All of what i know has been available through public comment. I know chairman nunes confirmed he was on white house grounds tuesday. Frankly any questions regarding who he met with or why he was here should be referred to him. I have seen some of the comments hes made to your out let in particular about whom he met with. I would refer you to his comments that he made. Im not going to get into who he met with or why he met with them. Ill let him answer. He is the one who has discussed what he is reviewing, and so i will leave it up to him and not try to get in the middle of that. Im asking a slightly different question. Which is, does the white house know what happened now beyond public accounts . And are you satisfied that you dont have a leak in the executive branch. No, were not concerned about that. I know that he is everything i know about what hes done is through public reports that he has made on the record to different folks when he has multiple sources. He has met with different folks to gather things as part of his review of the situation. And so all i know and what im willing to communicate is what has been made available to on the comments that he has made. I dont know that members of Congress Need to be cleared. Wouldnt the white house want to know again, i think theres a difference. Hes doing a review. Its not something were going to get in the middle of or get in the way of. Part of it is to let him review and have conversations and look at things that he thinks are relevant. On your answer to margret you said i dont know that members of congress have to get cleared in. Theres some question about that. Who in the white house signed him . Ill be glad to check on that. Im not sure thats how that works but i will follow up on that point. I understand that youre not going to speak about some of the world, surrounding this issue as chairman nunes. Does the white house believe that he can still lead an impartial investigation, or would the Administration Support somebody who called for an independent committee to investigate this . First of all, i would question what this is. As i have mentioned countless times from this podium, theres two issues at hand. Theres multiple. Number one, theres any action with respect to russia itself and every Single Person thats been briefed by director comey in particular and the fbi and said theres nothing there. What he is looking into are two things that we are aware of because of the pleas that we have made. One is the leaks of classified information that have come out. And two is whether or not there has been people that have been unmasked. I dont know why we stand by the original request that was made. And i think director comey, in open testimony the other day, talked about what the fbi was looking into. We have a lot of people looking into this whole situation. Will the administration pursue, will the white house pursue a leak investigation into whomever is giving chairman nunes this information if its in the executive branch . At this time we are letting his review of the situation procee proceed. I think theres a difference between a leak and someone pursuing a review of the situation that they have determined. Theres a difference between a leak, someone leaking to reporters to take classified information and share it with people who arent cleared. Chairman nunes is cleared. He is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. That is not a leak. Does that look like the white house review . That would reflect the views of the United States government. Same thing back on you mentioned Lessons Learned off what went down last week on health care. Can you talk about specifically what some of those are, in terms of, president talked a lot about loyalty. Does he believe some members of his party are no longer loyal to him . Im not going to detail, go through. I mean, obviously this is an internal thing. I will say that we look at things like, everything from who we met with and when we met with them, to whether or not we should have how the thing how everything rolled out and what organizations were met with. What commitments were met and when. Theres a lot that goes into this. You look at whether or not thats applicable to another situation, will thats unique. You do look at some of the individuals that you met with, both in times of timing, commitment, substance, and evaluate, you know, just the process itself. But then also to some degree, the individuals and whether or not that is someone that you, you know there are several folks. Again, it defends on the aspect of it. Theres a legislative affairs team, a comps aspect of this. We all entirely talk about what went well, what didnt. We do that not just with the bad, but the good. Jonathan asked it at the beginning. Most organizations, whether or not you do something really well or not as well, its usually incumbent upon you to say, what did we do well . For things we did really well we sustain those aspects of something. Theres always something to improve. Even when you dont do. Theres an on going piece of this. Major . Talking about chairman nunes. I have a question. So members of congress may not need to be cleared, but to get access to a skip, i do believe that requires some cooperation from the executive branch, because there are intelligence places on capitol hill that are secure and wr this meeting could have taken place. It create timhe impression tha chairman nunes came here and was able to carry out this meeting and then make the announcement which is perceived by some, most of them democrats, that it was trying to be helpful to this president and this administration. It appears there was some degree of cooperation in this process that the white house tkpwrapbed chairman nunes making it not just an investigative action but a cooperative one. Number one, we asked both of these entities, the house and Senate Intelligence committee to under take this review. It is partially