We convene for the last presentation of the day. Im excited for the next panel. Im excited to mis introducer moderator, White House Correspondent for the daily mail. Com. She also covered the president ial race. She contributed to all three publications and cover the president ial primary for the examiner. She graduated from the university of kansas she was an editor of the University Daily and you can see her frequently as she is a frequent guest on msnbc. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. I will jump right into the introductions of our panel. Margaret is the one ive had the opportunity have gotten to know well. She is also White House Correspondent. We have desks just a few feet from each other at the white house. She also cover the 2016 president ial campaign shes a correspondent for bloomberg and is president of the White House Correspondent association. Also cnn contributor. Moving on to tony, hes the father of hamilton play strategies. He worked in the Bush Administration as a Deputy White House press secretary. Before that he was rich in treasury as well. We have jen who also worked at the white house for president barack obama you are a Deputy White House secretary and communications director. Now, you are contributor at cnn. I said before the panel started that we normally like to start with a 30,000 dollar question. Tell me what you thoughts are on the first or the white house. But not to bury the lead were hearing a lot about the first year from this new book from michael wolf. Everyone is really curious to hear what you have to say not just about the first year in the controversies but how they are handling the response to the book that is about the first year of the presidency. A morning, and thank you for having us. I really like margaret and i really like tony, so just want to diffuse some perceptions about partisanship between government officials and media. The book is dominated the news for a few reasons. One when theres hellacious details in the Senior Advisor to the president of the United States is attacking him minute, dont think that has happened in history. In terms of the white house handling it, here are some challenges. One that is true for every white house, it is a very difficult decision to determine if you should participate in a book. There are dozens of book offers and pitches coming your way when youre in a senior rolled white house. Early on in my experience you were drinking from a fire hose in the process of deciding to participate in the book is not as much of a processes people may think. You can guess that michael wolf had written some complementary things about the trump white house. He was critical of the media which the white house have been critical of and at some point someone in their thought this could be a good book. Thats my best guess. The problem now is they gave him was seems to be on feathered access. Hours of interviews on tape, well see if you will will release those. So they cannot argue that they had nothing to do with the book which theyre trying to argue. That doesnt sit well because if someone has hours of tape on the record are so much addition you cant argue they didnt participate in it. The perception certainly michael wolf has a mixed reputation like how he does sourcing and whats true and whats false. Theyre using a tactic with books. I wont repeat every detail but the things inaccurate. Just to throw some confusion in the mix. That may be the best they can do on this. A lot of the larger thematic pieces of the book, the perception of President Trump and if he is fit for the job, confident with the job, the perception of infighting are consistent with a great deal of reporting that has happened by many in terms of how that place runs. Its hard to refute perceptions of have long been reported in say its false if it is consistent. I dont know the decisionmaking process. Its hard to see how they went about it. We have multiple books written while we were in office. Everyone was a difficult decision. Trying to make a judgment on the quality of the author, as its a little before. You know we like each other and trust each other know we would be fair and whatever we would do, with similar relationships with reporters the subjects for books, the people interviewed and mentioned have very different views on what is fair. Someones trying to make a judgment if it will be a good book is different than if it will be a fair book. Very few reporters that i know this is the book theyre going to write is going to be good book. Because its fair and clear reporting of the history. People will participate. As press officers in the white house sometimes your job is to manage this process with the author people who will be interviewed for the book, sometimes they really want to talk because of something to say. Sometimes they have their own agenda. Others are very reluctant to participate in the book and have to try to help manage through that. Its safe to say whatever the results are is not great for the white house right now. But be dealing with them for some time. He saw some tactics yesterday were pointing out some key factual heirs they could point to to cloud the view of the bo book, pushing out other kinds of news about pakistan, but offshore drilling, anything to flood the zone with other kinds of news to take attention away from it. I dont think in either environment it will be particularly successful. This is a storm because of the characters involved in some of the key characters are not disputing the assertions that are in the book. I think will dominate news for at least another 3 5 days. Thats an eternity for washington. Is a very important issues. Want to give market a chance to respond and how you think theyre handling the response. Hello, this is a great group. I think we been here before i love getting to know folks are here. Im only here for part of the panel. I may not be here for part of the q a. But you can get my email i just sent i will follow up. The white house is in crisis mode this week. Its a kind of crisis that might most white house encounter in the second term after bad midterm or chelation a bad blood internally. Its extraordinary to have a situation like this before the