i think that's quite the opposite what you normally think somebody who was not trying to get to the bottom would do. amen? >> reporter: on february 9th, the president said that he would be presenting a phenomenal tax plan in the next two or three weeks. tomorrow is april 1st. we haven't seen the tax plan. can you tell us when the president is going to present his plan? >> i think as you noticed yesterday, secretarymnuchin and gary cohn and others onhe am talked to others about the process, and we're working on engaging with key stakeholders, and when we feel it's appropriate that the president is given the appropriate amount of feedback, we'll put out the appropriate outline and process that we envision. at this time, that process is ongoing. as you recognize, we anticipated being fully engulfed in health care right now. we are accelerating. that the president has his team working overtime. he's giving feedback what he wants to see and how he wants to see it. this is a big task. it's taken 30 years and we're going to get to it. >> reporter: is this like the health care debate we thought we were going to see a proposal from the white house but at the end, the president signed on to paul ryan's. >> we worked with the white house. we were very on board. i wouldn't suggest we were signed on. both sides worked together on. we worked with the senate as well. and this plan, i would assume that hopefully come up with a plan we all agree on. the president will put out principles i'm sure, as we've done in terms of what his goals are as the process moves forward. i'm sure we'll have a robust debate about aspects of the plan, certain provisions and certain tax pieces. we're going to work with the house and the senate on it. >> reporter: and on trade, the president during the campaign is gearing up with the meeting with the chinese president at mar-a-lago. in his campaign, he suggested on day one he would declare china a currency manipulator. he hasn't done that. why hasn't the president followed through on the campaign promise? >> we need to have the meeting with president xi, i'm sure there will be a lot of discussions about our economic relationship and, so, we are days away from that, and let's see what those -- i don't want to prejudge. we're days away from it, there is a lot of issues that need to come up and i don't want to get away from it. >> reporter: one on china, one on the middle east. does the administration plan order to a review into china's status? >> at this time, the two trade executive orders that focus on duties and are where we're going to look. we've goa lot, obviously, that's an issue that we probably hope have. the u.s. trade representative confirmed. that's a combined decision, with the department of commerce and department of treasury. let's see how we go first. >> reporter: do you clear up where the president stands with bashar assad, the president of syria? >> with respect to assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are, right now. we losta lot of opportunity the last administration with respect to assad, and i think that our restatement that both and you ambassador haley gave yesterday and secretary of state tillerson reflects the reality it is now up to the syrian people. we had an opportunity, and we need to focus on now defeating isis. but the united states has profound priorities in syria and iraq and we made it clear the counterterrorism particularly the defeat of isis is foremost among the priorities. that's why our forces in the global coalition are partnering with local forces in iraq and syria. i think there is a bit of political reality with respect to where we are now versus where we were with the last administration in terms of there is not the opposition that existed last time and the opportunities that existed last time. >> reporter: you sound like you're saying whether or not he's legitimate, if you were to declare him illegitimate, there is nothing you could do about that. >> i think there is a bit of reality that has to be addressed with respect to the opportunity and the options that we have now that we don't have or didn't -- they had in the last administration. and there is a reality that just doesn't exist in the same way. john christopher? >> reporter: thank you. what is really the endgame for mr. assad, when the president speaks to allies, nato partners? obviously, assad is not going to retire somewhere in the south of france. something's gotta give. what is the disposition, the conversation in terms of assad, who is very close, who would like to have a warm water port in the mediterranean? >> i think we believe there is a need to de-escalate violence, their own political future consistent with the principles enshrined in u.n. security council resolution 2254, but there's a bit of, as i mentioned a second ago, there's a bit of reality on the ground in terms of what the options are. >> reporter: during the presidential campaign, the president said he was with the state north carolina banning people from using certain rest rooms. the democratic governor yesterday signed a deal to replace the law with a new measure that they say is discriminatory. >> i would say during the campaign cycle, he believes in states' rights. >> reporter: different issue, what is the president's personal view on [inaudible]. >> i think the president made it clear, the issue came up when caitlyn jenner came to trump tower and he said he didn't care. i think it is a state and local issue, not that he believes needs federal attention. matt? >> reporter: given the financial disclosure day. >> yeah. >> reporter: not sure about the proclamation. why will the white house not be releasing president's 2016 tax returns given that conceivably those can't be under audit yet, while the audit is reason why you haven't released his past returns? >> the president has been very clear about his tax returns and position on that. the office of government ethics requires every federal employee at a certain level to file the financial disclosure forms that anyone in america can go onto. it will be the first time i believe, and i don't want to get