at our request that theyre looking into this. Number two, number two, based on the Public Comments that he made to margrets organization, he has said, from my understanding on the record, that he did not se staff. So, again, i think youre trying to make something that he is himself, from what i have read, not actually been the case. Thats not what i asked you. I asked you about having access to a skip. Something has to be carried out i will be glad to take a look at that and figure out whether or not that san accurate statement. Okay. Let me ask you about jarrod. There is an understanding thats trying to be worked out between jarrod and the Senate Intelligence committee. Is that testimony . Is that something that the committee has requested . Has he volunteered . Do they believe he has something to explain to that committee and the American Public about what he did in the transition, with whom he met with, and some of the meetings that he took that are raising questions about russia and folks that he met with that are outside diplomatic channels but have other aspects to their russian by deals that may cross the lines. Throughout the campaign and the transition, jarod served as the official primary point of contact with foreign governments and officials until we had state Department Officials up. So given this role, he volunteered to speak with the committee but has not received any confirmation regarding a time for a meeting or anything. Is this going to be a private meeting . I dont know. Again, he i think based on the questions that surround this, he volunteered to sit down and say, im glad to talk about the role that i played and the individuals that i met with. Given the role he lplayed, he mt with countless individuals. That was part of his job. That was part of his role. And he executed it completely as he was supposed to. So he doesnt believe he owes the American Public an explanation. For what . Youre acting as though theres something nepharious about it. Its not every day that someone in a senior position volunteers to go talk to the Senate Intelligence committee dealing with meddling by foreign entities. Im answering it. Im just saying to you based on the media frenzy that existed around this, he volunteered to make sure that he said, hey, weve made some contacts. Id be glad to explain them. Let me know if youd like to talk. Plain and simple. Just to be clear to followup on what everyone is asking. The white house does not does white house have knowledge of the information that chairman nunes received when he came to the white house the first time . If thats the case or if thats not the case, is it your position that the white house is not going to look into where he got the information from or who gave him the information until his investigation is complete . I think that im not aware of where he got it from. I know in his public statement, he talked about having multiple sources. So i dont know how he derived the conclusion that he did. I think that at this point, the goal would be to wait until the review that he is undertaking is complete. Why would nunes need to brief the president on documents he viewed on white house grounds . Thats a big assumption that youre making, that thats the on thing. As i said a second ago, he had multiple sources on multiple topics. We dont know what he briefed him on in totality. To jump to that conclusion is irresponsible. When will the white house resume releasing visitor logs . We are reviewing that now. Alexis . Just to follow up. Last week you were in the press corps that it didnt make sense for nunes to come to the white house and brief the president on something he had obtained from the white house tprrbg the administration. So my question to you, i know what you said said, but can you say factually, absolutely flatly, that its not possible that chairman nunes came to brief the president on something that he attained from the white house and the administration . No, i can say 100 that i know anything that he briefed him on. What i can tell you through his Public Comments is that he has said he had multiple source, that he came to a conclusion on. To a degree to which any of those sources weighed on the ultimate outcome of what he cade to a decision on, i dont know. Thats something that, frankly, i dont even know that he discussed with the president. Its possible . Anythings possible. Okay. Heres my question on taxes. The president has said that in the past that he thought maybe tax reform would flow over into 2018 calendar year, 2018. And we know from the president s admiration of the 1986 tax reform that took a few years. Can you answer two questions about tax reform . Does the president anticipate that it will take that long going into 2018 or beyond . And who is going to write the tax legislation . Who is going to divide the plan that the president wants to put his name on . So, on the first one, i know secretary mnuchin talked about august as the target date. It depends. These are big things. Theres a lot of groups that are gonna want a ton of input because of the very nature. Its been 30 years. But i think part of this will be dependent upon whether the degree to which we can come to consensus on a lot of big issues. But i know we have a goal. And it will depend on a lot of these issues both on the corporate side and the individual side how that process evolves. I know the secretary would like to have it done. Hell play a huge role in this. Gary cohen will play a role in it. Theres a lot of folks on the Team Secretary ross on the commerce side. Tphrz a lot of individuals that hes assembled a world class cabinet that has a lot of interest in helping grow the economy to attract jobs, create a more favorable tax climate here in the country and also provide tax relief for middle class americans. Were not there yet. Will it be a trump plan . Will bit the president s plan . Obviously, were driving the train on this. Were gonna