrow, and his tone of voice32 all indicate an aggressive posture inviting further confrontation?not someone trying to calm down . the situation or genuinely interested 1n talking. Consistent with Mr. Karem 3 body language, the videos show that other people contemporaneously understood Mr. Karem?s comment as an invitation to a physical altercation. It appears that Mr. Gorka understood it as a threat and repeatedly asked Mr. Karem if he was ?threatening him.? Other individuals respOnded at the time as if it were a threat. One individual yelled, ?hit him Gorka!?33 A second individual told Mr. Karem that Mr. Gorka would ?kick your punk ass.?34 A third individual, speaking to Mr. Karem just over a minute later, explicitly characterized it as a threat: Individual: ?You just threatened Gorka just a minute ago. You told him to go outside.? Mr. Karem: said I would talk to him. I didn?t threaten. I was standing right here.? Individual: ?Everybody knows what that means. What were you going to do?? 32 Video 2, (at 33 Video 2, FedUc?t:17 (at 0:17). 3? E. g, Video 2, (at 6 Mr. Karem: ?No, it means talk.? Individual: ?You could talk to him right here. Why would you take him outside?? Mr. Karem: ?I?d be happy to talk.? . [cross-talk] Mr. Karem: didn?t threaten to kick his butt. I said I would talk to him.? Individual: ?We all know what that means.?35 Mr. Karem claims that he was ?a little discombobulated by [Mr. Gorka?s] aggression.?36 But the videos of the incident do not show Mr. Karem reacting in a manner that suggests discombobulation. Instead, Mr. Karem advances toward Mr. Gorka as he approaches, within the limits permitted by the rope line de?ning the press pen.? Mr. Karem?s further conduct also belie?s any claim that he was trying to de-escalate the situation. After he had invited Mr. Gorka to ?go outside,? after Mr. Gorka had asked if that was a ?threat,? after Mr. Gorka and Mr. Karem had exchanged words, and after Mr. Gorka had turned to walk away, Mr. Karem sought tocontinue the confrontation. As Mr. Gorka was leaving, Mr. - Karem shouted loudly after him ?Go home! Go home!? and ?Hey Gorka, get a job!? and then stepped over the partially fallen rope line to pace in front of the other journalists. 3?8 Those taunts are inconsistent with any intent to de?escalate the situation. Another factor also weighs against Mr. Karem?s interpretation of the events. Because Mr. Karem?s characterization of his words depends critically on the asserted sincerity of his invitation to talk and requires convincing me of his credibility with reSpect to that assertion, I ?nd it signi?cant that Mr. Kalem chose not to meet with me in person to explain his conduct after I expiessly invited him to do so. 39 Finally, Mr. Karem subjective intent is not, in any case, dispositive here. Even if I credited Mr. Karem?s assertion that his sincere subjective intent was to de-escalate the situation, it would not alter the fact that his comments were objectively inappropriate to the circumstances. Even if Mr. Karem subjectively believed that his actions were non-threatening, he should have known how a reasonable observer would have reacted to these repeated confrontations, as many 35 E. g, Video 4, (at 2:13~2: 36); Video 6, //twittei com/dcexaminer/status/l 14945 1612227887104 (at 0: 50?1: 12). 3" Karem Statement at 3. 37 Video 2, (at 33 E. Video 1, httus: ?voutu. 40 (at 0: 40?1: 09); Video 2, ?youtu. (at 0: 23~0: 33); Video 4, ?ycatu. (at 0: 25? 0: 46); Video 5, It (at 0: 11?0: 31); Video 7, 149445607288950784 (at 39 I have noted that, at the August 8 meeting, Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion said that Mr. Karem would be happy to come to a subsequent meeting if I wanted to speak'with him. This, however, is beside the point. Mr. Karem, through counsel, asked to meet in person. I agreed to that meeting, speci?cally stated that I was happy to meet with Mr. Karem, the meeting was scheduled, and Mr. Karem did not attend, nor did he claim any con?ict that prevented him from attending. observers did, in fact, react at the time. His remarks had the predictable effect of offending and provoking White House guests, and constituted a signi?cant lapse in judgment, regardless of Mr. Karem?s intent. The objective fact is that Mr. Karem?s words elicited a predictable response and that combination of events prompted a Secret Service agent to intervene due to a perceived risk of a physical altercation. It is inconsistent with widely-shared understandings and norms of media professionalism to yell statements that could reasonably be interpreted as insults or threats to guests in the Rose Garden, to repeatedly cenfront those guests afterward, and to disobey instructions from White House staff. Decision Based on the facts described above, I conclude that Mr. Karem?s