ahead of the background briefing. this is the first time they're on the white house website. we're making them more accessible than they were in history. these are required by law. these are -- the lists, just for everyone who's not familiar with them, the financial disclosure forms, i think it's a 278, reveal every asset you own, every debt that you have. spouse's income. spouse's employment. holdings that you have. credit card debt. it is a fairly comprehensive undertaking of every asset that a person owns, every debt that they have, and i think that that is a very clear understanding of the assets that people have, the value of those assets both in terms of whether they're worth something or the liabilities they're incurring. that is a very, very transparent way of being able to understand someone's -- so to equate the two is rather -- >> reporter: i was using that as a jumping-off point for the tax returns. >> well, i'll jump back. >> reporter: if the audit is not the reason. >> i didn't say -- right, but you remember that taxes aren't due until the 15th of april. i don't know, i don't know, we haven't gotten into, i'm worried about getting my own done. [laughter] >> but, no -- [laughter] >> again irngs that respectfully, you look at what we're doing frankly, and again, this will be discussed after this is done, but i think there is an element of going above and beyond what has been done in the past should the people have access to this? there's a lot of people, one of the interesting things people see today, and i think it's something that should be celebrated. the president has brought a lot of people in the administration and the white house in particular who are blessed by this country, and have given up a lot to come into government by setting aside a lot of assets and move the agenda forward, that they are willing to list all of their assets, undergo the public scrutiny and set aside a lot. you'll see that people are often told they have to sell an asset or get rid of something to work in the government. there's a lot of peoe that have done a lot to come into the administration to give back, that have been inspired by the president's victory and the president's agenda to move the country forward, jim? >> reporter: general flynn's attorney said that his client had a story to tell. is the white house concerned that general flynn has damaging information about the president, his aides, associates, about what occurred during the campaign with respect to russia. >> nope. >> reporter: the other thing to follow up on that, you were saying a few moments ago that some of this information that would be helpful for the committee, talking about evelyn farkas and so forth, that seems to be something that pertains during the transition, but the president's tweets time and again talked about tapping my phones in october just prior to the election. just found out obama had my wires tapped just before the victory. does the white house have any information, is it providing information to these intelligence committees that would draw these members to the conclusion that there was some kind of surveillance going on before the election as the president originally alleged? >> again, i don't want to specifically get into it. if we're splitting hairs what day of the calendar it was, that's an interesting development. we have come to the place. >> reporter: the president -- >> i understand it. if the allegation is, is it the 1st of december or the 31st of september, we are starting to split hairs here. interesting we're arguing over the date. not the substance. and the substance is why were people using government resources, violating civil liberties, potentially, looking into people's backgrounds to surveil them, to understand what they were doing, who they were, to unmask them, provide their names into sources, spread classified information, make it available to others. spread into places they weren't supposed to -- hold on. i'm sorry. i think that it is interesting, because again, i get your question, but if what we're really arguing is did it happen on monday or tuesday or the 31st versus the 7th or the 8th, i think we've lost focus here. hold on. i understand it. >> reporter: not that dates are changing. >> i didn't say they were changing, just to be clear. i'm saying it is fascinating to me that we are arguing over the date, not the substance. i understand your point, if we get down to that, we come out and you want to get into what date. but i think it is really getting lost in this debate that american citizens who were not government employees at the time, who are not targets of stuff, potentially were surveilled. had their information unmasked. made it available, was politically spread, and all of this, and it should be very concerning to people that an administration or people in an administration, people serving in government who are providing classified information or given clearance in the trust of the united states government misused, mishandled and potentially did very, very bad things with classified information. that astonishes me that that is not the subject of this. that all of this is happening in our country, and yet the subject, and again, we talk about what door someone came in, what date it happened. there is a concern that people misused, mishandled, misdirected classified information, leaked it out. spread it out. violated civil liberties and the potential that that should -- happened should concern every single american. >> reporter: i think we're concerned about the substance just as much. but the details matter, but i just want to make sure it seems like you're going farther than what we heard in previous briefings. sounds like you, just as the president is, alleging that the obama administration conducted unlawful surveillance on the trump campaign and trump transition team. >> what i am say very clearly is -- >> reporter: do you have evidence of that? >> i don't. as i said in the statement, i believe that wt habeen provided and will be provided to members of both committees should further their investigation. i think that the revelation of