work with congress on this. The president , as youve heard through multiple time, the president will be very clear. This is something he feels passion itself about. Well have more on that later. John . The documents the white house saw here. The executive branch documents. In the early days after the president sent out that tweet, the white house was digging around for anything to corroborate what the president had tweeted out. Why did it take the Intelligence Committee chairman coming here to the white house to view executive branch documents to uncover this information . Why couldnt the white house do it . As i mentioned i think to margret, i will stick to what the chairman has said publicly. My understanding from his Public Comments are thaf there are certain systems that he doesen have access to. That was his explanation and i think you should follow up with him on it. Did white house ever search the same documents that the chairman searched . I dont know what he found so it would be hard to make an assessment of what he was briefed on. Thats a hard question to answer. Is it possible that thaoe documents were merely surveillance reports . Im not going to get into hypotheticals. To say whats possible, whats not, i dont know. Let me finish. Is it possible these were surveillance reports that were filled out . I dont know. I dont know. I honestly dont know what hes got on his systems and what the Intel Community has on theirs that he wouldnt have access to. I dont know what he would have had access to already. Amen . On tax cuts, you got little bit of political cover from the House Freedom caucus to do this without paying for all of it. That is adding to the deficit. Whats the right number for the white house to add to the deficit in order to do that . How high are you willing to go in terms of deficit . Its a really early question to be asking at this point. I think the question is, as we construct this, both on the corporate side and then on the individual side, i think part of it is its going to be an equation that isnt just driven by that, but more of whats going to attract jobs, whats going to grow the economy. I think were potentially growing around 2. 6 and the president really would like to see that growth right up in the high threes, fours and fives. So theres a question about what part of tax reform especially on the corporate side, will help us spur the economy and grow jobs. I think thats an on going discussion. I think thats more of the driver of this. As it evolves, well have a score and know more. Are you entirely adding to the deficit . Youre asking really early in the process to make that kind of analysis before we have a policy set forth or have any kind of notion of what a score would look like. Thanks, sean. Theres been an escalation of the american war in the role against the islamic state, marines coming ashore in syria. Im trying to understand the relationship between that change and the president s isis strategy review. Has he personally signed off on all the changes in americas posturing in the fields seasons january 20th . Is that something thats left up to the commanders in the field . It depends on which mission youre talking about. Marines left in i think october. They obviously went ashore much more recently than that. So did he have to sign off on that . He speaks with general mattis, his Security Team very regularly. Im not going to get into the details of the setting. I will say that as i have noted in the past, i think the president had made it very clear that he wants to give the commanders on the ground much more flexibility to execute their mission, especially when it comes to defeating isis. Thats a very big change in philosophy. It also depends on the magnitude of the mission, the number of Ground Troops in particular. So this is an on going discussion that he has with secretary mattis an others. On the review, are you waiting . Is the president waiting until the review is complete before you announce sort of a new posturing strategy . Or as conclusion come in, youre adjusting day to day . I think some of it is an on going discussion that were having with the chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary mattis, dod. There are certain times when they meet. Theyll update him on certain things and give him an update on where theyre headed right now. As the review is on going, there are certain events that are part of, will be part and parcel of the review. Well update him on that and talk to him about the tweet. President trump sent out two tweets criticizing members of the House Freedom caucus for preventing planned parenthood from being funded by the aha. I think hes made very clear what his position is on planned parenthood. And obviously this was an opportunity to defund it. And he but i dont want to get ahead of our legislative strategy. Well look at other opportunities. This is one that was a way to make that happen. Steve . On that legislative stratty, theres a school of thought in this town that last week proved that the president is lacking in political capital. I have two question. Number one, whats in it for democrats to work with the president now . Two, if fully pursued to get things through the house, democrats and republicans work together. Wouldnt that tend to undermine the job security of speaker ryan if the House Freedom caucus is frozen snout two things. Number one, i think the message that as i mentioned to jonathan at the beginning. Its a twoway street. You see, whether judge gorsuch, which theyre throwing down decades of Senate Tradition by saying were just gonna filibuster this guy. I dont think theres anyone in america that can honestly look at his qualifications and suggest that hes not qualified as a jurorist for the supreme court. Theres nothing anyone has seen or laid a glove on him that suggest that hes not qualified to serve. And i think that so again with obamacare, repealing and replacing it, several