of hillary clinton and his thoughts on her on a personal nature and the leaking of classified information. there's a massive, massive difference between those two things. and i think it is, again, the interest and outrage that occurred last year by a lot of democrats that came to leaks, it's interesting we're not hearing as much outrage when it comes to our issues of national security. april. >> a couple of questions. one, you said congressman -- a meeting with president trump today. in the last solo press conference the president had he talked about senator schumer talked to elijah cummings. how did this smooth over and what's the conversation going to be on? is it solely going to be on the high cost of prescription drugs? >> i think the nature of the meeting stems from the conversation they had on the phone, which was on prescription drugs. and -- and then i'm sure that if congressman cummings or the president brings up another subject, it will go there. we'll try to have some sort of readout afterwards depending on how that goes. you know, it's -- the nature of it is an area they agree. one of the things they talked about on the phone was that there were probably several more areas they would agree on and find they would agree on throughout a conversation. and i hope that that conversation, you know, does exactly what they said it would in terms of, you know, getting to those areas of common agreement where they can work together to help solve additional problems our country faces. >> so, you don't have any knowledge of what happened to smooth that over? >> i know our teams were in touch with his office immediately followed. there were a couple times when the meetings had tried to be scheduled and justidn't work out. luckily now, they'll be able to. >> he's one member of the 49 cbc. right after that the white house reached out to cedric richmond, the head of the caucus. where is that meeting land? is it happening? >> i know we've reached out and looking for a date on that as well. so, we're pleased this one was able to come together and then we'll get to the next one. >> last question. yesterday there was a compare and contrast with visuals, show and tell, if you will. >> yes, i saw that on a few shows. >> yes. so, and you compared and contrasted about how you're going about it and how the obama administration went about obamacare. one difference they've made note about, and i want your response to this, you may have said you're doing this and they said they're doing this. one thing you did not do that they did, had their bill scored by cbo. you did not score it by cbo. >> sure, its being scored. look, with all due respect to that, this is the same group that said -- who passed it and then told us read it. this bill is online for every american to readthebill.gov. we linked to it on several accounts. again, if that's the complaint, this is the same group that jammed it through with no partisan support. there is no contrast between what they did and we did. this was a full effort to reach out to members of the house and senate. it's going through regular order in the house. every member of the house and sthatd will be able to have their opportunity to have amendments offered through the committee process and then on the floor. so the idea they can compare the date they got a score is reaching deep. there's been an opportunity for members to have their input on this and to talk about their concerns, to give their input on it, especially the governors, who were left on the sideline last time. you have such an important role in administering health care when it comes to medicaid. the idea anyone talks about when a score was issued. there will be a score in all due time. the cbo was way off the last time. i don't think we're waiting to -- that that's a big issue to us right now. >> doesn't cost matter before -- >> of course cost matters but look how off they were last time. if you're looking to the cbo, you're looking in the wrong place. they were way, way off last time in every aspect of how they scored and projected obamacare -- >> will you -- >> neither do they. if you look at the number of people they projected would be on obamacare, they are off by millions. the idea we're waiting for a score, it will be scored, but the idea that that's any kind of authority base on the track record that occurred last time is a little far-fetched. jessica. >> two questions on the wall, sean. as you know the prototypes went out today. i was skurs about the timing of that. how much pressure there was to get that going quickly. secondly, is there guidance from the white house about what kinds of vendors can build the wall, especially can international vendors build walls? >> i think that process is working through, as the president has talked about before. we're trying to move ahead with existing funds dhs has. then we'll continue to create a timeline to ask congress for that funding. we're not -- we're working with congress on that. and then, you know, i don't think it will be any surprise that the president will favor american workers and american companies when it comes to an american project. that shouldn't be any surprise. >> it's looking increasingly likely the federal reserve will hike interest rates. one, how does the president feel about that? two, does he have the backing of janet yellen? >> let me get back to you. i don't have any comment on the federal reserve. what i will say is, you know, as i mentioned at the outset, when you look at the hiring and jobs and the manufacturing, the pace, consumer confidence and consumer confidence indexes that have come out in the first two months, we see a resurgence and optism in the economy by job creators who want to hire here, manufacture here and grow here. i think our economy is greerly on the upswing. and i think you see statement after statement,company after company, coming out and sharing in the president's moving forward and renewing the optimism and building and being part of an american resurgence in terms of our economy. >> you don't know in regard to the interest rates or janet yellen? >> i'll get back to you. >> one thing the obama administration did was get key stakeholders to the table, aarp -- [ inaudible ] both have come out strongly opposed to this proposal. what's your message with respect to the aarp? >> i think the aarp got a really good drug last time when it came to prescription drugs in particular. this is a patient-centric bill. it's about patients, about people, the americans left behind. look at what those deals got people last time. for all those people that are