On 3/2/2023, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, “There must be some state laws that the President also disagrees with … And he obviously doesn’t have the power to do anything about that. I’m trying to square his decision to use his power to do something in D.C. while he’s also saying, you know, the federal government shouldn’t — should allow them to be their own state.

KJP: Because D.C. is not a state.
Reporter: So —
KJP: So, this bill —
Reporter: — he can, and therefore he should?

KJP: D.C. is not a state. So therefore, the bill is coming to his desk, so he has to make a decision. It’s as simple as that, Weijia. Right? Because D.C. is not a state. Now, he wants D.C. to become a state. We’ve been very clear about that …

Reporter: But until then, they shouldn’t.
KJP: But D- — Weijia, D.C. is not a state.
Reporter: Right. But, I mean, he has the —
KJP: (Laughs.)
Reporter: He has the — I’m asking because he does have an option to veto. That is one action he could take.

KJP: Right. But, again, this is a President that believes in keeping communities safe. He believes in keeping the 700,000 residents in D.C. safe. And so, he’s taking that action because it’s coming to him. We didn’t put this legislation toge- — forth. This is not our legislation. This is a legislation that is coming before the President of the United States because D.C. is not a state. It’s just not.

Reporter: You mentioned the SAP that the administration put out on February 6th. But it’s not a broad statement about D.C. statehood. It specifically says that the administration opposes the resolution that would dismantle the crime bill. So when was this policy reversed? And why weren’t House Democrats notified about the reversal?

KJP: So, from — I’ll say this: There was never a change of heart on where we were with — with the SAP. The SAP, the way that it’s laid out, speaks to the President supporting D.C. statehood …

Reporter: But do you — wait, I’m sorry. It specifically says the word “opposes.” So is it that the administration wasn’t aware of the content, the specifics of the crime bill, and now you are aware and the President says he doesn’t support some of the changes that the D.C. Council put forward? lBecause when you released the SAP, I’m assuming, maybe incorrectly, that you were very aware of what the Council was proposing.

KJP: We were aware what the Council proposed — were proposing. What we’re saying was that we wanted to make sure that we continued the President’s — the President’s continued push for — for statehood. And that’s what we did. That’s what we did in the SAP. And that was what was the most important thing that we believed. There was no veto threat in the SAP. There really wasn’t. We may have — it may have been — I just read it while you were asking me. We didn’t oppo- — we opposed it, but there was no veto threat.

Reporter: I’m seeing two, perhaps, parallels here in the discussion about the SAP, which is the statement of administration policy. Isn’t it really boiling down to: There was one train here that was saying that the administration opposed this, and then, really, when the recognition takes place, this would make the President look anti-“tough on crime,” that the wheels stopped, and now you have a new position? Isn’t that really what happened here?

KJP: What I can tell you what happened is that there was no change of heart. Yes …

Reporter: In — in a bigger sense, because, you know, those of us who cover this read these things all the time. The general public may not even know what we’re talking about here. But it seems like —
KJP: No, I’m pretty sure they are not. (Laughs.)
Reporter: Yes. So, there — but there was a —
KJP: I’m pretty sure this is —

Reporter: — there was a bureaucratic push in one direction on this. And then, when it reached a certain point — and crime is a big issue in America in certain cities. We saw it reflected in the election in Chicago. We know it’s a concern. It’s been a concern in the city that many of us live in here. And then, boom, the President has to make a decision, and he’s going a different direction than the administration setup. Isn’t it really just that simple?

KJP: I wouldn’t say it’s that simple …

https://facebook.com/HygoNewsUSA/videos/168142839318515/
Q: he can therefore he should? A: It’s as simple as that! Q: bureaucratic boom going different, really just that simple?