evelyn farkas who played a senior role in the obama administration going on the record to talk about how they politically used classified information is troubling. i believe that the reports that are coming out day by day that nbc just reported that john just detailed, what fox reported, day by day, more and more we're seeing the substance of what we've been talking about continues to move exactly in the direction the president spoke about in terms of surveillance that occurred. and that should be very troubling. that frankly should be something that everyone looks at and says what's going on here? why did it happen? who did it? and how are we going to get to the bottom of it? that's what concerns me. steve holland. >> reporter: i can go to china for a second. the president said the meeting would be a difficult one and referred to massive trade deficits. what tone is he hoping to set for the meeting? >> i think he's been very clear. >> reporter: why is it going to be so difficult? >> there's big issues, i don't think it's a big surprise to everybody. we've got national security issues in terms of our political posture towards north korea, the threat of a missile. that extends further and further. the tests they're using. their nuclear capability, should be all very concerning. on the trade front, we've got serious concerns with what they're doing, our trade practices with them. some of the things that were mentioned in the past. there's a lot of areas that we need to be concerned about with trade. and i think, you know, that is going to -- this isn't a sit around and play patty-cake conversation, there are big issues, the president is making it clear since for decades, the challenges that we face, and i think he wants to have a good and respectful and healthy relationship but wants to make sure he tackles the challenges and problems facing american workers and american manufacturers and i want to go to maurice goodman from p shoutout to the stations. >> reporter: in philadelphia. it's randall jefferson. the question is president trump signed an executive order that denies funding for cities that refuse to share immigration status information. attorney general sessions recently suggested that cities could not only lose future funds, but that the federal government would require them to pay back grants. will there be, when will this take place and will that money be reallocated to other departments like the department of education or hbcu's? >> well, i would say that the president finds it unacceptable that some localities and counties and potentially some states have prioritized a political agenda over the safety of their people by flattering our nation's immigration laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities. the failure to follow federal law can have tragic consequences for all of our citizens and all of our country. it's particularly concerning in a place like chicago and other cities like yours in philadelphia where there's been increased violence. immigrants, both legal and illegal are free to roam the streets, and the attorney general reminds all states and local jurisdictions of responsibilities to comply with federal laws. with respect to the budget piece, you know, i think we've got an ongoing budget process and we'll have to see how many states comply and where if any potential savings are there and how we reallocate them. the president's budget, fy 17 contingency budget for funding beyo the continuing resolution on april 28th, a fy 18 budget he's submitted were going to reflect priorities in terms of national security and national defense. we'll see where we reallocate the money. the priority is clear, to get cities into compliance and make sure we understand there's not just a financial impact of, this but also a very clear security aspect of this. glen? >> reporter: first a follow-up on something you said before that hillary clinton had personal contact with vladimir putin and the suggestion was that wasn't necessarily appropriate. you can elaborate? >> i'm not saying that the contact of it in itself is not -- >> reporter: as a private citizen? >> what i'm saying is when you talk about connections to russia, the only connection that anyone's made with president trump is multiple years ago he hosted a pageant there, and some of the -- he owns condos around the world and some of them were sold to russians, and i think he sold a house to one several years back. that's his connection. when you talk about the other size,you look at obama administration's were, the secretary of state selling a fifth of the country's uranium. clinton foundation concern with the donations they got. the former president, her husband, getting paid speeches, a personal call from vladimir putin. a stated goal of that administration of secretary clinton to have a reset to, quote, strengthen russia. when you compare the two sides in terms of who's actually engaging with russia, trying t with them, interact with them, it is night and day between our actions and her actions and yet no one questioned what she was doing or how she was handling it. >> reporter: her pattern of behavior is more suspicious than president trumps? >> if you compare the two, it's definitely -- when you talk about the stuff that went to the foundation, the concerns that existed around the sale of one-fifth of the country's uranium, the paid speeches, personal calls from vladimir putin. when you want to look at a connection to russia, there is a clear one there and much less of one that ever existed on this side. >> reporter: one other one, sean, in terms of the nunes chronology, just to clarify, when we're asking questions about process and dates of people, we're not asking to ascertain the geography of people. forget about the technical questions. mr. nunes was on the campus, you said we don't know who let him in the gate. apparently it is -- you described it as a normal process, right? tell me if it is normal the way i'm describing it. mr. nunes, the head of the investigatory committee is allowed to roam the executive complex to speak to two deputy-level members of the national