“We’ve reshaped the judiciary for generations” — Sarah Huckabee Sanders
(John Roberts, Fox News) Two questions on tax reform. Both are quick, if I could. First of all, what’s the schedule for signing? I understand this may not happen until after the Christmas break?
Second question. The carried-interest provision — this is something that — this is a loophole that President Trump promised again, again, and again to close. The carried-interest loophole is still there in this bill. Why did the President not insist on getting rid of that?
(Cecilia Vega, ABC News) Thanks, Sarah. The President has said that this tax bill is going to cost him a fortune. It’s actually not the case. How does he figure this is going to cost him a lot of money?
But he stands to benefit from pass-through deductions, top-rate tax reduction, estate tax exception is doubled. He’s going to make money on that.
(Matthew Nussbaum, Politico) Thanks, Sarah. Early reports are indicating that that fatal Amtrak derailment out in Washington — similar to the 2015 derailment in Philadelphia — could have been prevented by positive train control, which Congress back in ’08 mandated was supposed to be on all lines by 2015. That’s been pushed back and it’s only on a quarter of passenger lines right now. Is this White House considering any steps to speed up the implementation of positive train control to stop these kinds of accidents?
(Jon Decker, Fox Radio News) Thanks a lot, Sarah. You ticked off a number of accomplishments that you see the President has made in this first year in office. Why are his approval ratings mired in the mid- to upper-30s, despite those accomplishments?
And separately, Sarah — just if I may — Matthew Peterson, since we last met, withdrew his judicial nomination. There’s been a viral video of his inability to answer some basic legal questions when he went up before his confirmation hearing. How did he sort of slip through the cracks? Why was he nominated? And are you doubling up your effort here at the White House, over at DOJ, to make sure that your judicial nominees can answer those basic questions when they go up to the confirmation hearings?
(Dave) Sarah, thanks. Where was the President watching when the House voted? And did you see his reaction? What did he do?
One thing on nominations. Can you explain, now that we’re near the end of year, why the President has submitted far fewer names to the Senate for nomination than his predecessors, at this point in his term?
(Blake Burman, Fox Business News) Thank you. Let me ask you a couple questions and pick up where John Roberts left off. He asked you about the carried-interest loophole. You said, essentially, that it fell within the President’s four main principles that he laid out. How is keeping the carried-interest loophole, or at least a portion of it, good for the middle class?
Let me ask you this way: An individual who makes roughly $83,000 would pay about 24 percent with their rate. Somebody who benefits, a millionaire — tens of millions, potentially hundreds of millions, if not more — still might pay 24 percent on that money. Does the White House believe that somebody who makes $83,000 paying as somebody who has, potentially, hundreds of millions, do you guys believe that is fair?
(Jordan Fabian, The Hill) Thanks, Sarah. I actually wanted to ask about UFOs. (Laughter.) Several media reports this week — (phone interruption) — sorry. (Laughter.)
Several of these reports have disclosed the existence of a secret Pentagon program that was researching UFOs. Funding ran out for that in 2012. Does the President believe in the existence of UFOs? And would he be interested in restoring funding for that program?
(Jennifer) Has the President made sure that the IRS has the resources it needs to implement these new tax reform rules?
Just to follow up on a couple of questions. Were you saying that this particular judicial nominee, who’s withdrawn after this viral video of his inept performance at the confirmation hearing, didn’t properly go through your preparation and vetting process?
But with this confirmation hearing, based on your process, you thought he was prepared?
And to follow up on Cecilia’s question, you don’t disagree with what she said about the personal benefits that will accrue to the President based on provisions in the tax cut bill? You don’t disagree that they will benefit him personally?
(Noah) Sarah, you said the focus is on the middle class. Why was one of the last provisions put in lowering the top bracket? And did the President support that? And if he did not support it, why did he not insist that that not be added at the end?
Does that help the middle class, to lower the rate for — the bracket for the top individual earners?
(Peter) What do you say to the millions of Americans who could, and likely will, end up paying more because the individual mandate is repealed in this tax plan?
To be clear, though, on the individual mandate specifically, you will acknowledge that many Americans will end up paying more as a result of it being repealed, correct?
To be clear, so for the time being, they’ll have to swallow paying more until that resolution comes?
Sarah, as women around the country continue to speak up about sexual harassment in the workplace, I wanted to check in with you and see if the President and this administration is considering any legislative fixes to protect women from harassment. There are two notable bipartisan bills that have recently been introduced. This is Gretchen Carlson’s bill to remove arbitration clauses from employee contracts, and the Congressional Harassment Reform Act, which would require members of Congress to be found personally liable for harassment settlements and allow victims to speak publicly about their cases. Would the President consider signing either of these bills if they arrived on his desk?
So at the moment, though, the White House isn’t considering legislation on this front?
(Hallie Jackson, NBC News) Sarah, I have one on taxes. But because at the top you mentioned “forgotten men and women,” I wanted to ask about Puerto Rico. It’s been more than three months since the hurricane hit. Would the President still give himself right now a 10 out of 10 for the federal government’s response?
So you think the President has been doing everything he can? Still a 10?
And on the tax situation, Sarah — you’re getting a lot of questions about what will benefit the President, what won’t benefit the President. I get that he doesn’t want to release his taxes. That would obviously put all of these questions to rest. So can you just elucidate why — for 2016, the President can release his taxes — why won’t he do that and put all of these questions away, back up what you’re saying, prove that what you’re saying is correct? That’s the way to do it.
But I’m asking a different question, right? Not whether he will, but why won’t he.
I guess I’m asking the “why” part of it, Sarah. And I don’t mean to belabor it, but I understand that the President wants to wait until after the audit. I’m asking why.
Even though these questions (inaudible)?