actions, as viewed by a reasonable observer, (1) insulted invited guests of the White House, (2) threatened to escalate a verbal altercation into a physical one to the point thai the Secret Service deemed it prudent to intervene, and (3) re-engaged with Mr. Gorka in what quickly became a confrontational manner while repeatedly disobeying a White House staffer?s instructions to leave. Mr. Karem?s conduct, taken as a whole, was unacceptable and disruptive, and requires a response to ensure that it does not happen again. I have carefully considered a range of potential responses to Mr. Karem?s actions, including permanently revoking his hard pass, temporarily suspending his hard pass, providing a written warning, and taking no action. In my judgment, a permanent revocation would be too great a punishment for the conduct involved here. Taking no action, on the other hand, would be insuf?cient to deter Mr. Karem and other members of the press from disrupting White House - events. I have concluded that a temporary suspension of Mr. Karem?s hard pass is an appropriate response. It properly accounts for Mr. 'Karem?s stated need for his press pass and it imposes no greater a restriction than is necessary for an effective sanction. The purpose of a hard pass is to provide day-to-day access to the White House campus so that a member of the press can report and ask questions of officials who are taking questions. But a hard pass must be used in a manner that is respectful of the White House property and grounds in light of the extensive access it provides. There is a widely?shared understanding that at all times at White House press events, members of the press must act professionally, maintain decorum and order, and obey instructions from White House staff.40 Disruptive behavior, such as Mr. Karem?s, is clearly prohibited. Moreover, I note that Mr. Karem did not use the access granted by his hard pass for the journalistic purposes for which it is granted. Instead, Mr. Karem used the access granted by his hard pass to insult invited guests, to make intemperate comments that threatened to escalate a verbal confrontation into a physical altercation, and to repeatedly disobey the instructions of White House staff to leave with the rest of the members of the press after the conclusion of the event. Mr. Karem?s actions escalated the situation to the point that the Secret Service deemed it prudent to intervene to ensure that verbal confrontations involving Mr. Karem would not escalate into a physical one. 4? Preliminary Decision at 1. The only less restrictive alternative that you have proposed is a written warning. After . considering that suggestion, I conclude that a written warning would be insuf?cient given the serious nature of Mr. Karem?s misconduct and the ineffectiveness that a written warning would have in deterring similar misconduct by Mr. Karern or others in the future. On the present record, there is no indication that Mr. Karem would take to heart a written warning that his behavior was inappropriate. I base that conclusion on at least two factors. First, throughout the twelve combined pages of his two written submissions prepared by counsel and his ?ve-page personal statement, Mr. Karem has nowhere acknowledged even the slightest indication of any regret for his conduct or recognition that it could, even possibly, have transgressed any boundaries of professional conduct for the press corps. Instead, Mi. Karem? statement suggests that, 1n his view, it is app1 opriate to ?nearly [get] into blows with a guest in the Ruse Garden. ?41 In short, Mr. Karem seems to be oblivious to the fact that his conduct was wrong. Second, Mr. Karem has continued to insist that his invitation to Mr. Gorka to ?go outside? was sincerely meant as a de-escalatory invitation for a genuine conversation. For all the reasons explained above, I find that assertion lacking in credibility. Mr. Karem?s insistence on continuing to press a characterization of events that is plainly incompatible with his words, gestures, tone, and actions in the Rose Garden indicates to me that some form of sanction beyond a mere warning letter is warranted. I have carefully considered your assertion that a 30-day suspension is too harsh", and I disagree. A warning would be insuf?cient for the reasons above. Although you have not suggested that a suspension of any lesser length would be appropriate, I have considered that alternative as well. In light of the seriousness of Mr. Karem?s conduct, however, I do not believe that a suspension of fewer than 30 days would be proportionate to the nature of his conduct, which turned a Rose Garden event into a spectacle and risked a physical altercation. You have raised several additional arguments on Mr. Karem?s behalf, which I