of the democrats came out from the get go and said we have no interest in doing that. Theres a point in which both parties can look back and figure out whether or not its worth engaging. I think the president , as i mentioned, is eager to get to 218 on a lot of his initiatives. Whether its tax reform, infrastructure. There are a lot of things. I think he is going to be willing to listen to other voices on the other side to figure out if people want to work with him to get these big things done to make washington work, to enhance the lives of the American People, then hes gonna work with them. He had a great meeting with the cbc the other day where he talked about infrastructure. He talked about loans and Small Business lending, education. There are things that he is willing to engage individuals with or groups or caucuses to get to 218 and further advance his agenda. So its not about undermining anybody. Its ab moving the agenda forward and getting things done. Speaker ryan was on the floor, not the president. Whats in it for speaker ryan . Getting things done. I think there is still an interest in doing whats in the best interest of this country that exists. Lets just make sure we understand. His goal, he came here to get things done. And i think, you know, as was pointed out, there was a level of disappointment that he expressed on friday. People want to work together. I think what this event on friday did was draw more people into the process. Okay, lets figure out if we can come together to get to 218. Whether or not they come from one side of the aisle or the other, to pass this bill and make a better system. He understands that theres an tune here. With health care being such a big issue, with obamacare being such a looming disaster. That we have an opportunity to do some stuff. If democrats want to join in, then thats great. Well do that. Mike . Excuse me. You talked up there about the wide latitude that secretary price has to disband obamacare. Is that still the case . Will he try to dismantle obamacare while youre trying to work on Health Care Reform . Also the Health Care Bill would have repealed almost all of the obama care taxes. Do you want to see those repealed as part of the tax reform bill . I think secretary price is up here today. Theres a lot of meetings that are already taking place internally with the team. There are options on the table especially when it comes to what we call phase one and phase two. Trying to get some of that stuff out the door. As we look back on, talking about lesson learned, any one of them is to try to get phase one, phase two mesh together and pushed out. How we do that, whether we wait for the revival of legislation before we put up. Remember, i think just so were clear, and i mentioned earlier, obamacare had a ton of fits and starts during its process. It was left for dead multiple times. They pushed forward. I do think that we have to recognize that we are, you know, 17, 18 days into this process. I think the president s made very clear, its not over. There are people coming to the table. But hes going to listen to all good ideas to figure out what it takes to get to 218. Well see where we go from there. John . Question on the Health Care Bill would have revealed the obamacare taxes. Thats par and parcel of that discussion. How we look at the tax and some of the phase one stuff, but were not ready to announce anything right now. John decker . As far as the chairmans offer to meet with chairman byrd and talk with the Senate Intelligence committee, is there any particular reason why the white house would not be opposed to the idea of Jarod Kushner volunteering . He volunteered to testify. In the white houses view, a dangerous precedent in having a senior aide to the president going up. Ordinarily we see sometimes the white house invoking executive privilege. Why havent you done this . I think jarod did a job during the transition in the campaign where he was a conduit to leaders and thats until we had a state department functional place where people could go. We had a delay on some of the things. That was his role. He wants to make sure that hes clear about the role that he played, who he talked to. Thats it. Jim . Is Obamacare Repeal dead . I dont think its dead. It has to be dead if you dont have democrats working with you. I dont know that thats true. Why would they work with you . Its dying. Youre still trying to repeal it. Part of it is there is a recognition that it is failing. It will be dead its not dying. There are repairs that need to be made. But to kill the whole thing i understand what they want. I think theres a difference. We premiums continue to go sky high, deductibles are going sky high, choices are going down. Leader pelois own metric, this is dying. Shes the one who crafted the metric. She said there was a three prong system to determining its success. It is a failure. If they want to come back to the table and recognize how we can do it in a more responsible way to achieve the goals that obamacare set out to do but do so in a way thats going to do the opposite of what obamacare did, which was to increase drive down cost, were willing to have that discussion. Repeal has to be one of the things that i mentioned is we have to figure out how we get to 216, 218, depending on what the number is. That doesnt mean we need the entire democratic caucus. We need some responsible democrats who want to have a discussion about how to do that. There may be enough of them willing to do that. I understand where the democratic leadership is. And thats one thing. They continue to stake out a very very far left position. Thats not where all their members are. I think we can, based on the calls that have come in over the last 50, 60 hour, i think that there might be some room to have a conversation with people who want to engage in a constructive conversation on how to move forward. Lets see how that evolves. I dont know that