A Constitutional Republic, where the First Amendment is Essential to OUR Survival
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
Q All right. Okay, on a different point: Last time that we were in here, you read off some ex-officials and one current official who the President was considering taking away their security clearance. I wanted to follow up on that and ask you, who was - first of all, who was conducting that review to determine whether or not those security clearances would be pulled?
And second of all, I wanted to ask you about a tweet that the President said, saying that he thought that potentially James Clapper is being "nice" to him so that he doesn't lose his security clearance. Is that a threat - that if James Clapper isn't nice to him, that he'll lose his security clearance?
SANDERS: No, I don't have any other announcements on that front. We're continuing to review. When we have an announcement, I'll let you know.
Julie, go ahead.
Q (Inaudible) who was doing the review?
SANDERS: I'm sorry?
Q Who was doing the review? That was my other question.
SANDERS: A number of people involved here at the White House.
Julie, go ahead.
Q Sarah, in his tweet about Paul Manafort this morning, the President seemed to be praising him for essentially refusing to cooperate with federal prosecutors in a way that could implicate him, the President. Is that what he meant to suggest? And doesn't that seem to indicate that he thinks that loyalty to him personally is more important with abiding by the law or cooperating with this government in an investigation?
SANDERS: Not at all. The Manafort case doesn't involve the President, doesn't involve his campaign, and has nothing to do with the White House. The President has expressed his views.
Saagar.
Q Thanks, Sarah. Michael Cohen's lawyer has suggested publicly that there is new evidence that they would like to present about foreknowledge of election hacking. So does the President - does the White House maintain there was no foreknowledge of any election hacking during the 2016 campaign?
SANDERS: I'm not aware of anything, no.
Q Sarah, two questions, as well, for you. Given that five convicted felons are now linked to the President or his campaign, and given that the President promised to hire the "best people," did he fail to live up to that promise?
SANDERS: Look, the President has employed thousands of people in his lifetime, and had incredible successes, both in business and in the public service. He's the President of the United States, so I think he's doing quite well.
Q And can I just follow up? My second question, Sarah, just to follow on Cecilia. Because I understand that you don't want to answer the same question a million times, and you said the President did nothing illegal, but I didn't hear a response to the question: Did he lie to the American people when he talked about this on Air Force One?
SANDERS: No. And the President has addressed this a number of times.
Q Sarah, thank you. I have a couple questions. President Trump says he feels badly for Cohen and Manafort. One of the men pleaded guilty to crimes. The other was found guilty of crimes, including tax fraud, which robbed the American public of tax dollars they were owed. Why does he feel bad for either of these men?
SANDERS: Once again, the President has expressed his views on this matter, and I have nothing else to add on that.
Q Just to follow up on that, does he believe that there is an intrinsic problem with the Justice Department? Or does he only believe if someone who was close to him is a victim of the Justice Department?
SANDERS: No - I think we've certainly seen a lot of concerns come out of some of the activities of people that worked at the Department of Justice, whether it's Peter Strzok or Lisa Page or James Comey. We've walked through those a number of times, and certainly I think it's given cause for a lot of Americans - some of the activities those individuals engaged in.
Q No, but when the person in question is someone who's close to him, the President paints them as a victim, as if his own Justice Department is not doing its job, or has done it unfairly.
SANDERS: Again, certainly the President has expressed his views on this matter, and he's raised concerns about a number of other problems that he has seen within the Department of Justice.
Hunter.
Q Thank you. I wanted to follow up about the earlier question about the President's comments on Fox News, with regard to the payments to Ms. Daniels and Ms. McDougal. When exactly did he learn about them? And also, are there any other payments he has now become aware of? Or are those the only two women who have received money for agreeing not to repeat their stories of alleged affairs with the President?
SANDERS: Once again, I've addressed all that I'm going to say on the Cohen issue. For those specific questions, with more details, I would refer you to the President's outside counsel.
Q If we're going to refer such crucial matters to the outside counsel, can't we bring them in here for the briefing?
SANDERS: They don't work here -
Q Or even better, have a press conference with the President.
SANDERS: They don't work here at the White House, but I would certainly encourage you to reach out to them.
John.
Q Thank you, Sarah. Going back to the security clearances, all signs are this is the first time a President personally has been handling the removal of security clearances; it's usually been done by superiors. Even in the last two big espionage cases of the Cold War - the Irvin Scarbeck case of 1961, and Felix Bloch of 1990 - the Secretary of State pulled the security clearances of people accused of espionage.
