house personnel security office before today, but we heard it in the white house briefing. the white house press secretary sarah sanders was asked about some of these conflicting stories, why the fbi director was up on capitol hill testifying that his agents had completed their investigation last july, when we were told by raj shah, the deputy white house spokesman and sarah sanders that that process was on going and her explanation was that the process had not been completed. so by my count, that is the fourth or fifth different explanation officially that we ve heard from the white house as to why this information about rob porter s past was not being shared publicly. it s interesting because just yesterday she was pointing, saying it was law enforcement intelligence communities who hadn t finished the review process, which is i mean after chris wray said what he said, it was very clear the fbi
given how the story has changed, but if somehow the white house s credibility is in tact, then you have to disbelieve what they said yesterday. in the briefing room, reporters tried to get some clarity. so, those two statements, the fbi director s statement, mr. wray, and your statement yesterday, seem to be at odds with one another. do you see anything that you d like to clarify in terms of what i asked you today, based upon your answer yesterday? yeah, as i said earlier, my understanding is any information would have gone to the personnel security office. that office did not complete their process in order to make a recommendation for adjudication to the white house. that was still ongoing and therefore recommendation had not been made. the fbi director said the completed background investigation was actually submitted in late july. so, which one is it? let me read this to you again. the white house personnel security office staffed by career officials received
director s statement mr. wray and your statement yesterday seem to be at odds with one another. do you see anything you would like to clarify based on your answer yesterday? my understanding is that any information would go to the personnel security office. that office had not completed its process. that was ongoing and therefore recommendation had not been made. the fbi director said under oath that the completed background information was actually committed in late ideal. the white house security personnel office received information last year in what they report in november. they had not made a final recommendation for adjudication for the white house because the process was still ongoing when porter resigned. the fbi s july report required
it s pretty clooer that the stories still aren t straight at the white house. today, as we mentioned, press secretary sarah sanders pointed in a new direction, a white house so obscure, few people have heard of it before. the fbi portion was closed, the white house personnel security office, who is the one that makes a recommendation for adjudication, had not finished their process and therefore not made a recommendation to the white house. joining me now to plow threw the timelines, james schultz, former white house counsel, fill mudd, and cnn s gloria borger. phil, you used to work for the fbi. did you know about this white house personnel office and what do you make of the conflicting stories? in some ways, yes, i did, i had to go through a white house security process myself. in some ways, the stories aren t conflicting. this is speculative, but i would
obscure this office is. appreciate the reporting. up next or panel weighs in on conflicting time lines. how does the white house get out of this mess? turn up your swagger game with one a day men s. get ready for the wild life a complete multivitamin with key nutrients, plus b vitamins for heart health. your one a day is showing. there swhatever type ofhe end of eweekender you are,ton. don t let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com imagine if the things you bought every day. earned you miles to get to the places you really want to go.