(John Gizzi, Newsmax) I have two questions on Russia. First, the Kremlin has recently threatened Twitter with a complete shutdown throughout Russia if it continues to carry the Twitter account of what they call “Undesirables,” notably the dissident Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s Open Russia group. They’ve made a similar threat to YouTube recently. What’s the administration’s reaction when the Russian government wants to shut down American-run businesses bringing an expression of opinion to their country?
The other thing on Russia. Senator Rubio has introduced legislation to name the street in front of the Russian embassy here after the slain Russian dissident, Boris Nemtsov. Senator Corker has blocked it. Does the administration have an opinion on this at all?
(Anita) I wanted to ask you about the path forward on the Export-Import Bank. Now that a Senate committee is saying that Scott Garett’s name shouldn’t go forward, does the White House think that it needs to name someone else to run —
On his name or someone else?
(Brian Karem, Sentinel Newspapers) Sarah, just a couple of quick follow-ups. First, on Matthew, he was asking about Amtrak. There was a budget request, as I understand, from the President for $630 million reduction in the long-distance Amtrak routes. Because of the accident in Washington, do you plan on revisiting that issue?
On Matthew Peterson, the three that were turned down — it’s our understanding that they had close ties to the White House. Are you going to try to change the vetting process?
And then finally, on the one on UFOs —
The one on UFOs is the last one.
Well, the first one was on the Amtrak —
But because of their ties to the White House, because it’s looked upon as those were friends of the White House and that’s why they got that nomination, are you going to change the vetting process? Are you going to look at it more closely?
(James) Sarah, the new National Security Strategy specifically calls out Russia for using subversive tactics to interfere with the affairs of other countries. Why didn’t the President use that kind of aggressive language in his speech yesterday?
(Jill) Thank you, Sarah. Two things. First, I just wanted to go back to the Scott Garett issue. Does the President, at this point, regret having nominated someone who had advocated, previously getting rid of the Export-Import Bank to lead it?
And I also just wanted to ask — the President spoke with Prime Minister May today. Did they have any discussion at all about the President’s planned visit? Have you settled on any timing of a potential visit?
(Jim)The President did say that this tax cut bill would cost him a fortune. That was false, right?
Has he looked at how it would balance out corporate versus personal, if he’s going to come out ahead?
(April Ryan inadvertently named Omarosa’s tell-all today)
“So you’re saying that Omarosa Manigault was NOT fired on Tuesday evening, that she DIDN’T get belligerent in her conversation with General Kelly, she WASN’T yelling at him, she WASN’T cursing at him, and she WASN’T escorted off the property?” — Francesca Chambers with my favorite question today
As always, here is today’s White House Press Briefing, annotated a little, with SHS stripped out, because we don’t need her wall of lies. I just like to know what the reporters asked.
(Jonathan Karl, ABC News) Sarah, on the taxes, what is the President’s message to those Americans, including some in the middle class, who will face tax increases under this tax bill?
But the message to those that will face an increase? I mean, every analysis showed some people, including middle-class Americans, are going to face an increase.
(John Roberts, Fox News) On taxes, you got two “no’s” in the Senate so far. You got Senator Corker who’s been a “no” for a while. Senator Rubio came out and told us a short time ago that he’s a “no” unless he can get an expansion of the child tax credit. Is the President willing to be a little more generous in the child tax credit in order to get Senator Rubio’s vote?
Is there more room to move?
(Connie Lawn, USA Radio Network–I think) Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas.
Thank you. What have you learned this past year? And what changes would you make in the coming year?
(Mara Liasson, NPR) Thank you, Sarah. Does the President think that Roy Moore should concede? In other words, does he believe he lost the election fair and square, or does he think he was the victim of widespread illegitimate voting?
So Roy Moore lost fair and square. That’s what you’re saying?
(Jordan Fabian, The Hill) Thanks, Sarah. There’s some reports out this morning that Speaker Ryan is considering stepping down at the end of this Congress. Has the President spoken to Speaker Ryan about those reports? And does he want to see Speaker Ryan continue in that role?
(Blake Burman, Fox Business News) So did this catch the President by surprise, the Ryan report that was out today?
And let me ask you about Marco Rubio, as well. We have heard folks who might be “no” votes, potentially undecided votes. But Marco Rubio’s potential “no” vote is one that we know it concerns, but him voting no is seemingly here suddenly out of left field. Has that caught the White House by surprise at all? Or have you braced for the possibility that you might not have Marco Rubio in your corner?
(April Ryan, American Urban Radio Network) Sarah, two things. Should Roy Moore just give his concession speech now, versus holding it out?
And the second issue: Did you watch GMA this morning? And what are your thoughts about this tell-all and the uncomfortability of Omarosa while she was here with some issues?
(Jeff Zeleny, CNN) Sarah, if she’s resigned and she’s going to —
If she’s resigned, but you said she will stay on — Omarosa will stay on through January 20th — why are the taxpayers continuing to pay her salary for another month if she’s no longer here at the White House?
If she has resigned, though, why is she still on the payroll for another month? Is that normal?
On a separate matter, on the tax plan, if I could just ask: Will the President ask the House and Senate to stay here in Washington and finish this bill, even if it means bleeding into the Christmas holiday?
(Jeff Mason, Reuters) Sarah, does the President have any thoughts about the Disney deal to buy 21st Century Fox?
And what does the President think about the FCC decision on net neutrality? There are a lot of Americans, polls show, who are very opposed to that change.
(Matthew Nussbaum, Politico) Getting back to that Alabama result, does what happened down there change the President’s relationship at all with Steve Bannon, given his big support for Moore? And has it changed the President’s thoughts on Moore — on, excuse me, Mr. Bannon’s opposition to other incumbent Republican senators?
Well, I’m asking about the President’s relationship.