security council, then allowed to see information. he then obtained an appointment from my understanding the chronology with the president of the united states to disgorge that information and then goes public with the information. seven or so days later, you say it would be appropriate for everybody to look at it. is that a normal process? >> a, i would take issue with a number of aspects of your chronology. number one, what you're forgetting, he publicly said well before any of this came to light in terms of the president's march 5th tweet that he was looking into this whole matter. he, according to john roberts, his own reporting, just said that neither of the individuals is described in your paper's reporting are accurate. i would dispute several of the pieces. and as far as him roaming around the white house. you jumped to a ton of conclusions, and again, i love watching some of these shows where they jump to conclusions. >> reporter: you said several times, prejudge the investigation is clearing the white house. you said it twice at the podium today. >> i'm focused on the substance of this, glen. and so where is any of the reporting been in your paper about evelyn farkas and revelation this is what she's sought to do. where is the reporting in your paper that nbc covered and other officials. you are focused who showed up where and what door and how it happened? to answer the question, yes, it's appropriate for a member of congress to contact someone according to the reports. i don't know the answer to that. if you're asking if it's appropriate for a member of congress to come over here. chairman nunes wasn't hiding or roaming, he was asked to come over by an individual, he came over, which happens daily. he is cleared, andnothing that is inappropriate, and exactly the opposite, what he did, what he saw and who he met with was 100% proper. >> did the chief of staff who is, my understanding, an exceptionally attentive gatekeeper who comes in and out of the oval office. did the chief of staff know he was on the campus? . >> remember, you're playing cute there. you're doing two things. you're talking about the oval office and the other is the campus. no, the chief of staff does not know every single person on the 18 acres at any given time. there are people who are appropriately cleared or waived through the system or escorted on in some way, shape, or form. no, we don't track every single person on the 18 acres. do we know generally speaking who's in the oval office? not all the time. they can go in. he made the announcement and you're leaving out a key part, he briefed the press before he told anyone. we all found out, you, me, everyone else coming down here after he held a press conference with your colleagues to say he was coming down here based on stuff he found. that a whistle-blower source had begin them. the sources that you describe in your paper are not accurate, and while i'm not going to comment on either, there is assumption that everything and the chronology that we went over is accurate. which i don't believe from further reporting that it is, and i also believe that some of the comments that have come out publicly in terms of the obama administration are conveniently left out of that discussion. i think that is interesting how no one seems to cover the fact that senior obama administration with high-level clearance talked about the spreading of classified information for political purposes and no one seems to be clear. >> reporter: just to be clear, mr. priebus, mr. kushner, mr. bannon did not have knowledge of him being on the campus? >> i don't know. you asked two questions and melded them together. no one knew he was coming to speak to the president. he announced that on television during a press conference. >> reporter: yes, my understanding is that dr. farkas left the administration in 2015. so why is what she said in 2017 relevant to something that allegedly happened in 2016? >> the question i would ask you is exactly. what is it? i'm urging my colleague, but it's odd, why is it interesting? have you asked her? >> reporter: no. >> but she'd been on television talk about what she's done, and you seem to have made -- >> reporter: don't believe everything on tv. >> neither do i. but i would assume that as a reporter that is interested in the story, a senior obama administration official that handled russia, all obama administration officials generally. >> reporter: she wasn't there in 2016. >> thank you, i appreciate the timeline. i'm well aware of what it was. you seem to be rushing to her defense. at some point she went on television and talked about actions that she and her colleagues took to spread classified information, and instead of jonathan, instead of defending her, it might be worth asking who she's talking about, who she spread it to? was it appropriate? who cleared her to do it? maybe those are questions to ask instead of asking me why a former obama administration official is revealing stuff that is extremely concerning. >> reporter: one other question, which is are you more concerned about that or russian interference in the presidential election? >> well, i think that if i'm an american citizen, i'm very concerned about the fact that people potentially were sharing information about other americanfopolitical purposes and using classified information to do so and leaking it. that should be concerning to everybody. >> the russian interference? >> that's not what i said. please stop trying to -- >> reporter: that's how it works. >> the answer is if someone is interfering with our election, that's not good. i don't think that someone revealing and leaking classified information is good either. i'm not sure you should have to choose. i think can you have outrage and concern for both, and i don't think we should have to pick as an american whether or not which freedom we want to have undermined. i think we should accept both of them. so the idea that we should have to choose whether or not we want someone to interfere with our election or protect our civil liberties isn't one that we should want or have questions. alexis? >> reporter: ask three basic follow-up to actual questions. you used two key phrases here. one is politically sensitive information and the other is classified information, when you're talking about what the president believes was released. because you said yesterday that you yourself had not seen information, that's my understanding as of today. are those terms interchangeable or different in term of what you know from the podium was releaseed? >> so there's actually a classification level. there is certain sensitive information on individuals, while classified is considered stuff that the government protects, then there's secret, top secret, and without getting into it, a lot higher. there are differences in classification levels. while you may not reveal a piece of classified information, pii information, sensitive information according to the government standards. they are different. each of them has a different classification level. >> reporter: is it your understanding, you've been told the material the president is sharing with the committee includes classified information as well as politically sensitive information, that's your understanding? . >> yes. >> reporter: you said congressman schiff is coming today? >> i know that he is -- he has made contact and is trying to arrange a time. >> reporter: can you share with us who will be responsible for affording him to the proper place, showing him the materials, walking him through, it letting him absorb it, is he bringing staff? >> i don't know the answer to the question. i know they were arranging a time, et cetera, a lot will it will detail if he is requesting it. i don't know the nature of, i know the request was made and that's one that there's follow-up with the staff level to determine all of those things. >> reporter: the material that the president has wanted to share with the house and the senate committees, has it already been shared with the fbi, or did the fbi already have the material? >> i don't know the answer to that. some of it -- i don't know, nsc pulls materials from the various agencies, so where that all came from and single source is a combination of i don't know the answer to that. >> reporter: does anyone know the answer to that? >> i can ask. there's a question of whether or not we have the ability or right to release it. again, as much as i appreciate where it came, from i go back to does it really matter? does it matter if it came from the cia or the nsa or another three-letter agency, or is the issue, alexis, as i said before, whether or not there is a concern what that information is doing, who used it improperly? what could have possibly happened? again, it's where it came from. >> reporter: what i'm asking is, the executive branch, the fbi has a separate investigation. i'm asking, the president believes they have evidence that is germane to the investigation, as director comey described. >> first of all, so we're clear, the fbi's investigation pertains specifically to, from what the director said in open testimony, to russia. what the president -- this is not what i believe they are investigating. >> reporter: that's not what i understood, i thought the fbi broadened the investigation beyond just simply russia? >> i don't know, i'm not aware of that. >> reporter: if you could find out. >> you can call the fbi. i'm not going to call the fbi and ask what the investigation is, and you write a story that i called the fbi. >> reporter: does the president believe it is important for the fbi to have the information he finds to be so egregiously offensive that classified and politically sensitive information was released by the snrgz. >> it depends where, it came from, who can share it? you're acting as though it is a very simple process. it depends on the level of classification, who it came from, whether they have the authority to share it? there's a lot of things that go into this, it sounds easy. it's not. i know that a lot of times that just because it can get leaked out, doesn't mean it's handled appropriately. there is a desire to make sure this is done correctly and within the proper guidance who has the authority to see the right things and all of the procedures are followed. that doesn't mean we get to willy-nilly pick stuff up and send it around to whoever. there is a reason it is the way it i so we protect the methods and processes in accordance with the intelligence community. john? >> reporter: this morning, jason chaffetz took issue with the president's tweet. he said he does not believe that the russian investigation that's being conducted by the fbi, by the senate intelligence committee, by the house intelligence committee is a witch-hunt. why does the president believe it's a witch-hunt? he also said -- i get the answer to that. he also doesn't think it is proper for the president to sort of tweet out or comment on ongoing investigations. you can also touch on that as well? >> i think part of this sometimes comes down to who has access to information and what they're looking at. i don't know what he's seen or not seen or whether it's appropriate. i think the reason we asked the house and senate intelligence committees to look into this is to make sure we get to the bottom of it and appropriate, proper manner. >> reporter: and commenting on an ongoing investigation, is that proper by the president? >> what ongoing? >> reporter: there is an investigation ongoing by the fbi and senate intelligence committee. >> okay, which comment are you referring to? >> reporter: the witch-hunt? >> right, but as i just said to alexis, there is a difference between the investigations that have been discussed about russia that we've been very clear about and a discussion about whether something as devin nunes said publicly, the information he had that with respect to surveillance during the 2016 election cycle had nothing to do with russia. so there's this seeming assumption that what the president's talking about is very clear, that there is an ongoing pattern and more and more revelations that what we have seen that something potentially was very, very bad happening and people are