address below. First, you argue that ?there are no so-called ?Widely understood that would have put Mr. Karem on notice that his conduct was improper.42 . I find that argument wholly insubstantial. Members of the press certainly understand that, in any professional context, trading insults with guests at a venue where a press event is taking place and escalating a verbal confrontation with an invitation to ?go outside? is unacceptable behavior. Mr. Karem. does not seriously contend that he lacked actual notice that it is prohibited conduct in the White House for a member of the press to disrupt a White House press event by threatening guests and escalating a verbal altercation with insinuations of physical violence such that the Secret Service deems it prudent to intervene, or to repeatedly disobey a staffer?s instructions to leave. Indeed, Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion explicitly confirmed during our in?person meeting that they were not second-guessing the White House?s need to ensure basic decorum, order, and security. 4? Karem Statement at 1 White House Correspondent Bill Plante once, in a story widely told by his peers, nearly got into blows with a guest in the Rose Garden?). 42 Initial Response at 5. Second, you assert that I ?failed to conduct a reasonable investigation before reaching [my] preliminary decision? because I ?did not speak to a single witness.? 43 That argument rests on a fundamentally ?awed premise. There was no need for an investigation involving witness interviews here because Mr. Karem?s words and conduct were caught on multiple videos recorded from several different angles. You have not provided any basis for believing that the imperfect recollections of witnesses would somehow provide a more accurate basis for assessing events than the video and audio recordings that capture exactly what happened second by second. Where there was one interaction that was potentially relevant but could not be heard on any of the videoswthe Secret Service agent?s interaction with Mr. Karem-?the Secret Service agent was interviewed. Mr. Karem has not disputed the Secret Service agent?s observations and recollection, nor have you identi?ed any speci?c way in which additional investigation could uncover relevant facts that would be important to my decision. Indeed, as we explained to Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion on August 8, Mr. Karem knows which members of the press witnessed events that day and he was free to provide statements from them if he believed they would be useful. You have neither provided any witness statements nor even provided any plausible basis for thinking that witness statements could possibly bring to light different information that would justify a different conclusion in this matter. In that regard, it is worth noting that the subjective, after~the?fact ?impressions? of witnesses would not be particularly relevant to my decision, because my decision here involves determining whether Mr. Karem breached standards of conduct based on an objective assessment of his actions, which can be determined from the objective facts recorded on tape.44 Whether one individual or another might have believed that a particular comment was funny or light hearted is not the critical point. A poll of the opinions of everyone present is not required to determine the objectively reasonable understanding of Mr. Karem?s statements and actions. Third, you have made wholly unfounded accusations that taking action against Mr. Karem for his conduct on July 11 is actually a pretext for unconstitutional content-based and viewpoint-based discrimination against Mr. Karem. Those accusations are baseless. The content and viewpoint of Mr. Karem?s reporting have played no role in this decision. Indeed, admissions in Mr. Karem?s own submissions disprove the theory that there has been some effort to sti?e his speech. Both Mr. Karem?s initial response and his statement admit that the President has called . on Mr. Karem and answered Mr. Karem?s questions several times since the incident in the Rose Garden on July 11, 2019.45 Indeed, as Mr. Karem admits, the President answered two questions from Mr. Karem, in what you admit was ?a rather cordial exchange,? on August 2, shortly before I issued notice of my preliminary decision.?46 These admissions confirm that the content and 43 Supplemental Response at l. 44 You claim that I have ?elected to ignore publicly?available evidence that Mr. Gorka has trumpeted his confrontation with Mr. Karem, bragging that he took on the ?fake news industrial complex,? as well as evidence that the President himself viewed the events as humorous.? Supplemental Response at 2. have not ignored these points. I have considered them, but I reject them. The fact that Mr. Gorka may have touted his response to Mr. Karem?s taunts to Spin the whole event to his advantage in the media is irrelevant. Mr. Gorka is a known media ?gure and such a response is to be expected. It does not alter the original impropriety of Mr. Karem?s conduct. Similarly, the President?s tweet suggesting that Mr. Gorka had the better of the exchange does not undercut my conclusion that Mr. Karem?s conduct was improper and does not suggest that it was merely a ?humorous? interlude that warrants no sanction. ?5 Initial Response at 7; Karem Statement at 4. ?6 Karem Statement at 4. 