on medicaid in particular, they don't have choices anymore. so, i would argue that the president has put the american people first and has put patients first. you can talk about -- you know, we're glad to have support. make no mistake about it. but i think the support this administration and i think the house is focused on is getting every american their buy-in and their support. you know, obviously, look, i'm not going -- we would love to have every group on board but this isn't going to be -- every single deal we heard about getting it through, the cornhusker kickback, this and -- over and over again, one deal after another to get -- to buy votes to get it through the senate. so if, you want to line up how many special interests got paid off last time versus now, they'll probably wins hands down. hold on. this isn't trying to figure out how many special interests in washington we can get paid off. it's about making sure the patients get the best deal, lowers prices and brings back costs. what i'm trying to figure out, at some point you're defending the indefensible. nancy pelosi put out three criteria how they judge obamacare. by their own standards, they fail on all three. choices are down, costs rupp. by every account, every single premium by every standard is up. choices are down across the country. so, there is a horrible deal the american people got bought -- got sold. we're trying to put patients back first in line. >> the aarp, specifically talking about patients in their 50s and 60s. they describe this as an age tax that will disproportionately effect people right now who are low income, benefiting from subsidies under obamacare, and could stand to take hit of thousands of dollars in premiums when subsidies go away. your message to those that voted for the president? >> our message to the president is we want more choices and lower cost. as we work this bill through, through daylight, not jam it through in the middle of the night, that they are going to see as more and more people will that this is a deal for the american people that's going to put patients first, lower their costs and give them more choices. again, there is probably not a person out there either through themselves or a loved one or a friend or a colleague that has seen choices go down and premiums go up. what people are dealing with now is not acceptable. i think the idea that anyone is defending the current status quo, they admit there's a problem right now. so, my advice to those people is join the process, share your ideas, your thoughts, let the process work its will so it is a bill with input. the bill the way it was done last time is not something that's acceptable. shannon? >> the president worried, though, that every major doctors group, the ama, american college of physicians, have all come out and said they have serious concerns? for all the talk of doctors and patients and choice, the doctors groups are all so far unanimously coming out and saying they're not supportive of this. does that concern you? >> when you look at a lot of doctors versus the associations here in washington, we have had tremendous input from doctors themselves. dr. price himself, a doctor, is the one who crafted this. you have a doctor in charge of the administration's effort to work with congress. you have several physicians and other medical professionals in congress talking about the experiences they have. many ran for congress because of the concerns they saw in their own industry. so, while i'm not -- i have respect for some of the work some of these washington, d.c.-based associations do, at end of the day this is about patients and doctors on the front line seeing patients and talking about the care they can give or not give to people. anita? >> can i follow up? sorry. you talked about people having a card. you've got a card but it's a $2,000 deductible and only ten doctors in your tone that will see you. >> right. >> but that's better than nothing, if you get cancer or hit by a car. so, maybe this makes access -- right, but it is better than no insurance. if this expands access to people and choice but reduces the number of people who actually have -- >> but i don't think -- >> so, can it do both? >> of course it can. and it will do both by ensuring more people -- right now you have more people paying the penalty saying, i don't want health care. i'm not going to pate penalty because costs are too high. probably five, six, seven years ago before obamacare went into place, a single individual, young individual person on the open market could get a premium -- a plan with a premium of 100, 150 bucks a month. it's in the high 300s now. there's a big difference. for young people just entering the workplace, for example, your example, they get into an accident. right now you have a lot of individuals that get off their parents' health care and say, i'm healthy. i have no desire to get health care because it's a few hundred dollars i don't have. if we can get that cost down, it makes more sense and get plans tailored to them. 27, 28-year-old individuals don't need care for folks that's talks about certain things that a plan that has certain things towards the end of life. but right now you have one size fits all government-run, government-mandated plans that offer people a suite of medical services that they do not need. because there's no choice. it's a government-mandated system. i think offering more choice and more competition allows people to pick a plan that is more tailored to your needs. this goes back to what john was asking. if you can get -- if you can actually pick a plan and across state lines find one that suits you as an individual, as opposed to maybe there's a family plan that's more comprehensive, that has dental and vision and all the things your kids need because of all the things that you anticipate -- that's a plan that, you know, a young family might need versus an older person that's single or a younger person just entering the workforce. right now there's no competition, no choice. so, it's not an either/or situation. we're facing a situation where more and more people are getting less and less and paying more and more for it. that's the wrong way to go. mara? >> anita. >> my apologies. >> switching gears completely. the military recently conducted some kind of exercise at the naval base at guantanamo bay and preparing for a migrant crisis. there is a dhs migrant center there. i wondered if the administration has considered and what you thought about using that facility for immigrants? is that -- >> i would just -- that particular