using classified information. not with respect with russia but to surveil people during that cycle. and that is very different. we've asked the house and senate intelligence committees to look into the matr. there is no investigation that i'm aware of. >> reporter: so you take issue with jason chaffetz? >> i'll let him speak for himself. my point is there is obviously, i believe chairman nunes and others who have looked into the information are in a much better position to discuss the information at hand and what is happening. edward marshall from wbbm in chicago. >> reporter: actually it's day, blakely at wbbm in chicago. thank you. i have a question and if possible a follow-up as well. chicago receives about $12 million a year in law enforcement assistance from the federal government. would president trump cut off the funs due to sanctuary city status, though it would [inaudible] something the president has repeatedly said recently? >> i think it's interesting you talk about street violence and then we cut off the funding for sanctuary cities. interesting to want to send more money to a city that is allowing people to come into the country who are breaking the law, who in many cases are committing crimes, number of gangs, so you can't be a sanctuary city and at the same time seem to pretend or express concern about law enforcement or ask for your money when probably a number of the funds that you're using in the first place are going to law enforcement to handle the situation that you've created for yourself. think the president's belief on sanctuary cities is one shared by upwards of 80% of the american people. we shouldn't use american tax dollars to fund fees and counties and potentially states that are seeking to allow people who are not legally in this country who potentially can do us harm to get funding. so i think there is no question, it's not a question of what he will do. intentions have been clear from the beginning. it's vastly supported by the vast majority of the american people. to suggest they are not inextricably linked is a failure to fully appreciate the scenario. >> reporter: let me follow up. is the president more concerned with deporting illegal immigrants than he is with putting shooters and killers in jail? >> no, because if a shooter or killer is here illegally and is in this country, again, i think respectfully you're delinking the two issues. if you have people in this country illegally that are part of a gang, part of their committee -- a threat to public safety or committing a crime, then funding that activity and allowing that to fester is in itself a problem. so by not rooting that out in the first place is allowing the problem to continue and not exactly showing an attempt to solve it in the first place. blake? >> reporter: ask you about the two executive orders that are about to be signed. peter navarro said they have nothing to do with the china trip next week. >> right. >> reporter: is it purely coincidence that the president is going to meet with china counterpart or setting the table for what might come next week? >> i think they are both broad-based. countervailing duties is not targeted at any specific country. i don't think that you could use that as some kind of indication of any one country. i think we are giving up $2.8 billion a year, that's coming in all through our borders all across. so that one, and the other one specifically talks about every form of trade abuse and nonreciprocal practice that are currently contributing to the ries that contribute to that, and a lot of times the trade agreements we've made haven't been looked at or revived in a very long time, so for either one of them do we suggest that any particular country would be a misread of other one. >> reporter: you mentioned the president signaled this potential withdrawal. he's known that the executive orders a whole host of others. the second executive order -- the first one talks about a 90-day review. the one outstanding is nasa and whhe presint might d with that, does that move the nasa time line back 90 days? does he want to see the 90-day review first before getting to nasa? >> the first thing is to get robert confirmed as the u.s. trade representative, someone to shepherd the trade agenda, and secretary ross who was here yesterday and secretary ross and secretary mnuchin and others have been involved in the trade agenda. we need someone at the front of the ship to help us guide. that major? >> reporter: you frequently tell us the president speaks at face value and speak for themselves. when the president says mike flynn should get immunity. is he suggesting to congress to grant immunity? >> i think mike flynn and legal counsel should do what's appropriate for mike flynn. >> reporter: they cannot obtain immunity, it must be granted. >> again, to your question -- >> reporter: the president recommending to fbi or congress to grant immunity? >> again, he didn't say congress should grant. >> reporter: what does he mean by that? >> he supports mike flynn's attempts to go up to congress and be very clear with everything that they ask and what they want. >> reporter: right, he could have just said i testify. he should get immunity. i'm asking because every lawyer who works on this tells you it's extremely important to seek it and obtain it. there's only one way you can seek it, granted by the fbi or congress. and for the president of the united states to even lightly indicate he's in favor of that, seems is a significant development. i'm trying to find out if that's what the president was trying to say. >> i'm trying to answer the question. i talked to the president and the president is very clear he wants mike flynn to go and be completely open and transparent with the committee and whatever it takes to do that, he is supportive of. >> reporter: even if he does obtain immunity. >> i want to be clear. he wants to do what is necessary to go up there and talk to the committees of jurisdiction to get this matter behind us. >> reporter: as you talked to the president behind, this he was not trying to suggest to the fbi or congress that they grant