were ready to jump into this today. As the calls come forward, the president s view is, if you want to get together and start to come together to a resolution, were willing to listen. Im not going to jump ahead, but i will say that we believe theres something that could still be done at some point. I think the further along we go, where premiums continue to go up, more and more people will be drawn into this discussion because theres going to be a continued cry from people in terms of the impact that its having on their pocketbook or ability to see a doctor that is not able. Quick followup on nunes. Do you reject that theres any kind of perception problem whatsoever in having the chairman here the day before he comes out publicly and says, by the way, there information thats helpful to the president. The chairman made clear what his goal was. You cant ask someone to do a review of the situation and then sort of create inferences because theyre reviewing a situation that theres something, you know, thats not right about that. He is reviewing a situation. He did exactly that. I think hes been fairly open with the press as far as what he was doing, who he spoke to and why. I think, you know, from our standpoint, thats what we asked him to do in the review. April . Sean, number one, you heard the question i asked about the attorney general and the hate crimes that happened in new york. White supremacist who want to new york and targeted a black man. Hate crimes are on the rise. What do you say . What is the white house saying about this obvious apparent hate crime . Im not you yell at the attorney general on a specific case. You talked about issues i want to be very clear that im not going to reference any case before the doj. I will say that the president has recognized that we need to bring the country together. He wants to unite this country. He wants to bring people together. He had a very long conversation with respect to race in pittsburgh which is something, if im not correct, in your question. Just want to be clear. Thank you. That was one of the topics that he talked about with the cbc. Some of the issues with respect to crime an education and some of the solutions that they suggested that could be done during their meeting. I think those are the kind of things that i think we can continue that conversation. Sean, unfortunately theres been a rise in hate crimes when it comes to different groups. Yes, and owe. You commented from this podium, this gentle man said he wishes the man were younger. What do you say . This is clear, racism. Two issues. Number one, i think hate crimes, antisemetic crimes of any nature should be called out in the most rep rehenceable way. There is one issue that despite policy should unite us. That is calling out hate, calling out divisiveness based on the color of ones skin, ones gender. President called it out before with respect to certain particular situations. He made it very clear at the opening of his joint address, thats what he led with, is a call to denounce hate, no matter where we come from politically. Hes also talked about it. The night that he took the stage on that wednesday morning around 2 40 a. M. About how one of the things that he needed to do and wanted to do as president was unite all americans. I think theres one other piece to this, april, that i want to be clear on. Antihate, semetism where it exists. In your case in particular, while i dont know all of the details and i dont want to reference one specific case, but we saw this the other day with some of the behavior that was going on with respect to people, the jewish faith. Its that we saw these threats coming into Jewish Community center. There was an immediate jump to criticize folks on the right and denounce people on the right and ask them to condemn them. It turns out that, in fact, it wasnt someone on the right. And it was the president from the get go said i bet its not someone. He was right. And yet i understand that. A whaoeult supremacist. In those cases there is no question black and white, we need all instance of this. With that being said, while were on the topic, i do think theres been a rush to judgment in a lot of other cases when it comes to in particular some of the antisemetic discussion, where people jumped to the conclusion ab denouncing people on the right and asking for this. In that particular case we saw that the president was right and that this rush to judgment by a lot of folks on the left was wrong and none of them have been held to account on that. That is something equally needs to be called out. When people are charging something of someone that is not true, there has been nothing to go back to those individuals, nothing, on the left who came and asked for everyone on the right to denounce something that they werent guilty of. There needs to be an equal time to go back and call out those individuals for rushing to judgment. My second topic and i will be done. Someone who was in the room, talking about the cbc meeting last week. Someone who was in the room at that meeting said that the issue of hbc came up. Thats a very simple subject in the black community and here at the white house. The issue came up. Omarosa said that she would be the one heading the hbc office at the white house. The president did not make a response confirming or denying. This will be the case . We dont have any announcements to make. I assume youre referring to the executive order. Thank you. Talking about repealing and replacing obamacare. Does the president think he can work with the Freedom Caucus on future pieces of legislation . I think its going to depend on what legislation. Its not a question of were going to work with anybody who wants to work with us on achieving the goals that the president settle out. Were not putting anyone and saying well never work with you again. It is that balance as he mentioned, he learned a lot through this process about loyalty. Its not