exercise, to the best of my knowledge, is a regular exercise that occurs, as do many of the exercises the military prepares for, and a whole host of contingency operations nap is a routine military operation. >> is it a consideration, though? >> no, it's -- it's a routine military operation, as several of them do with our partners throughout the world where we plan for random contingencies that may or may not happen. that's the job of the military. to try to ascertain -- >> skip the drill. are you going to consider using the facility for immigrants? >> there is nothing to consider it for. we're fine right now. there's nothing we would need to use it again. again, i think part of the goal of preparing -- the military going through various exercises is on a whole host of issues, on refugees, they prepare for natural disasters. we're not anticipating a natural disaster but we prepare for them. we at the white house, when we were coming in as an administration, we did -- i think we briefed during the transition period, we he did what's called right seat/left seat operation with outgoing administration. we sat down and talked about cyber attacks and natural disasters and the whole of government response in some of these things. doesn't mean we anticipate them. doesn't mean we want them. it means we're going to prepare for them. the same way many organizations do fire drills. it's not that you anticipate or expect a fire, but you prepare for them. as many families do. preparedness is the key to executing well. i think that's all we're doing. >> secondarilsecondarily, the l media is reporting president trump will be there on saturday. can you confirm that? is this about health care, as you said he's make the rounds? >> i've seen that report. we have nothing to announce with respect to the president's schedule at this time. as i mentioned earlier to, i think it was shannon, that we will have -- or is it jill? one of -- somewhere in this area. we will have an update on the president's schedule later this week. i anticipate the president to be very active in his support for the repeal and replace effort. and so this is what you should expect. now mara. >> the cbo score is supposed to come out next week. you just called to question their credibility. >> i didn't call into -- just so we're clear. i'm just -- >> thanks, matt, i can appreciate it. i can answer. their record is what i'm calling into question. when you look at the number of people and the costs on what they scored the last obamacare bill on, it's way off. that's a fact. that's not anything more than that. >> well, people base their votes on what they think is going to happen to the cost and the coverage. >> that's right. >> is there any analytic organization that you would accept a score from? >> well, i think there's -- yeah, i mean -- >> some organizations -- >> omb -- >> mara, hold on, before -- all i'm saying is look at the cbo's record on obamacare. it's vastly off. i think they projected 20 million people to be on obamacare this year. i believe the number's 12. they're way off in terms of the millions. so, it's not a question of whether i'm questioning anything -- anyone that can do basic math can understand that their projections for obamacare the last time were way, way off the market. so, my only point is, is that i think when they come out with this score, we need to understand the track record when it comes to health care. >> the track record, is there -- >> there's probably a lot. i think members have to look at a lot of things to cast their vote on. they're going to have to look at the totality of the bill, the support of their constituents, the current state of things. i think there's no question. look, when you look at the trajectory of the cost right now in term of premiums, you can either say -- and not just the premiums, but obamacare is going to collapse on its own weight very soon. the president made it very clear in his press conference and and a lot of previous statements, the politically easy thing to do is just let it collapse and let democrats come back to the table. i don't think it's the right thing and the president made it clear, he doesn't think it's the right thing. this is an opportunity for him to show the american people that the right thing to do is care about their health care options and costs they're paying. >> one last thing. you mentioned dr. bowles and how they're going under obamacare. are you promising their deductibles will come down under this plan? >> everything wie been led to believe -- yes, this will drive down costs. when you talk about opening pooling, driving costs down because can you buy it over state lines, everything that has driven up costs, all of those market forces will come in, and i think every leading economist that's looked at this says it will drive costs down. >> thank you, sean. the premiere argument by democrats, notably former president obama today, is that enactment of the act that we were -- that was illustrated yesterday would lead to many people losing their health care. you certainly heard that from democrats. but also several of the republican governors who were here for the national governor's association, including strong allies of the president. governor bentley of alabama, governor hutchinson of arkansas, voiced the same concern. they did not want any plan that would lead to anyone losing their present health care. what does the administration say to what is the leading argument against a new plan? is and then i have a follow-up question. >> of course. i would say that any governor that's concerned about people losing care right now should join us. they're losing their care right now. they're losing their options and paying too much. so, the answer is that if yoosh you're concerned about those principles, you should be concerns with what's happening right now. you should be concerned and want to join in this administration and work with this congress. again, the big difference that's here is instead of us jamming a big down congress and not allowing the american people to read it until it was passed, as was done with obamacare and then-speaker pelosi, is this bill is out in the open for every single person in the world to read. it's open for people to let their member of congress share their thoughts, share their ideas. it's ndone in the open. this is a vastly different approach to how it was done last time. that makes a big difference with the approach. it gives people an opportunity through the process, what they call regular order, to have input on this. if it can be made better, great. i think this