oneyear mark of the white house. As a reporter and look at the time in the book in three ways. One, to understand the revelation are claims made in the book and see if there threats to follow or context to help you understand. And sorted out factually as you can. Two, what are the implications for the relationship between steve bannon and President Trump going forward. Steve bannon is a smart guy who knows a lot about President Trump and the internal workings of the first year the white house. After that alabama race and now after this book theres a clear parting of the ways. Three that i looked for is how is this administration going to handle the fallout of this explosive book . The next few weeks are huge test in terms of the way they manage the Public Relations in the narrative, theyre going to camp david this weekend and are supposed talk about welfare reform in the infrastructure, when you look at what happens the president just past the massive tax cut package that they wanted. These are accomplishments that he should under normal circumstances take with to get momentum in a difficult midterm year. Theyre now clouded and minimized. Its a tremendous test. They have implications on the Mueller Investigation and their leverage with republicans in congress. With both his critics and potential allies. Im looking with and i toward the political ramifications. To want to come back to the your head in the state of the union. You have to leave here in a few minutes, i want to jump to another question i want to ask you. Thats about transparency. That comes up in every white house. I wanted your take on the transparency of this white house. They said the white house is very transparent. But the same time we have these recurring issues about his taxes for instance and how on his vacations they will save hes playing golf at all kinds of stuff like that. Especially from your role as a White House Correspondent president. The reason why the Association Seeks access and transparency it is for the reporters job is but the reason they want that is so they can write stories about where your government is doing and how its spending your money. So americans can evaluate their government and can express their views with a base of knowledge. Transparency you can describe many ways. There are some norms for which it was judged in the past. The Obama Administration worked on which was something called visitor logs. Thats probably a separate debate. It wasnt perfect and it was hard to use. It didnt capture every visitor. But it was something. It was useful. It was an effort to give some accountability and record of who is influencing discovers with government. The Trump Administration does not use that practice. There are other ways to judge access and transparency. On a daytoday basis the president is considerably more accessible in terms of the ability to see him, toss a question and maybe he will decide to answer you. Sometimes quickly and sometimes at great lengths. He likes venues that other president s have not embraced like the newest one is when hes doing self on departure and marine one helicopter is waiting to take them away, hell walk out of the residence everyone started showing up for these because he sees a camera and he likes the questioners intrigued by he might to five or 15 minutes in front of the camera with the chopper going. He might cover a range of topics from Hillary Clinton to the department of justice policy, to jim comey or north korea. As a reporter, thats useful. Twitter was around during president obamas administration, but not as developed. The president was much more judicious about his use of it. President trump uses it on filter and often in times of his most likely loan. To express himself. We all know, we all subscribe to his twitter feed. Does a push your phone at 530 in the morning and wake up . These are unusual insights into the president on the other hand some of the other measures of transparency he stays away from the full format news conferences which can be useful insights into the presidency. President obama did longer form interviews and did more baby off the record exchanges with reporters on issues to help you understand his depth of thinking i miss you like pakistan and afghanistan. Thats really of the land, but because he has been such a controversy president theres a desire in terms of questions to say why is this different and why no transparency. I think its a dangerous game is reporter to think of the present seems more accessible are committed to transparency that you can take that at face value. Whether heres more committed to disclosing things are not still reporters tried to push to look that just for if you can talk to president directly over the get documents, facts to back those things up. From critics and people who disagree with what the facts are. Its always been important to do a 360degree job in terms of reporting and pressing for faxon answers. Its 1141 spec thank you for being here for adjustment. [applause] have any questions im happy to those over. The president will be leaving the white house at 2 00 p. M. I think were hopeful for those southward departures to ask questions. I wonder with those of the about today. The see is also very cold today. Can imagine hell want to stand out there for 15 minutes but we will see. Do you want to take the question that was directly evoked by margaret and its transparency in the caribou coffee meetings with lobbyists. One how that compares to trumps administration. I no longer work for the Obama Administration says it doesnt exist. I will say only say that because i could say wish we wouldve done something differently. Thats honesty about governing. But on this topic what we did and president obama did was take transparency to the next level. It was never satisfying enough for the press. The job of reporters and margaret is to push as far as he can push as you can possibly get. If reporters think im getting all the access information i could possibly hope and dream for, then i and tony are not doing our job. There is an inherent conflict or healthy push and pull that happens with that. I did not understand fully until i worked in the white house. When youre governing and have a policy