(Francesca Chambers, Mail Online) Thank you, Sarah. I know that you said that you can’t go much further on this personnel matter, but I do want to try to separate out some of the things that we’re hearing here and just be crystal clear.
So you’re saying that Omarosa Manigault was NOT fired on Tuesday evening, that she DIDN’T get belligerent in her conversation with General Kelly, she WASN’T yelling at him, she WASN’T cursing at him, and she WASN’T escorted off the property — and Secret Service has said not by them — but she wasn’t escorted off the property by someone or some entity other than Secret Service that evening?
(a woman–I can’t see who) In an interview with STAT News this morning, Kellyanne Conway said she and other administration officials have been urging Congress to appropriate additional funding for the opioid epidemic. The President declared a public health emergency earlier this fall, but that fund only has $57,000 in it. Economists have predicted that it will cost upwards of $190 billion over a decade to treat the crisis. Can you tell us how much money the White House will be urging Congress to appropriate? And what do you have to say to critics who believe that the President hasn’t dedicated enough resources to combatting the epidemic this year?
Is it more —
Is it around $45 billion that was a part of the Republican healthcare plan?
Is that money something that you guys will get done — that appropriation — by the end of this year? Can the President promise that?
(Kristen Welker, NBC News) Sarah, thank you. With Omarosa leaving, how many senior staffers here, at the White House, are African American?
Do you have a number on how many are African American?
She was really tasked with reaching out to the African American community. Have you identified who is going to take that role? And how critical is it to this President, to this administration, to make sure that that role is, in fact, filled?
And just to follow up one of April’s questions. What Omarosa said today was, “I’ve seen things that have made me uncomfortable, that have upset me, that have affected me deeply and emotionally, that has affected my community and my people.” Were her concerns ever addressed or dealt with?
Do you know if any of the issues or any of her concerns were?
(Margaret Brennan, CBS News) Sarah, today is the fifth anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre in which so many children were killed. That, of course, as a tragedy, was eclipsed by what happened in Las Vegas, which is now the most tragic mass shooting on U.S. soil. Since that time, what has President Trump done to try to protect the American people against a similar type of massacre? Does he think anything has been done? What is the administration trying to do? Is there anything at the executive level that he thinks needs to be undertaken?
(Margaret’s voice quavered a little as she asked this question, but Sarah was perfectly steady as she launched into talk about border security. Border security.)
But these were domestic shooters. These weren’t people who entered the United States.
But no one issue that the President has highlighted that says he wants to make a priority to push forward?
But there were prescriptions given very quickly just the other day for this failed terrorist attack, which is why in these cases — I mean, this is the worst shooting on U.S. soil on President Trump’s watch.
Does it involve a weapons ban, any kind of regulation, any kind of mental health concerns? Has the President specifically mentioned that as a possibility?
(Trey Yingst, One America) Thanks, Sarah. Has the President expressed any concerns regarding the FCC’s decision today to roll back these Obama-era regulations on net neutrality? And then, moving forward, are there any assurances that the White House can offer to the American people who are concerned that the decision and vote today will lead to a less-free Internet?
(Someone named Brian) I’m going to ask a question about taxes. The Federal Reserve, yesterday, said that the tax bill would provide a modest lift to the economy. That’s in stark contrast to words that the President has used, like “rocket fuel” to the economy. What is the data the President is basing his rosier picture of the impact on the economy of the tax bill, versus the experts at the Federal Reserve?
Was the President upset the word “modest” was used?
No briefing today, but April Ryan regaled Twitter with her inside juicy scoops about Omarosa drama.
Yesterday with all the Alabama hoopla, I didn’t get a post up with yesterday’s White House Press Briefing questions.
Here are the questions from yesterday. They elicited many lies from the podium.
(Cecilia Vega, ABC News) Thank you, Sarah. The President said today that Senator Gillibrand would “do anything” for campaign contributions. Many, many people see this as a sexual innuendo. What is the President suggesting?
So you’re saying that this quote — “Senator Gillibrand would do anything” — is a reference to campaign contributions in Washington, the swamp? This has nothing to do with her being a female? What is he alleging would happen behind closed doors with her?
(Steve) Does the President want Roy Moore to be seated in the Senate if he wins tonight? And does he plan to call him tonight?
(John Roberts, Fox News) Sarah, does the President agree with his outside legal counsel that a special prosecutor should be appointed to look into the goings-on at the Department of Justice during the election campaign in 2016 since the revelation about Bruce Ohr, the former associate deputy attorney general?
So would he support the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into this?
(Dave Boyer, Washington Times) Thanks, Sarah. Congressional leaders are saying that they have no plans to re-impose sanctions on Iran by the deadline tomorrow that the President initiated back in October when he decertified Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal. Is the White House okay with this no-action? And, if so, where are the teeth in the President’s move to decertify them from compliance?
(Jordan Fabian, The Hill) Thanks, Sarah. Senator Grassley said that he’s advised the White House to reconsider the nomination of Jeff McClure to the federal court in Texas and Brett Talley in Alabama. Has the President spoken to Senator Grassley about his concerns? And does the President plan to pull back those nominations?
(Matthew Nussbaum, Politico) Thanks, Sarah. Bashar al-Assad and Rodrigo Duterte have both recently have used the phrase “fake news” to dismiss damaging reports about their regimes. And a state official in Myanmar recently said that the Muslim minority, Rohingya, don’t exist and added it’s fake news. Is the White House concerned at all about authoritarian regimes adopting this phrase “fake news” to try to delegitimize the press? And does President Trump bear any responsibility for the popularization of this phrase among some world leaders?
But when you hear autocrats using the term “fake news” to describe events that reflect poorly on their regimes, that doesn’t cause concern here?
(Kristen Welker, NBC) Sarah, thank you. The President tweeted today that the accusations against him are “false, fabricated stories of women who I don’t know and/or have never met. Fake news.” And yet, the reality is he’s pictured with a number of the women who have accused him of the misconduct. So do you concede that that part of his statement is not true?