time we recognize that there's a lot of work that needs to get done on behalf of the patients having trouble getting care. alexis? >> my follow-up question. a follow-up question about the wall. during the recent governors' association meeting, governor ramirez, who is the chairman of mexico's association of fed rated governors, warned that continued discussion about the wall and the president's talk of building it might very well lead to the election of mr. lopez obrador as president of america, and he's considered the most anti-american, most hostile to america of any of the candidates. do these discussions come up in the building of the wall? namely, mexican politics? >> no. the president's number one is the safety of our country. number two is the jobs that are impacted by this and the ability of americans to get the wage they deserve. again, this is a national security issue. something that, frankly, when he's discussed this with president nieto of mexico, there's a shared concern about drug cartels, drug trafficking, armed sales over the border. there's a shared concern for the respect. border because it means a lot to both sides. so, this is something we care about from a national security standpoint. obviously, the president's concerned on it as well as there an economic standpoint. alexis? >> your answer was that if the health care bill could be made better, the president is interested in that. can i clarify, when he meets with congressional conservatives this evening who are -- who have misgivings about the legislation, is he intended to talk to them about what they would like to change? is he open to making those changes? is that what he -- is that the mode he's in rather than a sell mode, he's in a listening mode? >> i think he's very much in a sell mode. the president and his team have worked very hard on this. they're very proud of the effort and the product they have produced with -- in consultation with the house and senate. but, obviously, it's going through the process. so, if somebody has an idea, and that could be on the administration side, that we believe that after consultation with individuals or groups that there's a way to improve upon this, but that's the beauty of going through the process we are. make no mistake, the president is very proud of the product we have produced. we are in full sell mode throughout the country talking about how we think this is the best way to solve the problem the american people face and why we believe the solutions we put forward in this bill are the right ones and will benefit them. >> before the president meets with chancellor merkel next week, is it possible we could see the president for a more general multi-question news conference? he's been a little press shy this week. from north korea to health care selling to cia leaks, we would love to talk to him. could we see him for -- >> i will ask. >> could you ask him that? >> you're not -- i'm sure -- is there anyone else? i would be glad to ask. a show of hands. thank you. i appreciate it. i'll be glad to ask the president, share your requests with him and i'll see what we can do on his schedule. as you know, he is very busy these days. he has done a lot of sprays. he will continue to interact with you guys. i'll be glad to make your request known. katy. >> yesterday secretary price said the bill for repeal and replace are standing on capitol hill there was a lot of talk of the starting point being a nonstarter. it seems like there's negotiations that need to be made. does the president have any n nonnegotiables in his bill that he will not take out? >> as i was just saying to alexis that it is a starting point. it's going through regular order in the house. so, part of that process as it goes throughout committee markup hearing, ways and means and how commerce committee, that by its very nature allows for input through both of those committees and ultimately on the floor before it moves through the senate and the senate goes through a similar process. we're just acknowledging of where the process is. you know, we're proud of the process. we're proud of the input that we've received from governors, from senators, from individuals, associations, companies. we feel very proud of the work that is encapsulated in this bill and the results it will yield. that being said, i think the president understands as a businessesman if someone has a really good idea that he's going to listen to it. if he can be part of the process to help make something better, there's nothing that's going to preclude that. we have been very open to listening to people. we're very proud of it. we're going to go out in full sell mode. if there's an idea that comes across, we're going to entertain that to make it clear. hallie? >> two topics here. first one, health care and then a follow-up on that. in the past you and others accused democrats of rushing through the original health care law. now there are some republicans, including today, who say this is simply moving too fast. is the president willing to accept a delayed timeline if it pushes repeal and replace into later in the year? >> by its very nature, we're going through the committee process. there are two -- two house committees. >> the timeline being mid-easter break. >> again, that's subject -- i would argue it's subject to how the house does its work and then the senate. we would like this to move forward. there's a lot of stuff in the queue. we talked about tax reform. this is attached to the fy17 budget reconciliation. for a lot of americans that means nothing in terms of the phrase and nomenclature that surrounds how congress does it. it's important to recognize that that vehicle allows congress to do certain things and not others with a 50-vote -- with a majority vote in the senate. that's important. there are certain things you can do through that that you can't do through other vehicles and that will take a 60-vote and that you can do administratively. so, it's actually, if you heard dr. price talk yesterday about the three phases, it's actually multiphased, going through regular order. but there is simply no contrast between how we're approaching this and how democrats approached it last time. number one, there's actually input from across the aisle, both from governors who are here, attorneys generals, outside groups, house and senate democrats have been able to provide input to both staff, to the senior administration officials, to the president. and then, secondly, it's actually going through the process. while we can predict a timeline, ultimately it will be up to the house