to push forward its not always helpful for the survival or press event to be debated. In 2008 president obama said if we do healthcare it will be on cspan. At the time i thought of course but when youre in the white house and see how governing works you know wouldve killed healthcare a couple of weeks in. They wouldve debated everything that was said this is even more so the case im able to talk about the state department when it comes to diplomacy. Tony can talk about it as it relates to market Madeleine Albright has this great quote i always will. But diplomacy and policymaking that is correct. There are not be an iran deal today if the negotiation have been public in the back channel track have been public at the time. Transparency advocates would say it should all be public and run your policymaker working in the white house your objective is not to get an a for transparency. And to be honest and responsive. Your first job is to move the agenda forward. Yes i think margaret could speak most effectively to this white house and the transparency of the white house. As it relates to press conferences versus twitter, every president does it differently. How you decide to do that as a communication official is by what works for the president. For president obama he did a lot of television interviews, more than any president in the past. Other president s did more short press conferences or q as. You will always be evaluated whether you meet your predecessors bar. Ultimately your determining what works best to push the information out. Is it accurate, you being honest, thats how you see it from your standpoint. I think the openness and transparency of any white house will always reflect the personality and style of the president. President clinton you could switch from one meeting or topic to another, very loose operation in the white house. Meeting starting late or running on, it was a loose structure with the media and reporters had really wonderful access with people in the clinton administration. President bush always started on time and always ended on time if not really. He rose every morning at the same time worked out every day, debt. Disciplined person in white house we communicated with each other had a controlled access to the media and communicated those things. The Obama Administration from the outside also reflected his style and oneonone kinds of interviews. I got a sense that he preferred the oneonone discussions with people rather than a group of people clamoring with hands up to put questions out. Its and agree with his personality and style. You try to find virtues in this style of the person youre dealing with to try to bring out the best in major communications goal. I think this white house reflects the personality and style, and some good and bad ways. We didnt have social media and largely didnt exist or in such an event formed by the end of the Bush Administration we didnt have to be able to apply recordkeeping to tweets or let alone twitter. That is a piece of it. Transparency in different ways. If we could go back and do things differently i would be in favor of a lot more i think white house tries to control the whitwhite message too much. But i always thought it created problems for the Treasury Department and i thought i wanted a treasury secretary to meet with the person or the head of business without spooking the markets or the head of the country there is information that is important for policymakers to get you cant negotiate anything with something complex as a nuclear deal or trade agreement or your Employment Contract for work. Because all negotiation involves giveandtake. Somebody has to give first if you give first and public than all the activists go crazy to say you give away the house. Then you dont get to the next step where the other side gives you something so you have to negotiate behind closed doors that is the only way to do that effectively. I do want to talk about the state department i feel you have so many thoughts from north korea how the president has responded to moving of the embassy to jerusalem what another reporter called the tillerson deathwatch. Not the literal deathwatch. But from the standpoint it seems when is Rex Tillerson leaving . And also the fact him and the president and nikki haley dont seem to be on the same page. There is a lot there. We can talk about any of those but just little about what i have seen with the functioning because that is a part of how impactful you can be around the world and you dont always see that to know how it should be working. So with the secretary of state it works not always perfectly. But that role should be where the chief diplomat for the United States of america. You want a perception you have the ear and the trust that you are two peas in a pod with the president you are representing with the president thinks and believes. That is your value if you are perceived as not representing what the president thinks, as you are perceived not having his ear, that is a huge problem diplomatically. I dont know who to place blame on but just giving you some insight. Why does that matter . The secretary of state is traveling around the world to represent the United States through negotiations they can be to troubled areas or civil war the biggest power you have is to bring that note from the notes from the president the problem tillerson has had he is seen around the world is not having the ear or the confidence of the president. Therefore United States has been the leader of negotiations to set the agenda and bringing countries to gather, the trade deals were Climate Change agreements, none of those without the United States would exist that often times crosses over different parties in the white house. Now they are not seen as driving the agenda and that is a problem. Structurally it is challenging that my predecessor said to me the most important thing is trouble with the secretary of state that is were the action happens with the state department this is not the feeling of the current spokesperson but that is a challenge not to be traveling because you dont see what is happening and makes it harder to offer that insight. The other piece that the state department isnt political