So (inaudible) of all of his accusers? Because –
And, Sarah, members of Congress have called for an investigation into these accusations. Is President Trump as confident that they are not true? Would he support such an investigation?
And yet, this moment is an important moment, as well, Sarah. This is a moment that’s getting a lot of attention.
And yet, Sarah, this is something that is being discussed in businesses all across the country. There have been a number of people who have been fired over this. So why not allow this congressional investigation to go forward? And if the President, he’s confident in the accusations being involved –
(April Ryan American Urban Radio Networks) Is Gillibrand owed an apology for the misunderstanding of the President’s tweet this morning? Because many — including the Senator — thinks that it’s about sexual innuendos.
(Sarah says, “only if your mind is in the gutter” to April Ryan.)
No, it’s not. What he said was open, and it was not “mind in the gutter.”
(Hunter Walker, Yahoo! News) Thank you, Sarah. Looking at this issue with the system, the President gave almost $8,000 to Senator Gillibrand over the years. His daughter also gave her $2,000. What specifically did they get for these contributions that she was offered?
So he is admitting that he bought access in a corrupt way?
(Mara Liasson, NPR News) So Kirsten Gillibrand called for him to resign, and he says over and over again that he’s a counterpuncher. So the next day, after she does that, he wakes up and you’re saying that he’s tweeting about the campaign finance system. Is that what you’re saying?
And what kind of campaign finance reform does the President want?
(Jon Decker, Fox Radio News) Thanks a lot, Sarah. You’re familiar with the President’s tweets. He tweets pretty often. In this particular –
Yeah, a little bit. In this particular case, his criticism of Senator Gillibrand was very personal. Why must he criticize in such personal terms? He called a sitting, elected U.S. senator a “lightweight.” Why go after her in such a personal manner?
(Trey Yingst, One America News Network) Thanks, Sarah. Two quick questions for you. One following up on John’s question from earlier about a second special counsel. Does the President have confidence in the FBI as it exists today?
And then a follow-up on foreign policy. Today, Bloomberg has an article out about the Trump administration encouraging Saudi Arabia to consider bids from U.S. companies as it relates to building nuclear reactors. Does the President see this as an opportunity to bring up human rights in Yemen during these talks with Saudi Arabia?
(Margaret Brennan, CBS News) Thank you. H.R. McMaster gave some really interesting remarks at a luncheon earlier today. And he spoke in really strong terms about China and Russia. He said they were “undermining the international order and stability” and “ignoring the sovereign rights of their neighbors and the rule of law.” He went on to talk about Russia, in particular. He didn’t use the words “election meddling,” but he talked about subversion, disinformation, propaganda, and basically pitting people against each other to try to create crisis of confidence. So what I wanted to know is: Does the President agree with all of General McMaster’s statements? And is that a foreshadowing of a national security strategy that will take a harder tack on Russia and China than the administration has so far?
Someone calls out as she leaves, “Could we please get the President out here, at the podium? Could we please see the President, Sarah?”
Sarah goes to the WTF (Worse Than Fox) trio when things get hairy today. The boys at One America, LifeZette, and racist zine Breitbart are more than happy to help her trammel over pointed follow-ups from other reporters in the room.
Also, Mara Liasson seemed to fall asleep in her chair near the end of the briefing, which is basically how I was at work today.
Lastly, some people on the left are being really ugly on Twitter, calling Sarah Huckabee Sanders ugly. We’ve got a long way to go on our misogyny — our whole culture is a toxic soup of it. She’s not ugly, she’s just kind of average-looking and not overly symmetrical — LIKE MOST OF US. Her outfits are fine. When people harp on her looks with nasty, gross memes (that aren’t even clever), the message to women everywhere is “Look perfect or hide yourself away.”
She’s an amoral henchperson for Trump. That’s enough fodder for criticism.
Here are the questions the reporters in the room asked today:
(Francesca Chambers, Mail Online): Thank you, Sarah. I wanted to ask you about the women who came forward today against the President. They first were on a television show and then they were at a press conference. And they said that he should resign, and then also that there should be a congressional investigation. And I know that you’ve said that this has already been litigated in the last election, but I wanted to get your specific reaction to this idea that there should be a congressional investigation into this.
(Kristen Welker, NBC News) Sarah, thank you. I want to follow up on that. But first, a little bit of breaking news we just learned about: The Pentagon apparently will now allow transgender people to enlist in the military beginning January 1st. Your reaction to that? And any follow-up action you’re going to take?
Okay, and one follow-up –
One follow-up very quickly on — just very quickly, Sarah.
Can I just ask you about Nikki Haley’s comments saying that the President –
(Mara Liasson, NPR)I’ll pick that up for you, Kristen.
Nikki Haley, as I’m sure you know, said, when asked does the election mean that’s a settled issue — which you’ve been arguing from the podium here — she said, “I know he was elected, but women should always feel comfortable coming forward and we should all be willing to listen to them,” specifically referring to the accusers of the President. Does the President agree with her?
But he thinks it’s a good thing that the women who accused him are coming forward now, again?
(Jacqueline Alemany, CBS News) I just want to go off of that, Sarah. But the President told Howard Stern in 2005 that he had walked into a teen beauty pageant dressing room where he said that teen contestants had no clothes on because he could sort of get away with things like that. Is that not an admission of sexual harassment—
And the American public —
(Charlie Spiering, Breitbart) Two ISIS attacks in New York City — or ISIS-inspired attacks in New York City just recently. Is the President concerned that there is a growing threat against people inspired by ISIS who have been radicalized online?