immunity. >> i'm not sure what the process is whether it's congress or d.o.j. or both in this case. >> reporter: he's not instructing the justice department? >> he's instructing mike flynn to go to the committees and cooperate. >> reporter: congressman schiff is coming over here -- >> before you continue, i want to be crystal clear. i know he's communicated. our expectation is -- there we go. thank you. reporter: just to be clear. >> i know. >> reporter: i want to read you a part of it. the committee asked the white house to direct the agencies that own the intelligence documents in question to immediately provide them directly to the committee. the white house have any problems with that? >> we're looking into that. we are hoping congressman schiff comes to see the documents. i know the council's office is in contact with him with respect to that. council's office is working with him, i don't want to get in front of how they go back and forth and make a decision on that. >> schiff is asking the same thing. >> reporter: is this an illegitimate request? that's all i'm trying to figure out. >> it's not an illegitimate. i think obviously the goal -- >> reporter: [inaudible]. >> the white house counsel's office sent that letter, they are the ones whom the individuals have been in contact with. we'd like them to see the information which would help further their review of the situation. it's not my decision, major, this is a discussion occurring between both of those committees and the white house counsel's office. >> reporter: i'm asking if the representative of the president. >> i understand that, and as you're telling me, it's happening in realtime. the schiff piece is happening in realtime. i don't know the answer because it's happening while we're here. i don't have an answer on that. the white house counsel's office is in communication with the committee and with congressman schiff's office about arranging how that would go down. i don't know what further discussions they've had since we've been out here. zeke? >> rorter: u.s. is giving $2.8 billion a year. peter navarro saying that sum applied to 16-year period. is there any way you could clarify the facts on that? >> i lost -- i will have to ask peter that. >> reporter: secondly, on alexis' question, you made serious allegations mishandling classified information, why wouldn't the white house hand it over to the federal agency investigating the crimes -- >> again, because i think -- first of all, i don't know what we will or will not do going forward, i don't want to prejudge. that i know the house and senate intelligence committees are both the committees that the president asked on that sunday a few weeks ago to look into this. that's who's conducting and looking into it. that is appropriate. i'm not aware anyone asked the information. >> reporter: one final one, we don't track every person on the 18 acres? >> no, no, no, he asked about whether or not the chief of staff knew everyone who was on the 18 acres. that's what he asked. >> reporter: when it comes to that, do you have any new information about how the chairman did get onto the campus? who approved it? >> as ied the last two days. >> reporter: [inaudible] >> there will be discussion in the briefing that's going to talk about the financial disclosure forms immediately as this concludes. part of that, yeah. with that, thank you very much, we're going to get onto the next briefing. thank you very much. trish: all right! that's sean spicer wrapping up his daily press conference. i'm trish regan, welcome to "the intelligence report". a market is off 52 point. i have talk radio host and the author of kennedy babylon, howie carr and syndicatedtalk radio host chris hahn. radio guys with me today. howie, there's a lot of ground to cover here, but let me start first with the intelligence gathering that donald trump and his administration believe may have happened because the obama administration was doing this for political purposes. we heard him cite evelyn farkas, a former member of the obama administration and comments she made on the media circuit saying that basically she was encouraging former friends in the white house to spread intelligence that had been gathered as much as they possibly could. sean spicer taking issue with that. what do you think really happened? >> well, i think, again, as sean spicer said, they should be asking evelyn farkas. she left the administration in mid 2015, and then she has apparently this access to this intelligence that was collected in 2016, more than a year later, and she's asking people to -- she's asking people on capitol hill, staffers and members of congress. trish: she said that! she came out on an interview on another cable network. >> and it's one thing too if she were a member of the administration. she might have access to those documents. although supposedly you're supposed to mask american citizens, but again, she hadn't been in government service for more than a year, and apparently according to her own statements on msnbc had access to this so-called intelligence. and the other thing too that is amazing about this whole so-called investigation is that, you know, first "the new york times" says they used wiretap data against trump and associates. then they said they didn't mean wiretap data. now they're admitting that nunes is right, that there is should surveil data, wiretap data. >> okay. >> and the "new york times" front page story, they mentioned it in passing like the intelligence being available and pushed out to various media. it's a side bar to the main story which is how did chairman nunes get the documents? trish: i feel like there's a lot of side bars here. anyway, chris, you are dying to get in with the rebuttal. let's hear it? >> address the farkas frackas, she was out of the administration in 2015. she is irrelevant to the conversation, she's talking about what she heard and may have heard. >> how did she hear it? >> about the russian investigation where intelligence regarding that was spread out among the intelligence agencies, it was shared. trish: by the way, i can add to that. that