and then the senate to determine how fast it goes. there are members on each of those committees and then ultimately every member on the floor that has the ability to give input. >> one other question. i'm curious about this meeting with senator cruz tonight. he's come out and expressed skepticism on the bill as it stands now. presumably that's topic of the conversation. heidi cruz is coming, too. i wonder if the president has any plans to apologize to her from the insin youations he made on the campaign trail? >> they're looking forward to coming out and having a great dinner. he had lunch yesterday with senator graham. as he stated weeks ago the president will have outreach to members of congress, both parties. he's meeting with congressman cummings today. this is a president who wants to engage with both sides of the aisle and both houses. also groups, business leaders, union leaders, the afl-cio head was here yesterday. this is a president that will engage with anyone who can propose thoughts, ideas to move the country forward. he's looking forward to dinner with senator and mrs. cruz as others. you'll see more and a continuation of this effort to reach out and get people's ideas. margaret. >> does the president believe the cia has been compromised in any way? >> with respect to the disclosure, is that what -- i'm not. it's u.s. government policy not to confirm this. i think he is, obviously, been very concerned, as i've stated, about the disclosure of national security on any level. it undermines our country's national security. and i think that -- i will say, i think there's been a big double standard when it comes to disclosures of national -- of classified information. the outrage or the -- that exists when one side has it happen versus another. there was -- well, i think that there has bony a lot of disclosures about national security that occurred last cycle when there was potential the fbi leaked certain information. the members of congress on the other side of the aisle, hillary clinton and others, talked about how there was so much concern about classified information. we're seeing such silence and outrage from the media, from others, with the current disclose urs now. with things that may or may not have happened toward the 2016 election when it comes to this side. there's a vast difference when it comes to how disclosures are approached. >> what is the president trump's policy toward north korea and what is his opinion of the north korea -- >> on the -- on the -- >> north korea policy. >> on the politics? >> no, policies. >> on the policies. well, i mean, we're very troubled by the launch of missiles that have occurred from north korea the missile system we started to deploy in south korea is so important. we're continuing to work with the government of south korea to make sure that they have the defenses necessary to protect themselves. the deployment of the system is critical to their protection as witnessed by this weekend's ballistic missile test. china and the united states in particular, both understand the threat that north korea poses to the region. and i think that there's areas and concern we can work together to protect the country. >> international women's day, there's a lot of concern about health care for women. will the president continue to reach out to women as the next two phases of this health care bill continues? what is the president's stance on access to birth control for women across the country? >> i think that question was asked and answered by secretary price yesterday. with respect to women's health, the president has also made it clear that he intends to have a substantial increase in funding for women community centers that fund women's health services. that will be reflected in his budget. margaret? >> thank you. >> sorry. >> sean, is the president the target of a counterintelligence investigation? >> i think that's what we need to find out there's obviously a lot of concern. i mentioned to john, there was considerable concern last cycle when a reporter was the target of one. part of reason we have asked the house and senate to look into this is because of that. it was interesting, i think, if you look at last week all of a sudden these stories that keep coming out about the president and his links to russia, it's continued to be the same old same old played over again. the president has made clear he has no interest in russia and yet a lot of these stories that come out with respect to that are, frankly, fake. they are a series of fake allegations that at the bottom, while there's no evidence to substantiate this, it's the same unnamed sources, quote/unquote, associates that we get tagged yet and yet there's no evidence that continues to be shown. every single person that gets briefed on this shows that, whether it's senator cotton, chairman nunez, who has done a phenomenal job of trying to get to the bottom of this, but it's interesting, i think, the double standard that exists between the concern about getting to the bottom of the allegations that -- with respect to the president that there are on some other issues -- >> he dent know if he's the -- >> no, no. i think that's one of the issues we have asked the senate and house to look into. i can tell you with respect to the others, you look at former dni clapper's comments. he literally said the dni -- he said the dni, which includes the cia and fbi, did not find any evidence of collusion between the trump campaign. senators rubio, cotton, burr, chairman nunez, all the people briefed on this situation have come to the same conclusion. and it is -- it is interesting how many times this fake narrative gets repeated over and over and over again. yet no evidence has ever been suggested that shows the president has anything to do with any of the -- it's a recycled story over and over and over again. and i think that there is a bit of -- you know, it's amazing. the president goes out last week, does this joint session. then a couple -- literally, 24-hour stories get recycled about potential issues that come up that literally continue to offer no fact, nothing but the unsubstantiated rumors over and over again. yet what is ignored when you have someone like former dni clapper go out and literally say, quote, that they did not find any evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and agents. have you rubio, cotton, nunez, all say the same thing, they've been briefed, there's nothing and yet this fake narrative -- >> i want to make sure i'm noting. are you saying there is the possibility he is the target of a counterintelligence