Seven days later, Scaramucci's language — body and spoken — are telling some pretty dishonest tales. While the focus has mostly been on his vulgar tirade in an interview with the New Yorker, it's worth emphasizing as well that he's also misled or appeared hypocritical on a number of matters related to that interview.

AD

1. The Priebus tweet

In his must-read interview with Scaramucci, the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza writes that, at one point, Scaramucci said he was about to “start tweeting some shit to make this guy crazy.” The guy was Priebus, and Scaramucci would soon append Priebus's Twitter handle to his tweet about the alleged leaking to Politico of Scaramucci's personal financial disclosure.

AD

The implication was clearly that Scaramucci wanted Priebus, with whom he has feuded extensively, and others to think he was fingering Priebus for the supposed leak.

But then Scaramucci denied that was his implication at all. “Wrong! Tweet was public notice to leakers that all Sr Adm officials are helping to end illegal leaks,” Scaramucci tweeted after deleting the initial tweet.

By Thursday morning, Scaramucci had offered the same explanation in a phone-in with CNN. “He's the chief of staff, he's responsible for understanding and uncovering and helping me do that inside the White House, which is why I put that tweet out last night,” Scaramucci said.

AD

Soon, Scaramucci would offer plenty of innuendo and suggestion that maybe he did, in fact, think Priebus was a leaker. And his Lizza interview makes clear that was his intention.

AD

It certainly looks a lot as though Scaramucci was playing a game, denied he was playing a game and then proceeded with playing that game. That's decidedly misleading.

2. Decrying leakers while apparently trying to leak to Lizza

A little while after Scaramucci expressed some regret for the kind of language he had used in the interview, he switched to a more combative response. He suggested Lizza shouldn't have published the quotes in the first place.

“I made a mistake in trusting in a reporter,” he tweeted. “It won't happen again.”

It's not clear whether Scaramucci believed his comments to be off the record or why Lizza shouldn't have published them. (Lizza assures that it was all on the record.) But Paul Kane made a great point in response.

If Scaramucci thought it was just he and Lizza talking about internal White House feuds, wouldn't that constitute a form of leaking? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing Scaramucci has been decrying for the past week, assuring us he would fire the leakers?

AD

AD

Again, he's having it both ways. Either he should have no complaints about Lizza publishing his comments or he was leaking and being hypocritical.

3. Using a phantom “leak”

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of all of that is that it started with a leak that wasn't even a leak. The Politico reporter who obtained Scaramucci's personal financial disclosure said it was a public document obtained through a request made to the Export-Import Bank, where it was on file.

So what led Scaramucci to believe this was a leak? Apparently he decided to suggest Priebus had committed a felony without even checking on whether the document was publicly available. Either he was reckless with his accusations or he was using something he knew wasn't actually a leak.

AD

We've also seen no clarification from Scaramucci about why he claimed a nonexistent leak.

AD

4. Claiming he wasn't asking Lizza to divulge his sources

In his CNN call-in Thursday morning, Scaramucci spoke directly with Lizza and claimed that he was being “sarcastic” when he asked Lizza to tell him who in the White House was leaking information.

“When I was speaking to you last night, Ryan, I said it was unpatriotic that you weren't telling me who the leakers were. I was on a plane landing in New York, I have to go visit my mom, and so you may have caught it the wrong way,” Scaramucci said. “I was teasing you, and it was sarcastic. It was one Italian to another. It wasn't me trying to get you to say, 'If you could give me some sense of who they are because I have a responsibility to the president of the United States.' ”

But if this was sarcasm and teasing, Scaramucci sure kept at it for a while. To read Lizza's piece, it's difficult to see how this wasn't genuine:

“Who leaked that to you?” he asked. I said I couldn’t give him that information. He responded by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. “What I’m going to do is, I will eliminate everyone in the comms team and we’ll start over,” he said. I laughed, not sure if he really believed that such a threat would convince a journalist to reveal a source. He continued to press me and complain about the staff he’s inherited in his new job. “I ask these guys not to leak anything and they can’t help themselves,” he said. “You’re an American citizen, this is a major catastrophe for the American country. So I’m asking you as an American patriot to give me a sense of who leaked it.”

And then:

“Is it an assistant to the President?” he asked. I again told him I couldn’t say. “O.K., I’m going to fire every one of them, and then you haven’t protected anybody, so the entire place will be fired over the next two weeks.”