was an investigation that, you know, we don't know quite where that ever went. there was a lot of innuendo, this is during the campaign. they really weren't able to uncover anything but it was out there. people are talking about it and innuendo and concerns. >> people in the administration should be less concerned he was wiretapped which he wasn't. >> the "new york times" says he was! >> our elections and elections around the world. it is time for us to get serious about that. this is not a sleight on his election, this is a war foreign powers that do not have our vested interest at heart. trish: no, no, no, howie, hang on a second. i want to know why the left keep saying russia stole the election? because that's a pretty big charge. >> i didn't say that at all. trish: many members of the left are saying that. >> i said russia interfered with the election. there's no doubt that they did. >> where is the evidence? chris, where is the evidence? . >> i still believe campaigns matter, i've said it on your show before. trish: what is the evidence? what is the evidence that leads you to think that. >> propaganda in our country. >> where's the beef? where's the beef, chris? trish: that's one way to put it. i keep asking the same thing, i find this story so incredibly frustrating because you're dealing with speculation and accusations that haven't been founded on anything. at least in the clinton foundation, you could say, clinton took money from this particular person that was doing this particular thing. >> trish, can we point out, trish, that "the new york times," again, "the new york times" which admits this data was collected. the "new york times" said in a story, a long story a couple of months ago, the fbi went to both republican and the democratic national committees early last year and said someone is trying hack into your e-mail systems. i'm quoting "the new york times" now. the fbi called and said please call us so we can talk to you about cybersecurity. the republican national committee called back and upgraded cybersecurity. the democratic national committee, according to the "new york times," the most anti-trump medium ever said that nobody from the democratic national committee ever called back the fbi. trish: we're going to take a break and continue this in two minutes. >> intelligence agencies agree that the russians were involved in our elections. trish: chris, i said bye. to folks everywhere whose diabetic... ...nerve pain shoots and burns its way into your day... ...i hear you. when that pain makes simple errands simply unbearable... ...i hear you. i hear you because my dad struggled with this pain. make sure your doctor hears you too. so folks, don't wait. step on up. and talk to your doctor. because you have places to go... ...and people who can't wait for you to get there. if you have diabetes and burning, shooting pain in your feet or hands... step on up and talk to your doctor today. when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. . trish: a massachusetts sheriff is fed up with the so-called sanctuary cities. bristol county sheriff says he thinks the leaders of these cities should be arrested. watch him here. >> if these sanctuary cities are going to harbor and conceal criminal aliens from i.c.e. in direct violation of title 8 of the u.s. code, federal arrest warrants should be issued for elected officials. our nation would be better off and citizens safer if we never stopped enforcing immigration law and never formed or turned a blind eye towards sanctuary cities. trish: sheriff hodgson joins me now. you are very outspoken on the issue. what's the reception you're getting? . >> we've seen overwhelming support. i think people in this country are fed up with elected officials, some suggesting that they're not going to lobby to change laws either because it takes too long or they just don't want to put the effort in, and instead decide that they're not going to violate -- they're going to violate federal law by ignoring it and creating cover for people who are criminals within our society here, and at the expense of the legitimate citizens who are supposed to be protected by the elected officials. trish: that's what troubles me here. i was looking through a recent i.c.e. report. they have nearly 200 people in a specific amount of time, during a one week period, were arrested, many cases, sheriff, convicted of crimes! serious crimes! sexual assault, for example, robbery. and yet the various county sheriffs offices let them go because they said they were not going to follow i.c.e.'s rules. it seems to me, if you're in law enforcement, you should be upholding the law, you should be enforcing the law! >> yeah, i would tell you that there are some communities where the trust act and some decisions by some courts in certain parts of the country have put the sheriffs in the crosshairs of a lawsuit, if they hold somebody beyond a certain amount of time. we've just met with department of homeland security yesterday to talk about this very ise, and i will tell thought majority of sheriffscr this count, we are doing everything we can outside those where they have the trust act to make sure that we're not going to have people in the n t know are going to harm our citizensment we took an oath to uphold the law, enforce the laws, as did the elected officials by the way, who think they can use their sanctuary statuses to give cover to these people, including potential terrorists, who want time to plot and plan some catastrophic event on some community. trish: sheriff, we appreciate your hard work. keep it up. good to have you. quick break, see you on the other side. breaking news. the trumpet ministration at this hour fighting forces on four fronts. political, social economic and militarily. we need to tell you that at any moment the president will sign two new executive orders on trade exactly one week ahead of the arrival of the chinese president. the trump team determined to smoke out trade while warning that upcoming talks with china may be difficult. this is battles over immunity for former national security advisor grab much of the accident