You said the President - that "others are reviewing it." Who are these others reviewing it? And does the President take a personal role in the potential removal of security clearances?
SANDERS: Certainly, the President has the constitutional authority to do so. I know this will come as a shock to you, but I'm not aware of the details of those specific cases that you outlined. But the President has the authority to make that decision.
Q Yes.
SANDERS: He's also consulting with members of his national security team and members of his legal team here at the White House to make those decisions.
Q Is he also considering a policy of just simply having all security passes turned in when someone leaves government service?
SANDERS: I'm not aware of that. As a policy, certainly we would like the ability, if needed, to be able to consult with individuals on national security matters. But they do feel - the team here - that we should look at the security clearance process as whole. My understanding is that there are roughly 5 million people that have security clearances here in the United States, and we'd like to take a look at the overall process of who has and who maintains those security clearances.
Q Top Secret?
SANDERS: Deborah.
Q Yeah. You're right about the President having constitutional authority, as far as I understand, about security clearances, as well as pardons. So I guess the question I have is: Even though he has that authority, has anybody in the White House thought about putting together boards that would look at security clearances for former personnel? And pardons as well? Because the President doesn't seem to be consulting the pardon attorney in the AG's office much. Is he consulting people? Has he thought of doing something that would be more transparent perhaps?
SANDERS: Certainly, as the review of the security clearances, there is a working group that is looking at the overall security clearance process and who maintains those, and whether or not those are needed across the board within government.
In terms of the pardon process, again, the President has the authority to carry out those decisions. He takes input and looks at them on a case-by-case basis.
Kristen.
Q Thank you, Sarah.
SANDERS: Kristen, go ahead.
Q Go ahead.
Q Come back to me, please?
Q Just on that - you said that there are people who are looking at security clearances. Can you tell us who they are?
SANDERS: There are a number of members on the national security team. I'd have to get back to you. I know that the Chief of Staff is involved in that process.
Q Sarah, thank you. Earlier this week, the President told our colleagues at Reuters that -
SANDERS: Can you speak up? I'm sorry.
Q Sorry. The President said earlier this week to Reuters that he could "run it," in reference to the Mueller investigation. What did he mean by that?
SANDERS: The President has said many times that he's chosen to remain uninvolved in this process, and that's where we are right now. If you have anything further -
Q But is that an indication that he's thinking about taking some type of action against Special Counsel Robert Mueller, like revoking his security clearances?
SANDERS: I'm not aware of any conversation around that.
Q Is it an indication that the President sees himself as above the law?
SANDERS: Not at all.
Raquel, go ahead.
Q Hi. Thank you, Sarah, very much. Some legal experts and lawmakers are saying the President is corrupt and there are ground for an impeachment case. Is the White House concerned about that, that could have an effect in the mid-elections -the midterm elections? And also, does the White House take these allegations seriously?
SANDERS: Certainly, we take allegations seriously. The idea of an impeachment is, frankly, a sad attempt by Democrats. It's the only message they seem to have going into the midterms. And I think it's another great reminder of why Americans should support other like-minded candidates, like the President, that are actually focused on continuing to grow the economy, continuing to secure our borders, continuing to focus on the safety and security of all Americans.
I think that the biggest contrast you could possibly make is the message of the Democrats, which is nothing more than attacking the President and looking at cheap political stunts while this White House and Republicans in the House and Senate are focused on actually doing good things for the American people.
Eamon.
Q Thank you, Sarah. Earlier this week, the President had some tough words of criticism for Jay Powell, the Federal Reserve Chairman. Can you tell us when the last time the President and Powell met face-to-face, and whether or not the President brought up that criticism with Powell directly?
SANDERS: I believe the last time they met - I'd have to double-check - was right around the time that Jerome Powell took his place on the Federal Reserve board.
Q So has he spoken to him directly about his concerns about raising interest rates?
SANDERS: I'm not aware that they've spoken about that at all.
One last question - sorry, go ahead, Emerald.
Q Thank you, Sarah. On Venezuela, is the President involved - planning on getting involved there at all? There's millions fleeing the country now. What is the U.S. stance on Venezuela at this point?
SANDERS: The United States continues to support Venezuela's neighbors, and provide emergency aid and shelter to Venezuela, and also continues to stand with the people of Venezuela. And we're going to keep all options on the table. And we'll keep you posted if we have any further announcements.