just a block. Its certain individuals. Im not going to get into naming names, but the president learned a lot through this process. One of the things thats interesting is, when you look back and i know there has been a lot to make of this, the president recognizes when theres not a deal to be made, when to walk away. Thats not just about making deals. Its knowing when to walk away from deals and knowing when theres a bad deal thats the only solution. I know the president understood that while you can get a deal at the time, that sometimes a bad deal is worse than getting a deal. And i think he smartly recognized that what was on the table was not going to be keeping with the vision that he had and so he decided that this was not the time and a deal was not at hand. Let me ask you about this tweet over the weekend. Does he regret tweeting to his followers that they should tweet in to judge janine. Thats it. Plain and same. Does he owe speaker ryan an apology . They talked extensively over the weekend. I think they talked both saturday and sunday at length. But again, he is a fan of the show. He tweeted out support it. Thats it. I know what a lot of people think, chris. For what . For supporting a show on fox . No. Dave . Dave . Two question. One on the president choosing Jared Kushner for this new office. Obviously jared has 60 some days of experience in washington. Never had prior government jobs. Does the president view that as an advantage . In some cases. Where you look at the individuals that hes bringing in. One of the things jared and again they may talk more about this lear. One of the things jareds looking at is some of the procurement, the technology aspect. If youve ever really dealt with the government and recognized how outdated and unmodernized this is. It is not serving the American People. It is not serving the constituents that many departments have. Looking at how we procure Different Things and procure technology in particular is important. Its important when i think when you look at the va in particular and recognize how it handles certain thing. There are certain things it does very well. It buys prescription drugs really well. Buys in bulk, gets the job done. But there are certain things that it may not do in terms of how it keeps its record and how it lends money, etc. That we can look at and figure out, is there a better way . Government is not business, right . We recognize there are certain things that by would never do, in terms of what government has to do because we serve all of our people. But there are certain practices that we can put in place that can help us deliver a better product, Better Service to the American People in some key areas. I think when you look at some of the business acumin that jared and some of the other individuals that he is bringing into this process can really i think it is a Great Service to this country. There are so many sreu walls that jared has talked to that have done so well and have been blessed by our nation that have wanted to give back and are using this opportunity to help our country an serve our country in ways that they believe they can use their expertise to do. Healthcare. This review that you talked about, what went right, what went wrong. I know you dont want to name names, but would it be fair that the president has written some people off . I think i answered that question. Its not a question of writing someone off. Theres an understanding of how you deal with certain people and how they dealt with you. It is not a question of writing them off. Were going to need to get to someone who keeps saying 218 is easier. I wont screw that one up. We recognize that as we go down this path of a big bold agenda that the president has, were going to need every vote. We are not writing off anybody. We do recognize theres some Lessons Learned from this process. The president made it very clear on friday. Thank you very much, ill see you tomorrow. Have a good day. Dana all right. That was sean spicer wrapping up a very busy press briefing. Hello, everyone. Im sandra smith. Spicer weighing in on the new details that devin nunes was meeting on the white house grounds the day before his presser announcing some plans of the Trump Transition Team were caught up in some incidental surveillance. There were many questions as you saw firing off there about who at the white house knew or did not know that chairman nunes was there. We have Team Coverage of all of this. Chris starwall is here to analyze this. First we part with peter doocy. As we were just watching that briefing together, it was a point of contention. There were a lot of questions there fired off to sean spicer about just that. Do we know who nunes was talking to at the white house . Reporter we dont, sandra. Sean spicer continues to insist throughout that briefing from beginning to end that he doesnt know either. When reporters were asking, well, why dont you just look at the visitor logs and see who invited chairman nunes and who signed him in, or who gave him access to a secured compartmented facility, a skip, at the white house to view classified information. Spicer said, well, i dont know if a member of congress especially chairman of a Committee Like this needs to get signed in, get cleared in by anybody. But he said he would check to see if there is any kind of paper trail that shows how nunes got from capitol hill to a secure compartmented information facility on the white house grounds last tuesday. Now, for nunes part, he says and his office said that the reason he had to go to the white house is because he was reviewing executive branch documents that havent yet been provided to his committee. In a statement his office says this, because of classification rules, the source could not simply put the documents in a backpack and walk them over to the house Intelligence Committee space. The white house grounds was the best location to safe guard the proper