probe involving -- >> i do not -- i think what i'm saying is there is a difference between that narrative and then the narrative that's been perpetuated over and over again. the concern that the president has and why he asks the senate and house intelligence committees to look into this is to get to the bottom of what may or may not have occurred during the 2016 election. what's interesting, margaret whushgs look at every single person that's been briefed, they've all come to the same conclusion that nothing happened during the 2016 election tying him to russia. yet the fake narrative continues over and over and over again. and the idea that it has -- it continues to be recycled without any substance, without any evidence. it needs to stop. >> the president said he was tapped. as a fact. >> i understand that. that's why we're -- >> so -- >> no, no, that's not what i said. what i said was -- >> that he was the target of investigations. >> his wires were tapped. >> hold on. one at a time. i said the president made clear on sunday that he has asked the house and senate intelligence committees to use their resources and their processes to examine the facts and come to a conclusion. chris? >> since you're talking about whether things are true or not, let me ask you following up on something yesterday. you seemed to acknowledge the president was wrong when he tweeted 122 prisoners released by the obama administration from gitmo had returned to the battlefield, in fact, was mostly by the bush administration. will he retract or even apologize for that, given he also called it a terrible decision by the obama administration, and given that that was incorrect, there still has been no proof either of his tweets about widespread voter fraud or the wiretapping, does the president have a credibility problem? >> look, i said yesterday -- i think trey asked the question, that the president meant the total number of people. and that -- hold on -- >> he said the obama administration. >> i understand that. i'm actually explaining it. that's the way you asked the question. just -- he meant that the total number of people released from gitmo was 122. what the president -- and just to be clear, there is a big difference under the bush administration, most of those were court-ordered. the obama administration took great steps. it was a campaign step from day one to close gitmo. this president is very clear that he understands the nature of the threat that the people in gitmo pose to our nation. and the recidivism rate there are among people we have released. that is a concern he shares. the reason the bush administration did it was in many cases they were under court order. the obama administration made it actually a priority to let people go and to actively desire to close that camp and release more and more of those people, especially in the waning days. there's a huge contrast between the posture and policy of the last two administrations on how they were dealing with gitmo. this administration understands and the president has been very clear, he understands that the people kept in gitmo pose a danger to our country and to the rest of the world. there's a big, big difference between the posture of those two. >> you acknowledge the tweet was wrong? >> i just said it. the tweet -- he meant it was the totality of the people. that's what i said to trey yesterday. i'll say it to you today. >> just follow-up on something else you said, sean, a totally different topic. you said you're in full -- you're in sell mode. completely in sell mode. i wonder if the president sees this as a test of his ability to make a deal. something he really talked about, something that voters responded to on the campaign trail. is this essentially does he feel on him, that this is him going to show the american people that he can get this deal done? >> well, he is a deal-maker. he's a negotiator. he is a world class business leader. he's been highly successful at it. if anybody can get a deal on something, it's going to be donald trump. that's part of the reason that the american people, what they saw in him. there was so much broken with washington, that when it came to the big problems, whether it was domestically or internationally, if somebody could come in and work across party lines, work with another country to get a deal in the country's best interest, he had that skill set and that's, frankly, why they elected him president. we are in sell mode. we want to get this done. the president has an open mind. he enjoys meeting with people and hearing ideas about how to make this country better, how to create jobs, how to create a better health care system, how to create better schools. if someone comes up with a better idea that will help lower costs and increase access, he's certainly going to listen to it. dave boyer. >> sean, yesterday in the president's meeting with the deputy whips he talked about his tax cut plan. he said it's going to be the biggest since ronald reagan, maybe even bigger. he said, i know exactly what we're looking at. most of us know exactly the plan. my first question is really easy. tell us about the plan. >>. >> what the plan is? >> the tax cuts. >> i'm going to -- i appreciate the layout, dave. but i'll leave it to him to work with congress. when we're ready to roll it out, we'll do just that. we're not there yet. let's go on with the second. >> building on these jobs numbers today that were very positive, obviously, there's a lot of ceos out there who are excited about the possibility of a tax cut plan. and yet the president has also expressed a lot of concern about the national debt. if you're going to get a tax cut on the level of ronald reagan, historic sized tax cut, how are you going to do that, balance the needs for continued job growth with concerns about the debt? >> because i think that one of the best ways to get the national debt down is to grow the economy. the more the economy is growing, the more we can get it at 3, 4, 5%, the more the deficit goes down. that's just the best way to tackle the deficit, is to grow the economy. put people back to work, create a deeper manufacturing base. between that and some of the efforts that the president has put into make government more efficient and effective and save money at that level, those are the two things that i think combine to get the deficit done. jennifer? >> of the more than 13,000 syrian refugees in this country, 150 of thome -- less than 150 of them are christian, yazidis. so i wonder now that secretary tillerson has had time to settle in. as you review the refugee