(Matthew Nussbaum, Politico) Thank you, Sarah. The President reacted quite angrily over the weekend to a Washington Post reporter’s tweet about crowd size that was quickly deleted. I’m wondering if you could help explain the discrepancy between the President’s reaction to incidents like this, which he calls “fake news” and talks quite a bit about, and his silence on actual disinformation campaigns like Russia ran during the 2016 election to deliberately spread false information. So both his silence on that, and does he recognize the difference between these two?
Does he see a difference between reporters’ mistakes and a disinformation campaign by a foreign government? Does he see a distinction there?
(Jim Acosta, CNN) And I would just say, Sarah, that journalists make honest mistakes and that doesn’t make them fake news. But the question that I –
The President hasn’t –
This wasn’t going to be my question.
You mean like tweeting stuff on the Middle East —
He retweeted something that was completely fake, Sarah. Can he admit it?
(Brian Karem, Sentinel Newspapers)Are you speaking about the President? [this interjection was after Sarah’s long rant on the media being dishonest]
This was not –
I know, I know.
(Jim Acosta again) This is not the line of questioning that I was going down, but can you cite a specific story that you say is intentionally false; that was intentionally put out there to mislead the American people?
Sarah, if I may though, I was going to ask a question about something else.
Well, Sarah, if I may –
Sarah, if I can ask about the President’s accusations –
I know, but I didn’t get a chance to ask the question that I wanted to ask, which is –
— can you just say, once and for all, whether these accusations –
(Jim Stinson, LifeZette) Sarah, a question about investment — investment taxes.
(Jim Acosta, CNN) I think I was within my rights to respond to your attacks on the news media. If that’s okay, I would like to ask the question that I had about these accusations of misconduct against the President. You said that he’s denied them. Can you say whether or not they are false?
[Sarah says: “I’m not going to respond”]
Sarah, some investors are saying the tax reform package favors mutual funds over individual investors. Other critics who want tax reform say the bill will cause some tax increases for a few middle-class tax filers. By a few, I mean maybe tens of thousands, but maybe more. Will the President sign the tax bill, even if there are inadvertent tax increases and some of the criticisms are correct?
(Jon Decker, Fox Radio News) Thanks a lot, Sarah. Tomorrow there is a special Senate election in Alabama. Back on September the 23rd, the President went down to Huntsville, Alabama — campaigned alongside of Luther Strange — and since that time, he never went down in the course of the campaign — the campaign, alongside the Republican nominee, Roy Moore. Was the President embarrassed in terms of campaigning alongside Roy Moore? Is that the reason why we didn’t see him down there in Alabama?
(April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks) Sarah, what is the disconnect, as it relates to this White House, when it comes to then-candidate Trump bringing the accusers of Bill Clinton to the debate, against Hillary Clinton, and now the accusers of Roy Moore — making these accusations — and his accusers? What’s the disconnect here?
Well, what about his own accusers though? He has accusers as well.
Will he address the American public about this? Because this is spinning, and it’s focused on him now as –
But will he — it’s coming up new and a fresh, and more people are now speaking out. Will –
I understand. But will the President address the nation on this? This is a huge issue, Sarah.
Will the President come out and address this, please?
Sarah, all you have to say is yes or no.
(Trey Yingst, One America News Network) Thank you, Sarah. Today, the suspected terrorist in New York City, he was described as a Bangladeshi immigrant. Bangladesh is not on the President’s travel ban list. Does today’s attack change the way that President Trump is evaluating travel restrictions?
(Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News) Thanks, Sarah. At the top of your remarks about ISIS, about the attack today in New York City, you talked about the need to destroy the ideology, intimating would-be attackers and the actual attackers. What policy changes are required to do that? How do you defeat an ideology that’s been attempted since 9/11 with, really, no great success? What are you doing differently? What can you do differently in order to do that?
(Jessica Stone, CGTN (China)) Thanks, Sarah. Two quick ones on Korea. Do you have an update on sanctions? Last week, you said it would be coming in a number of days. And secondly, Victor Cha was just nominated to be the Republic of Korea Ambassador. Do you have any comment?
(Margaret Brennan, CBS) Sarah, I’m interested in the comment you made about the suspect in New York. Does the White House have any proof that this suspect was radicalized outside of the United States? He’s been a lawful, permanent resident living here for some time.
But why would his chain migration be an issue unless you were saying that something happened outside the U.S.? [she won’t answer]
(Jennifer Jacobs, Bloomberg) On the directive on space the President is going to announce this afternoon, will he call for an increase in spending for NASA, or will there be commercial partnerships? Or will he reduce NASA funding in other areas such as earth science, which includes the study of climate change?
(Cecilia Vega, ABC News) Thanks, Sarah. Two questions. Who were the eyewitnesses who dispute these allegations against the President? And can you stand here right now and say, without a doubt — 100 percent certainty — that the more than dozen women who have come forward to accuse this President of misconduct are lying? Do you wrestle with this personally at all?
(Brian Karem, Sentinel Newspapers) So let me just follow up on that question a little bit. As a woman standing up there talking to us — I know your job is to relay what the President says — have you ever been sexually harassed? And do you understand — and I’m not saying by the President — I’m saying ever. And secondly, do you have an empathy for those who come forward? Because it’s very difficult for women to come forward.
(Zeke Miller, AP) Thanks, Sarah. Following up on the President’s announcement last week on Jerusalem, declaring it’s the capital of Israel, we saw days of protests — sometimes violent protests in the Middle East, changes to the Vice President’s schedule as he goes through the region. Does the White House acknowledge, does the President acknowledge, that that decision increased tensions in an already volatile region?
Sarah, but this is about more than violence. This is about meetings being cancelled. It’s about diplomatic outcry from everyone from — you know, the governments of the United Kingdom, the Pope, and the like. So why is it beneficial to the U.S. interest, as the President declared, if all those groups, all those countries and allies are condemning that announcement?
