CNN featured an interview with the Vanity Fair reporter who did the Susie Wiles interview everyone is talking about.
"An extraordinary, revealing interview from one of President Trump's most trusted advisers, chief of staff Susie Wiles Scott, unusually candid with Vanity Fair about working for Donald Trump, dishing at times on Trump's cabinet and vice president, and delivered some unflattering assessments of some of the president's policies. and even the president himself," Sarah Sidner said.
"A short list of just some of her assessments that she told to Chris Whipple of Vanity Fair. Trump, she said, has an alcoholic's personality, believing there's nothing he can't do. JD Vance, she says, is a conspiracy theorist who is guided by politics. Pam Bondi 'completely whiffed' on the Epstein files. She called budget director and Project 2025 architect Russell Vought 'a right wing zealot.' She said Elon Musk's DOGE chaos was linked to his alleged drug use, and she admitted that Trump is out for revenge, which New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawyer called 'an astonishing admission.'
"Wiles is now distancing herself from the profile, calling the article a hit piece and claiming her words were taken out of context. The White House is echoing the same sentiment today.
This was unfortunately, another attempt at fake news by a reporter who was acting disingenuously and really did take the chief's words out of context. But I think, most importantly, the bias of omission was ever present throughout this story. The reporter omitted all of the positive things that Suzy and our team said about the president and the inner workings of the the White House.
"It just so happens at our table today, we have the reporter that had all of those details in an interview that he did many different interviews. Chris, I do want to first get to you. You're hearing the claims there that this was things taken out of context. Were they?" SIdner said.
"Well, look, I mean, when you hear words like out of context and omissions and framing, what that tells you right away is that you are - absolutely you have hit the target. They have nothing. They literally have not challenged a single assertion or fact in the piece. And so to me, this is this reminds me of Ben Bradlee during the Watergate days, who talked about the non-denial denial. This is a classic non-denial denial. They're not contesting any of the substance of the piece because they know it's true."
"And every interview was recorded?" Sidner asked.
"Everything is on tape," Whipple replied.