program, immigration policy, is this something that's being discussed? is this a priority to give some groups relief? >> well, i think that you know when we talked the first time about the executive order, it was something we acknowledged. there is definitely an area where in the executive order we just passed, one of the areas we talked about was -- i have to go back and look at the exact phraseology but we recognized certain groups, and they can be religious in nature, are being persecuted. i think that's going to be a factor. how we look at that program. that's something the president, as you mentioned, he's talked about in the past. it's something secretary tillerson has acknowledged. that's not just refugees coming into this country but one of the reasons we need safe havens in syria is to make sure that groups and individuals, whether they be part of a group or religion who are persecuted, have a degree of safety they can count on. >> maria, right here. >> it's international wednesday. >> exactly. thank you so much. so, the president's on the record saying he supports some sort of legalization for many of the undocumented people in the country and, you know, there's a d.r.e.a.m.er caught in the raids in seattle, washington. we don't know if he'll be released or not. does the president plan to meet with d.r.e.a.m.ers to talk about what's on his mind for gathering ideas for some sort of legalization? if so, when will that meeting occur? >> the president, i think, has been -- has talked about how he wants to tackle this wholistically. back to kristen's question a second ago, he made clear that if there's someone who has the ability to strike a deal, get people in the room and acknowledge, we have to stay true to our principles, we can get a deal on a way to fix our broken immigration proshgs it's him. we are not at that phase yet. this is something he's talked to senators about. and i think that as we continue to move forward, obviously the focus is on obamacare, repealing and replacing it with this program. but it is something we'll continue to move forward with as a comprehensive thing. not just the illegal issue, but the visa issue, how we deal with the other folks that are in this country. but stay tuned. we've got more to go on this. we'll go further. what's that? >> no meeting with the d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> there's nothing on the schedule. [ inaudible ] >> the president ordered pentagon to step up attacks. does this -- new tragedy, rather, and does the president -- on isis or al qaeda? >> i think the president talked about this a lot during the campaign, about giving the authority and entrusting the general and decision-makers of his national security team with executing what they need to, to prosecute the war on terror and the war against radical islamic terrorism. it's not a question of delegating authority. we addressed this in the briefing in previous weeks. there's a big dempifference. it's not delegating the authority, but they have the timeliness to act in an appropriate manner to prosecute the case and go after terrorists in a way they probably weren't last time. there's a big difference between the approach of this president and the last administration in terms of giving the generals and leaders of the national security team and the defense department the tools and authority they need to prosecute the case against isis. gabby? >> thanks, sean. you'll get it some day. defense minister said yesterday that u.s. officials had sent a direct warning to prime minister netanyahu against an exing parts of the west bank. i wanted to know if that was at the request of president trump? also, if you could tell us where the white house is in terms of reaching a deal with israel on what they consider permissible settlement construction. >> as you know, yesterday the president spoke with prime minister netanyahu. that conversation largely had to deal with areas of regional security. i don't have anything further to read out on that. i know when they met here at the white house, there was discussion on settlements and the president was very clear about, you know, his -- what his desires and wishes were. i think as we continue to follow up with israel in the coming weeks, we will have more on that. >> sean, thank you. i have a follow-up question to his, asking about the thousands of women who have chosen to strike today, you saying it is a free country, but at channel 5 we've reported quite a bit on the schools and the districts that are closing because so many women chose to strike today. it is a free country, but what would be the president's reaction to, if you will, what is more important, the students being at school today or the woman's right to strike and kind of make a statement, if you will, on this day? >> thanks, veronica. i think it's an important question. i know locally this affects a lot of individuals throughout northern virginia and maryland and the district, so, look, i think -- i haven't talked to the president specifically about this. as i mentioned, people have a right to express themselves under our first amendment. as the president's doing today by making sure that we appropriately salute the contributions that women make to this country. but there's clearly an impact in the case of schools, localities throughout the country, here in the greater washington, d.c., area. i think that concern is best utilized by parents through their local school boards and through their city councils and mayors whether or not they found it appropriate for that to occur. i have not spoken to the president about this, but i think there's a balance. and i think i would hope that we should use this opportunity to recognize the role of women in the workplace, in the family, and throughout society for the contributions they continue to make and have made in the past and making the country as great as it has. with that one last thing, just to clarify, i think jill asked this, but i want to be really clear on one point which is there is no reason we should -- that we have to think that the president is the target of any investigation whatsoever. i'm sorry, that was margaret. i apologize. >> specifically counterintelligence. >> right. there's no reason to believe he's the target of any investigation. i think that's very important point to make. and so -- >> are you retracting your previous -- >> no, no, what i'm saying. the hold on. the one question dealt with whether or not -- the tweet dealt with wiretaps. the other is an investigation. they are two separate issues. there is no reason to believe