like the white house briefing. It is an opportunity for the United States to be out there representing what we think about a variety of issues. South china sea, israel, pakistan, if you not policing you are taking us off local television stations this is of the current spokesperson but it is a mistake by the current state department. Yes. From the state is an indispensable power player at a global event. At some of these other gatherings. I think it is fair to say theres a lot of confusion especially these kind of questions. Me personally something i cared about a great deal and still do care a lot about. When i say people are confused they think things are very hard mind against china. And to all the world tpp look like one of the great clues to stand against china to force china to adhere to western standards of trade and business operations. To be seen as a hardliner in china and pulled the plug on tpp, a lot of people are confused. Will take two from over here. For some reason, all the ladies are lined on the side. There quick to the fight. I was hoping you could speak to the rate of staff turnover in the administration. How has this different from previous administrations and what is it say about the Current Administration . There are many ways to answer this, ill just say i dont really know the reasoning, im not in there. What is not normal as highlevel departures in the first years. What is typical or departures after about two years. These jobs are highpressure, especially the first couple of years. Its not just dragging from a firehose, wisconsin. You wake up and you have a hundred messages to answer. What i think is different is when i came into the Obama Administration we are like a family. Like i can punch my brother but you better not punch my brother. Your family. There is already game of thrones in this white house is about personnel and who is up and who is down. You people throwing rocks at the white house there aspects of this not normal thats not normal we can see if we get on a more normal track do people want those jobs. Its a some dysfunction and some changes of steve chief of staff and george was the spokesman it happens when you have real outsider campaigns coming into the white house were trying to do things with new people and new ways. You tend to see this. Certainly an outlier relative to other white houses. I think that is clear. Another part is that i dont think they expected to win. They did not do planning before him. We have the shortest transition of any white house because we had the recount. So the day of the recount to inauguration was 32 or 31. A short transition. But personnel was way ahead of where this administration was or maybe any administration. It was a real discipline on the process for people in his going to be and what job. We expected to win, plan to win, i think the Obama Administration did too. A lot of work done, especially the Obama Administration was coming into two hot wars and a financial crisis. There was no time to be on prepared. They had to be we understood also and wanted to help them ps prepared as they could. It wouldve been horrible for them not to come in with good people to jump in with real difficult jobs. I dont know whether it is true or not, the word was before this administration came in the president was superstitious about planning for an administration it was kind of a ramshackle operation a little bit too. So they do not do that work and its hard to build a bike when youre trying to ride the bike. Hello. Im jenny, go to the university in boston. You tax that held mushrooms grow brother in the dark. Negotiations are less effective if they happen in the public eye. Would you extend the to the tax bill that just went through and how the process of the gop used to get that through . Once you decide, i think that is up being more public than the even what im talking about. I think deals should cannot be presented and we would all of them to go through regular order. Rules run the congress, the structure of congress is difficult. Multiple congresses under leadership had to do unusual things to move big complex pieces of legislation. None of it ideal, with love to see reform on how to do things on tax bills and budgeting. The only thing i would add is that there somewhere in the middle. As tony said, regular order is screwed up in congress right now. A big complaint with the tax bill, was that if you have a multi hundred page bill in a few hours treated in your voting on behalf of your constituents, thats not really the right process. I still stand by the view when it comes to negotiation there needs to be some privacy to get Business Done regardless of your viewpoint. I want to reiterate a question i asked a previous speaker. Congress spends around 70 billion on charitable tax deductions. High income citizens benefit more of those deductions. Is there a better system to replace it with it depends on what your objective is and what you think will happen to charitable contributions. Whatever your Public Policy goal is, some people do not like to see any benefit to the tax code going to rich people. But it is unavoidably true that which people contribute most money to charities and foundations and so do see that is a good thing or bad thing. I dont like lots of tax expenditures. I like capping the mortgage interest reduction. I see a lot of allowances go to benefit higher income people because they end up spending more. They buy bigger houses so the get it bigger mortgage interest induction. They give more to charity so they get a figure tax break from the charitable deduction. I prefer to see those things kept. But as a Public Policy question what is the goal you are trying to achieve. If its to let make charitable contributions, there a lot of people who would be upset. Thank you for being here today. And for everybody who came here. [applause] this week they heard an oral argument ohio secretary of state hear it in its entirety friday night on cspan or listen with the free cspan radio at. You can follow the Upcoming Schedule cspan. Org . At a Senate Hearing in syria, the acting secretary of state discuss the fight against isis and efforts in the searing war. He testifies about russia and iranian