(Jordan Fabian, The Hill) Yeah, following up on that, President Abbas, as you know, has said he will not meet with the Vice President next week. Does the President have a reaction to that? And doesn’t this mean that the U.S. has effectively taken itself out of the peace process when one side won’t even show up to meet with the United States?
(Philip Crowther, France24) So the last suspects of terrorism were not training in Syria or Iraq. And Thursday, the Russians stopped their operations, said that they’d gotten rid of ISIS in Syria. Saturday, the Iraqi Prime Minister said this fight against ISIS is won. Why would the U.S. still need to fight on the ground?
Called out as SHS left—(something inaudible) the President misrepresented the facts?
This is not ok. This is so far beyond ok. This wasn’t just some off the cuff remark that Sarah Huckabee Sanders made on behalf of herself. It was her prepared remarks as part of her official statement from the White House. This is disgusting.
Until she said the underlined part, I was just mildly annoyed that she was filling up precious questioning time with her moralizing, like this guy noted today:
But I wasn’t mad. Not until she said to a captive room of reporters from diverse cultural backgrounds, there for their job, that the “savior” was the “greatest gift.” As a representative of the U.S. government. This is so wrong, I don’t even know where to begin. It didn’t so much offend me as it made me want to vomit.
So that’s where I’m at with all this.
(Kevin Corke, Fox News) Thank you, Sarah. I want to ask you about the possible government shutdown and the optimism that the President might have that he can avert a shutdown. And if I could follow up and ask about the California fires and the very latest the White House has on it.
On the fires, I’m sorry.
Yeah. Is the White House in coordination with the folks out in California in battling that wildfire? Is there more money to be made available, especially for the areas near Los Angeles, which are under siege right now by so many devastating fires?
(Jennifer Jacobs, Bloomberg News) Can you say a little bit about why John Bolton was here at the White House today? And also, on taxes, we’re a little confused on whether the White House would support a 22 percent corporate tax rate. You had the White House economist, Kevin Hassett, talking about — saying it would be okay and it wouldn’t undermine the economy. And then, a few hours later, the Legislative Affairs Director, Marc Short, said something about it needs to be 20. So can you say —
And on John Bolton?
(Jonathan Karl, ABC News) Sarah, Donald Trump, Jr. refused to talk about his conversations with the President, citing attorney-client privilege. Would the President release him from any such privilege and allow him to speak to the committee?
But can you explain to me how it could be attorney-client privilege when neither Donald Trump, Jr. nor President Trump are attorneys?
(Matthew Nussbaum, Politico) Thanks, Sarah. Senator Franken today, in announcing his resignation, said that he’s “aware that there is some irony in the fact that I’m leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party.” What’s the White House response to that?
Can you say anything more broadly about the differences in the way the two parties are handling these accusations of sexual misconduct?
(Jon Decker, Fox Radio News) Thank you, Sarah. Have any of the President’s counterparts around the world contacted the President, contacted the White House to indicate that they too will follow the President’s lead in moving their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, or acknowledging that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?
Do you expect any? Do you expect that to happen? Do you expect that others will follow the President’s lead here?
(Jordan Fabian, The Hill) Thanks, Sarah. Last week, the President said that the U.S. would be imposing additional sanctions on North Korea today. Do you have an update on where that stands?
(Jennifer Wishon, Christian Broadcasting Network) Thanks, Sarah. What is the President’s reaction to some U.S. allies, particularly in Europe — notably in the United Kingdom — who had expressed opposition to this action recognizing Jerusalem? And also, does the fact that he kept his promise give him more credibility when negotiating in the Middle East?
(Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News) Thank you, Sarah. So, yesterday, you guys put out a statement under the President’s name, saying that he was directing other officials in the administration to reach out to Saudi Arabia and urge them to immediately allow the flow of humanitarian supplies into Yemen. I have two questions about that. The first is: Why isn’t the President himself working the phones? And the second is: Are there any consequences for Saudi Arabia if they don’t immediately allow this flow of goods?
Any consequences for Saudi if they don’t do this?
(Major Garrett, CBS News) Hallie asked on Monday when the President became aware that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI. You referred her to John Dowd, those questions. We’ve tried. John Dowd is not engaging on that. That’s a knowable fact in this building; it’s not a legal matter — not for their attorney to say. Can you just tell us when the President became aware of that?
Why is it a legal question for them not about something the President knew and when he knew it?
One other question, Sarah. One other question.
I think you want to take this one. It’s real simple; it’s very simple. Today, the U.N. Ambassador said it’s an open question whether the United States will participate in the Winter Olympics in South Korea. Is it an open question? Is that now in doubt?
So it is in doubt?
And it’s all about security?
(Mara Liaison, NPR) I just have two government funding questions. First, does he want S-CHIP reauthorized?
Okay. The bipartisan leadership is coming up in a much different atmosphere than the last meeting where he tweeted about how he didn’t think a deal was possible because the Democrats were so bad on illegal immigrants pouring over the border. I’m wondering, has the President changed his mind about that? And also, specifically, what was he referring to since, in a government shutdown, ICE and the Border Patrol aren’t affected?
But do you think a deal can be reached with the Democrats?
(Josh Dawsey, Washington Post) On the Hill today, Chris Wray praised the FBI and said it was the finest law enforcement force in the world. The President said, you know, it’s “in tatters” and it’s at its worst place in history. Can you explain that discrepancy?
When he undermines —
When he undermines the FBI and says it’s in tatters, does the White House fear that that could create ramifications that people won’t trust law enforcement; that people will say —
— why should we interact with the FBI when it’s in tatters?