Thank you so much. And we're going to wrap up here so that we can all join the President for the Medal of Honor ceremony. Thanks, guys.
Go Back
And second of all, I wanted to ask you about a tweet that the President said, saying that he thought that potentially James Clapper is being "nice" to him so that he doesn't lose his security clearance. Is that a threat - that if James Clapper isn't nice to him, that he'll lose his security clearance?
SANDERS: No, I don't have any other announcements on that front. We're continuing to review. When we have an announcement, I'll let you know.
Julie, go ahead.
Q (Inaudible) who was doing the review?
SANDERS: I'm sorry?
Q Who was doing the review? That was my other question.
SANDERS: A number of people involved here at the White House.
Julie, go ahead.
Q Sarah, in his tweet about Paul Manafort this morning, the President seemed to be praising him for essentially refusing to cooperate with federal prosecutors in a way that could implicate him, the President. Is that what he meant to suggest? And doesn't that seem to indicate that he thinks that loyalty to him personally is more important with abiding by the law or cooperating with this government in an investigation?
SANDERS: Not at all. The Manafort case doesn't involve the President, doesn't involve his campaign, and has nothing to do with the White House. The President has expressed his views.
Saagar.
Q Thanks, Sarah. Michael Cohen's lawyer has suggested publicly that there is new evidence that they would like to present about foreknowledge of election hacking. So does the President - does the White House maintain there was no foreknowledge of any election hacking during the 2016 campaign?
SANDERS: I'm not aware of anything, no.
Q Sarah, two questions, as well, for you. Given that five convicted felons are now linked to the President or his campaign, and given that the President promised to hire the "best people," did he fail to live up to that promise?
SANDERS: Look, the President has employed thousands of people in his lifetime, and had incredible successes, both in business and in the public service. He's the President of the United States, so I think he's doing quite well.
Q And can I just follow up? My second question, Sarah, just to follow on Cecilia. Because I understand that you don't want to answer the same question a million times, and you said the President did nothing illegal, but I didn't hear a response to the question: Did he lie to the American people when he talked about this on Air Force One?
SANDERS: No. And the President has addressed this a number of times.
Q Sarah, thank you. I have a couple questions. President Trump says he feels badly for Cohen and Manafort. One of the men pleaded guilty to crimes. The other was found guilty of crimes, including tax fraud, which robbed the American public of tax dollars they were owed. Why does he feel bad for either of these men?
SANDERS: Once again, the President has expressed his views on this matter, and I have nothing else to add on that.
Q Just to follow up on that, does he believe that there is an intrinsic problem with the Justice Department? Or does he only believe if someone who was close to him is a victim of the Justice Department?
SANDERS: No - I think we've certainly seen a lot of concerns come out of some of the activities of people that worked at the Department of Justice, whether it's Peter Strzok or Lisa Page or James Comey. We've walked through those a number of times, and certainly I think it's given cause for a lot of Americans - some of the activities those individuals engaged in.
Q No, but when the person in question is someone who's close to him, the President paints them as a victim, as if his own Justice Department is not doing its job, or has done it unfairly.
SANDERS: Again, certainly the President has expressed his views on this matter, and he's raised concerns about a number of other problems that he has seen within the Department of Justice.
Hunter.
Q Thank you. I wanted to follow up about the earlier question about the President's comments on Fox News, with regard to the payments to Ms. Daniels and Ms. McDougal. When exactly did he learn about them? And also, are there any other payments he has now become aware of? Or are those the only two women who have received money for agreeing not to repeat their stories of alleged affairs with the President?
SANDERS: Once again, I've addressed all that I'm going to say on the Cohen issue. For those specific questions, with more details, I would refer you to the President's outside counsel.
Q If we're going to refer such crucial matters to the outside counsel, can't we bring them in here for the briefing?
SANDERS: They don't work here -
Q Or even better, have a press conference with the President.
SANDERS: They don't work here at the White House, but I would certainly encourage you to reach out to them.
John.
Q Thank you, Sarah. Going back to the security clearances, all signs are this is the first time a President personally has been handling the removal of security clearances; it's usually been done by superiors. Even in the last two big espionage cases of the Cold War - the Irvin Scarbeck case of 1961, and Felix Bloch of 1990 - the Secretary of State pulled the security clearances of people accused of espionage.
You said the President - that "others are reviewing it." Who are these others reviewing it? And does the President take a personal role in the potential removal of security clearances?