chain of custody and classification of these documents so the chairman could view them in a legal way. The official line from the Trump Administration came just before the briefing started and i says this. We have been made aware through public that chairman nunes confirmed that he was on the white house grounds tuesday, and any questions concerning his meeting should be directed to the chairman. The reason this is so confusing is because the timeline as we best understand it is nunes goes to the white house tuesday, gets white house grounds tuesday, gets some kind of scoop, leaves the white house grounds then goes back to the white house grounds wednesday to tell President Trump what he learned on white house grounds the night before. He still has not shared with other members of the committee, democrats or republicans, a what exactly he heard. That is something that is starting to bug his democratic counter part, adam schiff, from california. He hasnt shared it with me. You can check with my colleague. I dont think hes shared it with anyone on the committee. So were all quite in the dark on this. Reporter nunes has apologized to the other members of congress on this committee, democrats and republicans, for going to the president and the president with this information that he got apparently on the white house grounds. Nobody at the white house, sean spicer or these other members of the committee seem to know exactly what makes him think that members of the Trump Transition Team, possibly the president , were caught up in incidental surveillance. Sandra peter, just seems like theres some very simple questions that were being asked there that the white house couldnt provide answers for. Peter, were gonna leave it there. Thank you very much for that information. Lets bring in fox News Politics editor. Chris, you were listening to all of this. Some of the kpabg wording coming from the white house, from the press secretary, i dont know who signed him in. Reporters said, isnt there a log you can check . Dont you have to sign in or be cleared . I guess were all wondering why there isnt just evidence that he was there, first of all. Yeah. Its a little murky out there right now is what i would say. Whenever youre dealing with the cloak and dagger world of intelligence intercepts and courts, youre starting out in a pretty opaque space to begin with. When you add in people trying to duck, dodge and weave, it gets positively baffling. But we are left with this unmistakable knowledge. Theres no question about this. Devin nunes tried to help the president. He has ended up harming him, or at least in the short term. He wanted to help the president see that theres this incidental collection and probably trumps unverified claim about wiretapping and president obama in his feud with obama. So this probably looked to nunes as an opportunity to help the president , whose transition he served and of course party he is part. Thought this would probably be good. Now its turning into a subcontroversy of its own an giving democrats lots of ammunition to Say Something stinks. Sandra everything we just saw really developed into quite a thing. Sean spicer saying im not getting into who he met with or why he met with them. I cant say 100 that i know anything that he on by him. But then he went into explain why this isnt a leak, chris. He said someone who is cleared to share classified info with someone else who is cleared is not a leak. Okay. Well, my brain hurts and its not because i was just having an slurpee. Reality is that this is something both parties have done. Obama administration did it big league with the bin laden killing. They circulated the information in a way that they knew it was going to get out because they wanted it to get out. Partisans do this. They want credit and blame signed to the right space so they share classified information designed to attain leakage. Nunes delivered. Maybe he delivered too robustly in a way that the president and his team dont like. I dont know. But its turned into a complication. Sandra it was interesting the way this all started out. Over an hour ago, chris, Jeff Sessions was brought out and introduced by sean spicer. He had a very strong message on sanctuary cities and that they will be punished. Were going to get to our panel on that in a moment. Ill ask you this question. Was that meant as a distraction . As this was the first press briefing at the white house since the healthcare failure. Well, you can say its a distraction, but the nunes thing now becomes the distraction to the distraction of the distraction about the distraction. The truth for this administration is this. Very simply. The healthcare thing wont matter because nobody liked the bill anyway. Everybodys glad its dead. So its not like people are gonna say, oh, bring back trump care. Theyll say, whoo, dodged it. Sandra now my heads spinning. Thank you. Good to see you. Attorney general Jeff Sessions making a major announcement at the start of todays white house briefing. Revealing a new effort to crack down on sanctuary cities. Today, i am urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these medical laws, including eight usc section 1373, failure to remedy violations could result in with holding grants, termination of grants, disbarment or ineligible for future grants. Public safety, as well as national security, are at stake. Sandra the democratic strategist and senior director of research for bustle. Com and pher samercedes is a former spo person for george w. Bush. Mercedes, sanctuary cities will be punished. He came out with a very strong message. He said he is willing to with hold potentially billions of dollars of federal funding from those cities if they do not oblige. Yeah. Obviously, this is something that President Trump has focused on, has been a critical issue as part of his revamping immigration in the United States. You got to look at the numbers here, sandra. In 