(Blake Burman, Fox Business News) Sarah, thank you. Two quick ones about a government shutdown. Chuck Schumer, on the Senate floor, said today of the President: His party controls the Senate, the House, and the presidency — speaking of Republicans, rather. And he said a shutdown would fall on his shoulders. How is that not just a reflection — an accurate reflection — of the political realities that Republicans control Washington at this point?
nd you said you want a clear CR. At some point, though, DACA is going to have to be brought up, or potentially be brought up. Is the White House willing to mix, at one point, a DACA fix with government spending? And if so, when would that be the case?
(John Gizzi, Newsmax) Yeah, thank you, Sarah. From that podium, Secretary Mnuchin and Gary Cohn both assured us that, when a final tax reform bill is passed, the alternate minimum tax would disappear immediately. Now, of course, recent statements by the President, as the conference is about to begin, indicate it might not completely disappear and not immediately, certainly. Is the administration still committed to ending the AMT right away?
(Charlie Spiering, Breitbart News) A lot of attention on sexual misconduct and harassment by members of Congress. Is the President confident that Congress and its leaders can police and investigate themselves on this issue?
(Hallie Jackson, NBC News) Thank you, Sarah. I just have one question, but I need to clarify something that you said from the podium here on taxes. You said, I think to Matt, on Tuesday, that as long as his taxes are under audit, he’s not going to release them. His 2016 taxes, to our knowledge, are not under audit, unless they are. Can you —
Will you get back to us on that? So my question to you, then, more broadly, is on this moment that we find ourselves in, frankly, of a national reckoning when it comes to sexual harassment. And so in, again, a broad 30,000-foot way, does the President believe that he has a credible role in leading this conversation? And can you speak to the specific steps this White House has taken to make sure the women who work here feel like they are in a comfortable environment to talk about these things?
A lot of workplaces are having sessions, they’re having seminars. Are you guys doing that here? Are you talking about, in recent days, what people in this work environment can do? Are you taking —
(Kristen Welker, NBC News) A follow-up: We’ve seen Democrats forcefully call for John Conyers’s resignation, and Al Franken’s resignation, which happened today. Do Republicans, and does this President, risk losing their moral authority on this issue — which is a huge issue right now — by endorsing a candidate like Roy Moore, which has now been backed by the RNC as well?
Why not call for him to drop out of the race, or a write-in candidate? Sarah, is the President failing to lead at this critical moment?
But just a quick follow. Is he failing to lead on this issue?
(Unknown man who trampled over Kristen’s attempt to follow up) Was the President’s proclamation on Jerusalem delayed because of concerns expressed by the Secretaries of Defense and State, about security they wanted to get — adequate security in place for U.S. embassies around the world?
(Steve Holland, Reuters) The Palestinians are under the impression that the President pulled out of the peace process yesterday based on the Jerusalem decision. How do you correct that? Did he do that?
(Someone named David) Sarah, thank you. Given the recent revelations that at least one prosecutor on Robert Mueller’s team was sending anti-Trump texts to another DOJ lawyer, and given the revelation that yet another one was congratulating Sally Yates for refusing to uphold and defend the President’s travel ban, Chairman Goodlatte, at the hearing this morning, said that even the appearance of impropriety would devastate the FBI’s reputation. So the question is: Does the White House believe that the fix was in that Robert Mueller’s probe was biased from the beginning?
Questions the reporters asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders today:
[Major Garrett, CBS] Sarah, one issue that you may have seen this morning: Is the White House, or the President, at any level, considering creating a global or regional spy network that would circumvent the U.S. intelligence apparatus and serve the President outside of the normal and legally defined intelligence-gathering mechanisms?
The President would be opposed to that?
Do you know if any senior official has been briefed on that idea, or has it been discussed at any level in this administration?
Is it possible –
No, but is it possible it’s something the President might consider?
Is it something the President might consider?
[John Roberts, Fox News] World leaders have spoken out, Sarah, in the last 24 hours about the possible move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Mahmoud Abbas says that it would have great consequences for peace and stability in the region. King Abdullah said much the same thing. Saudi Arabia, at least publicly, saying the same thing; though, I’m told privately, they’re saying something different than that. French President Macron said that he thought it was a bad idea. In the face of all of that, would the President ignore that advice from world leaders and go ahead and make the move at this time?
Is it safe to say, other than Israel, which thinks that this move is 22 years overdue, that all of the feedback that he’s been getting from world leaders is overwhelmingly negative about this idea?
[Cecilia Vega, ABC News] Thanks, Sarah. Yesterday, the President said that he felt very badly for General Flynn. Would he consider pardoning him?
So you haven’t talked to him about it, or he said he wouldn’t consider it?
You have not —
So is it fair to say that it’s on the table?
[Steve Holland, Reuters]Back on the embassy. Has the President made up his mind about this, or is the decision still in flux a bit?
[April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks]Sarah, a couple questions. One, there are comments from people from the NAACP, black ministers, who plan on protesting and boycotting this weekend for the President’s visit to the Civil Rights Museum. What say you?
They feel it’s an insult that he’s coming as we’ve had issues of Charlottesville, the back and forth — the President couldn’t get his statement straight on Charlottesville.
[Jordan Fabian, The Hill]Thanks, Sarah. Did the President know that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI at the time that he fired him in February?
I have a follow-up. So your predecessor said on June 6th, “…is the President of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the President of the United States in regards to his tweets.” Does that still — does that standard still apply for the President’s tweets?
[Matthew Nussbaum, Politico] Thanks, Sarah. The White House originally said that if the accusations against Roy Moore were true, then Moore should step aside. I’m wondering how the President reached the conclusion that all of Moore’s accusers — including those who have put forward evidence — are lying.
Even if that person who would support his agenda has done what Roy Moore’s accusers have said he’s done?
[David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network] Sarah, can you tell me a little bit about the process and timing as how the President got to the potential Jerusalem announcement tomorrow? Do you have somewhat of a backstory on that to the degree that you can at this point?