10 viewpoint of Mr. Karem?s journalism have nothing to do with this decision. If the White House had been engaged in some effort to ?silenc[e] a journalist known for tough questioning?? as you claim, the President could have simply ignored Mr. Karem and refused to answer any of his questions. The very fact that the President has continued to call on Mr. Karem demonstrates that there has been no effort to silence his journalism. Fourth, you have argued that Mr. Karem sought ?multiple times? to disCuss the July 11 incident with me and that when my of?ce rescheduled a meeting with him it was done deliberately to delay speaking with him at all until after his hard pass had been suspended.48 All of these assertions are false. Mr. Karem?s initial submission claims that, after July 11, Mr. Karem ?reached out to [my] of?ce multiple times to discuss the incident. ?49 In his perSonal statement, Mr. Karem modi?ed that claim to assert solely that he had been ?trying to schedule an interview wit me ?for some time? and that he had ?hop [ed] to discuss? the events of July 11, 2019 with me.50 The only contact from Mr. Karem of which I had been aware was an effort to schedule an off?the?record meeting as a get-to-know-you meeting after I started as Press Secretary on June 25. That meeting was scheduled and then canceled more than once, just as I have canceled similar meetings with more than a dozen other reporters due to other matters arising on my schedule as Press Secretary. At the meeting with Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion on August 8, we explained that we were not aware of any contacts from Mr. Karem seeking to discuss the July 11 incident and asked you to provide any emails or other evidence showing that he sought to discuss the incident with me. The emails that Mr. Karem has submitted in response do not support your assertions.51 None of them mentions or even hints at a desire to speak with me about the events of July 11, 2019, and they certainly do not suggest that Mr. Karem attempted ?multiple times to discuss the incident? with me. One email chain simply thanks me for the format of a brie?ng with Secretary Mnuchin and provides no support whatsoever for your assertions.52 The other set of emails involved an initial request made on July 8, 2019 for a ten- minute off-the-record meetingubefore the events in the Rose Garden on July 11. That earlier request is then referenced and renewed in emails after July 11 when my schedule required rescheduling our meeting.53 Those emails involved simply the request for a get-to-know-you meeting that I mentioned above. There is no indication in any of the emails, however, that in Mr. Karem?s efforts to reschedule that meeting, which was initially requested on July 8, he was actually hoping to discuss with me the events of July 11. Fifth, you have emphasized the fact that some of the invited guests made comments to Mr. Karem before Mr. Karem?s ?demonic possession? comment, such as, ?don?t be sad??54 The assertion that ?he started it first,? however, is not a justification for a member of the press to insult invitees at the White House, nor is it a license to escalate the situation, and it certainly does not absolve Mr. Karem of responsibility for his conduct. In addition, your argument on this 47 Initial Response Initial Response at 3 (emphasis added). 5? Karem Statement at 4. 51 See 8/9f2019 B. Karem Emails in Supp. of Supplemental Response. 52 See Email from B. Karem to S. Grisham (July 16, 2019 1:53 PM). 53 See Email from B. Karem to A. LeI-Iardy (July 9, 2019 6:40 Email item B. Karem to S. Grisham (July 9, 2019 12:54 PM). 