2013, youre talking over 30,000 illegal criminal aliens were released into the public. Youre talking that about 1,000 of those were reconvicted of a crime. So really, when you look at those numbers, it shows that we need to have a better handle of whats happening with those criminals, those Illegal Immigrants who are here in the United States. Then you have about 23 of these countries who dont even want these violent criminals back. So that is why theyve got to put the federal government putting pressure on these local counties, these states, that are building these sanctuary cities, allowing for these sanctuary cities. Sandra while it was a forceful message, jessica, it was a simple one. These cities must obey the law or his department will with hold those federal funds. In his words, he said countless americans would be alive today if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended. We have got to end this policy. Jessica . He is not going to be able to end the policy. There are a bunch of issues going on. Jeff sessions makes a lot of sense. Local Police Forces need to comply with ice officials. If someones been convicted of a crime, this is something broadly americans agree with, they should be deported. Thats a separate issue from a path way to citizenship for 1 1 million undocumented immigrants who are here in this country. So those two issues often get confused. Public opinion is split on that. You have support for the path way to citizenship but then sanctuary cities being less popular. It is smart for him to send this signal. Im not sure how thats going to play out. There are cities like chicago that are definitely not going to play ball, los angeles, for instance. But sanctuary cities as a policy were put in place by republicans. You had Rudy Giuliani extolling the virtue of sanctuary cities on record in 1996, talking ab how immigrants can come out of the shahhed dose and report crimes. I dont think the issue could be confused. Sandra also part of his message, he said i will plead with maryland not to become a sanctuary city. Thank you very much for staying with us. Thank you. Good to have both of you here. Last weeks deadly attack in london is reigniting the debate over privacy an security. Should the government have a back door to see what theyre up to . So youre having a party . How nice. Ill be right there. And the butchery begins. What am i gonna wear . This party is super fancy. Lets go. Im ready. Are you my uber . [ horn honks ] hold on. The biggest week in tv is back. [ doorbell rings ] partay Xfinity Watchathon week starts april 3. Get unlimited access to all of netflix and more, free with xfinity on demand. Sandra the British Government calling for a back door to read messages on encrypted messaging platforms. Following last weeks deadly attack outside westminster, detectives revealing the suspect may have used whats app just minutes before his rampage, but they cant break the encryption. Trace gallagher is live with more on that. Hey, trace . Reporter say, sandra. The westminster attacker is now officially being called by his muslim name khalid masoud. Just three minutes before he drove and used his vehicle and knife to kill four people, he sent a tes message to someone using the whats app Message Service owned by facebook. Authorities dont know who he was communicating with. Unlike a normal text message or social media account, whatsapp uses something called end to end encryption, which means only the sender and the recipient have access to the message. No third parties. Whatsapp said private communication is part of its core beliefs. In fact, company said the service is so secure that not even Company Technicians can access the messages. But the head of the u. K. S Homeland Security Department said encrypted messaging sites are helping the terrorists. Watch. It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide. We need to make sure that organizations like whatsapp and plenty of others like that dont provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other. Reporter the homeland secretary is pushing for whatsapp to kre kwraeucreate a. Its unlikely whatsapp will fly. Like apple requiring it to provide the fbi access to phones following the San Bernardino terror attack in 2015. Apple argued that forcing it to write new software violates first amendment. Social Media Companies have also been criticized for not blocking isis manuals showing how to better use your vehicle to attack people and other jihadist propaganda as well. Sandra . Sandra going to be very interesting to see how that plays out. Trace, thank you. Some big news breaking in the world of football. The Oakland Raiders have just won approval from nfl owners to relocate to las vegas. The team is in the planning stages of a nearly 2 billion, 65,000 feet stadium that would be located on the vegas strip. But that isnt expected to open until 2020 at the very earliest. The raiders will still reportedly play the 2017 football season in oakland. All right. Well, listen to this very closely. You are about to hear a golf ball hit an alligator in the head. Wonder what happens next . Dont change that dial. Caught on camera. A golf ball knocked on alligator on the head. He gets his revenge. Wait for it. Gone the gator ate that golf ball, the whole thing caught on camera thanks to a golfer that spotted the red or the on long marsh golf course in florida. Im wondering, what do you do . Do you take a drop shot . Do you get the penalty . Im sandra smith. Heres shep. Shepard there is breaking news at noon on the west coast. 3 00 at the white house. Right now President Trump is set to sign a series of bills that as we get word that his soninlaw Jared Kushner could soon answer questions in congress about russia. Plus, more u. S. Troops headed to the war in the middle east. Inside the battle to defeat isis in iraq. Caught in the crossfire in west mosul. Take this city and isis could be crippled. But will