And just a quick follow-up. An evangelical’s role in this, how crucial is that being in terms of the Faith Advisory Council?
[Jon Decker, Fox Radio News] Thanks a lot, Sarah. I have a question for you about the special counsel’s office. Does the President believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller, or anybody on his staff, is biased in any way against the President?
Just a follow-up for you, if I may, Sarah. I think it was about five or six weeks ago that you indicated from that podium, on a few occasions, that you believe and the White House believes that Mr. Mueller’s investigation will be wrapping up shortly. Since that time, we’ve seen that a very high-level aide to the President — former aide to the President — former national security advisor has entered a plea deal with the special counsel’s office. Do you still believe that this investigation is wrapping up soon?
[Blake Burman, Fox Business News]Sarah, thank you. Let me ask you two questions on so-called “red lines.” If Robert Mueller ends up looking into the President’s finances, or if he has already looked into the President’s finances, does the President, does this White House believe that is a red line? And, if so, why?
Let me ask you — a second red line. This White House has consistently said there are two red lines on tax reform — middle class relief and then a 20 percent corporate rate. But the President, over the weekend, seemed to suggest that he would be amenable for a corporate rate up to 22 percent. Why would he be willing to step over his own red line on that issue?
[Michael Shear, New York Times]So two quick things. One, does the President believe, as the lawyer from the solicitor general’s office said at the court today, that a baker could put a sign in his window saying “We don’t bake cakes for gay weddings” and that that would be legal?
Yeah, so the solicitor general — the lawyer from the solicitor general’s office for the administration said today in court, at the Supreme Court, that it would be legal, it would be possible for a baker to put a sign in his window saying, “We don’t bake cakes for gay weddings.” Does the President agree that that would be okay?
And that would be, that would –
And one other question just on Russia, but not one that you would expect. What does the President think of the decision to ban Russian athletes from the Olympics in 2018?
[Catherine Lucey, Associated Press] Sarah, House Republican leaders had to push back a vote on a short-term budget bill this week to avert a shutdown. Does the White House think that a shutdown is a possibility?
And one follow-up. Then, the President doesn’t think that it would be politically advantageous?
[Hallie Jackson, NBC] Two quick ones for you. And just a statement of fact: When did the President know that Mike Flynn lied to the FBI?
I’m asking for a date. I’m asking for a date. When did he find out? Was it when the announcement was made Friday? Was it prior to that?
Would you mind following up with the President since Dowd has been unresponsive to that?
No problem. A point to you, you have weighed in on other special counsel matters before. It’s just a statement of fact of when, during the administration, what day the President discovered this lie issue.
My second question is on Roy Moore, Sarah. You said, just a minute ago, that the President would want somebody in the Senate who supports his agenda versus one who does not. And I just want to clarify here that, is it the White House’s position then — sort of formally here — that it is worse to have a Democrat in that Senate seat than somebody who is accused of sexually abusing a teen girl?
Then why did the President endorse?
[Steven Portnoy, CBS News] Thanks, Sarah. I do want to nail something down with respect to John Dowd and what he’s been telling us in the last couple of days. He’s argued that the President cannot be charged with obstruction of justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. That’s his opinion. Does the White House share that opinion? Has the White House Counsel’s Office looked into this question? Does it share that perspective?
What do you make of the whole notion of obstruction of justice, though? It’s been discussed in the last couple of days. A lot of people have been talking about it. What do you think about it?
[Jim Acosta, CNN] I’m not an attorney either. Let me ask you about –
Thank you, I appreciate that. This decision on Jerusalem — is the President concerned that there could a violence as a result of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? Has that been looked at by this White House?
Following up on Roy Moore, just very quickly — other folks got a couple of questions — isn’t there a moral decision that you’re making here? And I’m sure you’ve heard this talked about in the news the last couple of days as the President has decided to endorse Roy Moore. This is somebody who has been accused of child abuse, of molesting children. How can that vote in the Senate be that important that you would take a gamble on somebody who has been accused of molesting kids, of harming somebody who’s underage?
Is that something the President has wrestled with in any way? Has he wrestled with that question?
[Brian someone] Sarah, thank you. The President said that the tax plan will hurt him individually. Will the President release his taxes to prove that?
Why not? I mean, he can release it — even if it’s under audit, he could release his tax returns if he wanted.
[Jon Gizzi, Newsmax] Yeah. Thank you, Sarah. A matter of procedure on the Roy Moore endorsement. Did the President have any conversations with Chairman McDaniel of the RNC after he made his position known? Or did he talk to state Chairman Lathan in Alabama or any of the players involved in the Republican National Committee before they decided to get back in the race and support Roy Moore?
You can’t say who the officials are?
[Hunter Walker, Yahoo! News] Thank you, Sarah. Given the President’s endorsement, does he agree with Roy Moore that Muslims should not be allowed to serve in Congress?
But, I mean, you’re saying that their agendas are kind of in lockstep. Does that go both ways?
[Eamon Javers, CNBC]Thanks, Sarah. Does the President expect Deutsche Bank or any financial institutions to cooperate with requests for documents from U.S. law enforcement if they get them?
What’s the President’s message to the financial institutions themselves? If they get a request, should they comply with that?
[Brian Karem, Sentinel Newspapers]Just to follow up on Roy Moore a bit. Are you saying that — you’re saying let the people decide, but this administration has endorsed Roy Moore. Why endorse him if you want the people to decide?You’re influencing the decision by endorsing him. And secondly, are you saying that no matter who runs as a member of the GOP, it’s okay as long as you are in lockstep with the President and vote the way he wants?
For this person. This person.
[Dave Boyer, Washington Times]Thanks, Sarah. The administration reported today that illegal border crossings have dropped to a 45-year low. Does that lessen the urgency, as we’re getting down to spending decisions here, about whether to go forward with building the wall in this budget?