SANDERS: Certainly, the President has the constitutional authority to do so. I know this will come as a shock to you, but I'm not aware of the details of those specific cases that you outlined. But the President has the authority to make that decision.
Q Yes.
SANDERS: He's also consulting with members of his national security team and members of his legal team here at the White House to make those decisions.
Q Is he also considering a policy of just simply having all security passes turned in when someone leaves government service?
SANDERS: I'm not aware of that. As a policy, certainly we would like the ability, if needed, to be able to consult with individuals on national security matters. But they do feel - the team here - that we should look at the security clearance process as whole. My understanding is that there are roughly 5 million people that have security clearances here in the United States, and we'd like to take a look at the overall process of who has and who maintains those security clearances.
Q Top Secret?
SANDERS: Deborah.
Q Yeah. You're right about the President having constitutional authority, as far as I understand, about security clearances, as well as pardons. So I guess the question I have is: Even though he has that authority, has anybody in the White House thought about putting together boards that would look at security clearances for former personnel? And pardons as well? Because the President doesn't seem to be consulting the pardon attorney in the AG's office much. Is he consulting people? Has he thought of doing something that would be more transparent perhaps?
SANDERS: Certainly, as the review of the security clearances, there is a working group that is looking at the overall security clearance process and who maintains those, and whether or not those are needed across the board within government.
In terms of the pardon process, again, the President has the authority to carry out those decisions. He takes input and looks at them on a case-by-case basis.
Kristen.
Q Thank you, Sarah.
SANDERS: Kristen, go ahead.
Q Go ahead.
Q Come back to me, please?
Q Just on that - you said that there are people who are looking at security clearances. Can you tell us who they are?
SANDERS: There are a number of members on the national security team. I'd have to get back to you. I know that the Chief of Staff is involved in that process.
Q Sarah, thank you. Earlier this week, the President told our colleagues at Reuters that -
SANDERS: Can you speak up? I'm sorry.
Q Sorry. The President said earlier this week to Reuters that he could "run it," in reference to the Mueller investigation. What did he mean by that?
SANDERS: The President has said many times that he's chosen to remain uninvolved in this process, and that's where we are right now. If you have anything further -
Q But is that an indication that he's thinking about taking some type of action against Special Counsel Robert Mueller, like revoking his security clearances?
SANDERS: I'm not aware of any conversation around that.
Q Is it an indication that the President sees himself as above the law?
SANDERS: Not at all.
Raquel, go ahead.
Q Hi. Thank you, Sarah, very much. Some legal experts and lawmakers are saying the President is corrupt and there are ground for an impeachment case. Is the White House concerned about that, that could have an effect in the mid-elections -the midterm elections? And also, does the White House take these allegations seriously?
SANDERS: Certainly, we take allegations seriously. The idea of an impeachment is, frankly, a sad attempt by Democrats. It's the only message they seem to have going into the midterms. And I think it's another great reminder of why Americans should support other like-minded candidates, like the President, that are actually focused on continuing to grow the economy, continuing to secure our borders, continuing to focus on the safety and security of all Americans.
I think that the biggest contrast you could possibly make is the message of the Democrats, which is nothing more than attacking the President and looking at cheap political stunts while this White House and Republicans in the House and Senate are focused on actually doing good things for the American people.
Eamon.
Q Thank you, Sarah. Earlier this week, the President had some tough words of criticism for Jay Powell, the Federal Reserve Chairman. Can you tell us when the last time the President and Powell met face-to-face, and whether or not the President brought up that criticism with Powell directly?
SANDERS: I believe the last time they met - I'd have to double-check - was right around the time that Jerome Powell took his place on the Federal Reserve board.
Q So has he spoken to him directly about his concerns about raising interest rates?
SANDERS: I'm not aware that they've spoken about that at all.
One last question - sorry, go ahead, Emerald.
Q Thank you, Sarah. On Venezuela, is the President involved - planning on getting involved there at all? There's millions fleeing the country now. What is the U.S. stance on Venezuela at this point?
SANDERS: The United States continues to support Venezuela's neighbors, and provide emergency aid and shelter to Venezuela, and also continues to stand with the people of Venezuela. And we're going to keep all options on the table. And we'll keep you posted if we have any further announcements.
Thank you so much. And we're going to wrap up here so that we can all join the President for the Medal of Honor ceremony. Thanks, guys.
- Contact: White House
- Press Office
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
