UK Daily Mail: Obamas have not purchased property in Asheville


The UK Daily Mail reports that a White House spokesman is denying a report last week by an Asheville-based website that President Obama and the First Lady have purchased property in Asheville. From the Daily Mail:

Given Barack Obama’s frequent trips there before and during his presidency, the rumor mill spent all day Monday spinning.
He visited Asheville last year, speaking at an auto parts plant owned by Linamar Corp. to advocate for a minimum wage hike the day after his State of the Union address.
Obama has visited the trendy city of just 85,000 people three other times since his first presidential campaign. It was his debate-preparation retreat before going toe-to-toe with Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008. He took his family there for an April 2010 vacation. And he made a pitch there for jobs in 2011.
But asked Monday if the Obamas had bought property there, White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest shot back: ‘That is not true.’

Wall St. Cheat Sheet, a financial news site, said it had a source that confirmed the purchase of property by the Obamas in Asheville. The news went viral, and now the White House is weighing in.



AVL LVR June 14, 2014 - 9:35 am

“But asked Monday if the Obamas had bought property there, White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest shot back: ‘That is not true.’”

The Obamas have not bought a property in Asheville. The Cliffs are in Arden and the taxpayers have bought it for them (just joking).

BC June 13, 2014 - 1:54 am

When was the last time you could believe anything that the White House said ?

mike June 12, 2014 - 10:00 pm

Typically when a politician visits and says he likes it there he is after votes. It’s amazing how many of them love Iowa for a short while but never come back. I would be surprised if it happens

RJ June 12, 2014 - 4:46 pm

Just one additional observation: After extensive Googling I have only seen this White House denial on that one cited source: The Daily Mail. So one has to wonder (A) if that is the case, why is it only being reported by that one site? Was that said in a public forum? (B) Why is a right-wing British tabloid any more reliable than WSCS? Just askin?

theOtherBarry June 12, 2014 - 3:30 pm

Frankly, I’d be shocked if the Obamas moved here, after his Justice Dept. sided with the CTS polluters in the Supreme Court. Locals who are sick from groundwater contamination lost the right to sue, partly because of his intervention.

Oh, and don’t expect them to live anywhere near Camp Lejeune, either…

vliff June 12, 2014 - 7:52 pm

Justice sided with the laws,for a change. EPA has shifted resources from real, current contamination to possible future contamination…

Rich June 12, 2014 - 11:18 am

I read WSCS way more than the Daily Mail. And in any event if the purchase is not yet final or if (as per another local source) the new house is in the Cliffs, that’s more than enough wiggle room to truthfully say the Obamas haven’t purchased in Asheville.

Jennifer Saylor June 12, 2014 - 10:46 am

Wall Street Cheat Sheet seems to be a successful and relatively sophisticated news site, with no record of sensationalism or flying off the handle with misinformation. It seems clear to me someone at WSCS has some kind of privileged connection, and the Obamas are making some kind of foray into Asheville. FYI, the official source is the first to lie in a sensitive situation–at least that’s true in my experience, pursuing stories like Trader Joe’s and Chipotle in Asheville. But I think the same rules apply to the White House–the Obamas and the White House will hide the truth if it suits them, keeps the Obamas safer, or furthers some agenda.

ashevillain June 12, 2014 - 11:04 am

“further some agenda”

You mean an agenda like page clicks?

Nate June 12, 2014 - 11:29 am

No matter how reputable an organization “Wall Street Cheat Sheet” might be, it’s fascinating that you think their completely anonymous source, whose agenda is completely unknown, is more believable than a direct denial from Obama’s people.

Jennifer Saylor June 12, 2014 - 1:27 pm

Nate, it’s from experience, though admittedly usually when chasing restaurant openings. Any given restaurant PR spokesperson will lie to you to protect a corporate agenda, despite an opening being in the works. In my experience, they’re not worth trusting, and are, in fact, the least trustworthy sources when a journalist is seeking confirmation on something sensitive, yet outside of public concern. WSCS has no history of misinformation and really is kind of risking its reputation with sharing this news. I’m inclined to believe them, despite White House denial.

Jason Sandford June 12, 2014 - 2:11 pm

Jen and Nate: I met with Damien Hoffman of Wall St. Cheat Sheet this morning and had a great conversation with him. We talked about a whole range of media-related topics, including the Obama story. I trust Damien and the Wall St. Cheat Sheet story all the more following our one-on-one.

Jennifer Saylor June 12, 2014 - 3:04 pm

Completely unsurprised. People, this is how news gets out, and how people in authority keep you out of the loop. Question authority.

indie June 12, 2014 - 2:39 pm

It was anything but a direct denial. Could be true for all but Clintonesque word parsers. For example, maybe it was outside of Asheville. Maybe a different entity bought it. Maybe it is an option to buy. You get the idea.

The Blunder Years June 12, 2014 - 6:09 pm

I find it even more fascinating that anyone would reflexively put more stock in a government spokesman’s word than a dirt digging news source.

Sam S June 12, 2014 - 10:11 am

well if you have a company called Wall Street Cheet Sheet, you need to get press somehow

Post Comment