54 Karem Statement at 2; Video 4, (at 11 point ignores the fact that there is a fundamental difference between invited White House guests and the press. The press is present to cover events and to ask questions of those of?cials who are taking questions. Openly insulting a gathering of guests is never appropriate conduct for a member of the press at the White House, even if one of the guests has directed remarks to the press. Sixth, for similar reasons, your complaint that I am not imposing consequences on others involved_?by which I assume you mean Mr. Gorka or any guests who made comments to Mr. Karem?is misplaced. Mr. Gorka and other individuals were present in the Rose Garden as invited guests, not members of the press. My responsibility as Press Secretary involves credentialing members of the White House press and providing the press access to the White House campus so that they can do their jobs. In that role, I am responsible for ensuring that basic standards of conduct are maintained by the press so that White House events can proceed without disruption and with a basic level of decorum. I am not the behavior czar for everyone who enters the campus. I have no authority to dictate the conduct of all guests invited to'the White House, nor do I have authority to revoke press passes for guests who did not use a press pass for access to the event. Mr. Gorka, in particular, does not hold 'a press pass. The assertion that Mr. Karem was ?single[d] out?55 is thus incorrect. You have not identi?ed any members of the press whose conduct in the Rose Garden on July 11, 2019 was remotely comparable to Mr. Karem?s or that warrants any sanction. In addition, Mr. Karem?s hard pass is not being suspended merely for a single insult that violates what you characterize as a ?no-taunting rule.? Instead, as explained above, it is the totality of the conduct in this case that warrants such a sanction, including disrupting the press event with a persistent series of comments that threatened to escalate a verbal altercation into a physical one to the point where the Secret Service had to intervene?and then disobeying staff instructions to leave while trying to re-engage with Mr. Gorka. You have not identi?ed any member of the press who engaged in equivalently egregious and persistent conduct that day. Seventh, you have speculated that this decision has been ?potentially made in coordination with Mr. Gorka.?56 That is false. As I confirmed during the August 8, 2019 in- person meeting, I am the decision-maker in this matter. I have informed you of the materials on which my decision is based, and I can state categorically that I have not coordinated or communicated with Mr. Gorka at all about Mr. Karem or the events in the Rose Garden on July 11, 2019. Your request for discovery of any communications between anyone at the White House and Mr. Gorka is equally baseless, and you are not entitled to review White House communications based on unfounded speculation. However, even if Mr. Gorka had contacted me to complain about Mr. Karem?s conduct and had requested that Mr. Karem be sanctioned in some way, there would not have been anything improper about such a request from a guest who had been insulted and who felt threatened, and it would have been perfectly appropriate for me to take such a request into account. As it happens, no such contact occurred. Eighth, Mr. Dupree and Ms. Champion argued that Mr. Karem?s conduct was less deserving of punishment than the conduct of Jim Acosta at'a press event on November 7, 2018, 55 Supplemental Response at 3. 55 Initial Response at 6. 12 because Mr. Karem?s conduct occurred after the press event had ended, the President was not present, and there was no physical contact here, whereas Mr. Acosta?s conduct occurred during a press event while he was asking questions of the President and there was incidental physical contact with an intern. See genera?); Tr. of Mot. Hr? g, ECF No. 22, Cable News Network, Inc. v. rump, No. (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2018). I have considered these points, and I disagree. Mr. Karem?s conduct in this case was completely different in kind from the event in November 2018, and it warrants a signi?cant sanction. Persistently taunting others in a way that threatens to escalate a situation into a physical altercation and prompts Secret Service intervention is always prohibited. The fact that the press event had ended and Mr. Karem?s conduct was not related in any way to asking questions during the press event serves only to reduce First Amendment concerns for imposing sanctions on his conduct. And to the extent there was physical contact involving Mr. Acosta and the intern, it appeared incidental and ?eeting, whereas Mr. Karern?s words and actions in this case were deliberate, intentional, and persistent, and threatened to escalate into an actual physical altercation. a: As explained above, Mr. Karem?s White House hard pass is suspended effective immediately through Saturday, September 14, 2019. Please inform Mr. Karem that if Playboy has another correspondent they wish to send to the White House during his absence, they should contact me and we will arrange a press pass as swiftly as possible. Sincerely, Stephame A. Grisharn Assistant to the President White House Press Secretary CC: Thomas Dupree, Esq. Ann Champion, Esq. 13