there is any type of investigation with respect to the department of justice. i'll see you tomorrow. thank you. see you guys -- i can't comment. >> are you aware of investigations? >> sean spicer refusing to answer whether they're aware of an investigation into donald trump about his connections, potential connections, to russia. refusing to answer that a few times during that white house press briefing. i'm katy tur. it is 2:50 on the east coast. whole lot to talk about from that briefing. a lot about obamacare, even more about this cia wikileaks story, the dump of cia spy methods. sean spicer refusing to confirm those leaks are authentic, that is a government position not to confirm those things. he also talked about leaks in general and how they don't approve of any leaks. bringing it back to what has been going on with the trump administration, the leaks that have been affecting donald trump himself. and also criticizing the media and politicians for what he calls a double standard. reacting differently to the hillary clinton leaks and white house leaks. it's important to differentiate that the circumstances aren't quite equal. one according to u.s. officials, intelligence officials, are leaks by a foreign government. the other is leaks by officials here in the u.s. we have a very big panel of folks to talk about. you see them on the screen. we have bill crystal from "the new york times," charlie sykes, jon walsh, john mclaughlin, former director of cia, and hallie jackson. so, let's talk about these leaks first. charlie, i'm going to start with you. sean spicer was trying to say that there is a big difference between the leaks there, when donald trump said he loved wikileaks, when it was affecting the clinton campaign, because it was campaign information, and these looks now which are matters of national security. >> i thought that was fascinating because, of course, he has to parse this because last year they loved wikileaks, and now we have to be outraged about it. the reality is these were both crimes. they were theft of private information. here you have the spokesman for a candidate who is waving around this stolen information on a regular basis last year. now trying to explain how, okay, now we need to be concerned about how evil these leaks are. >> hallie jackson is in the white house briefing room. we just have you up. we're talking specifically now about the wikileaks and the dump of spy methods. talk to us a little more about how sean spicer tried to defend the white house after all donald trump said on the campaign trail that he loves wikileaks. >> reporter: right. the press secretary tried to draw what he described as a massive, massive difference or distinction between leaks of, for example, or hacks of john podesta's e-mails, if you will, and then leaking of classified information, something the president has been very clear he opposes and quite disturbed by during his short administration. this is a question, as you know from your time on the campaign trail, the president again and again talked about wikileaks. particularly towards the end of the campaign when he called it, for example, a treasure trove and was asked today, the press secretary, whether he stands by that phrase. that is when you heard sean spicer try to draw that distinction. >> bill crystal, i'm sorry, i had a momentary brain fart. what are you conservatives thinks when they have trump did the on the campaign trail, touting how much he loves them and going after hillary clinton. houbl, there wasn't much love loss for hillary clinton among conservatives but do they see something of hypocritism now to say that, no, no, it's not okay for wikileaks to dump materials like this, it's not okay for anybody to leak, unless the leaks are beneficial to donald trump? >> a lot of us criticized trump for his praise of wikileaks. the wikileaks he was praising leaked national security information, state department cables. this wasn't just something that popped up with john podesta's e-mails. now it's done a lot of damage to national security. this isn't just the white house and donald trump, it's the goth of the united states whose methods may be exposed. president trump and sean spicer are right to condemn that. i agree, yes, it was bad. it was -- this is one of the many, many ways candidate trump and president-elect to some degree and president trump to some degree erodes basic respect for the rule of law and for the forms and procedures of government. there's a reason previous presidents have always said, let's not get in the business of justifying some national leaks and not others. >> these dnc leaks were ultimately not necessarily anything that would potentially harm anybody, anyone's security here in this country. >> i just don't think you can be in the position of being the press secretary or president and making that particular distinction. both are thefts. both are criminal. both are wrong. it does sound ridiculously self-serving. i also note, it's interesting they refer to these things as leaks and not lies because there's a way in which it -- there's a way in which the way they're talking about this now, to me, also confirms there's an investigation, which i do believe. there's enough reporting to say something is going on. calling them leaks -- rather than saying this is lying. we've never heard anything like this. >> last week we know wikileaks was a front of russian intelligence tool. they are again this year. so, you know, when you've gone out of your way to validate and use them in one year, it is hypocritical to come back and say, we don't want this to be used in this particular way. >> when did this latest dump of documents, which they've obviously had for quite a while, happened this week, two days before, a few days before donald trump was in a huge fight with the u.s. intelligence agents. kind of convenient to have a whole bunch of leaks, is the cia spying on us through our television sets and all that sort of stuff. the russians -- it could be the russians were trying to ride to donald trump's rescue. >> let's get to acting director of the cia, former director of the cia. john, from your experience, what do you make of the timing of this dump? >> well, i think bill just made the key point. and i think what it relates to here is something sean spicer was talking about during his press conference. he keeps expressing mystification that people will raise this russia story when he cites evidence that many people say there's no there there. well, the problem is, the smoke keeps getting thicker and thicker and thicker. that's the point i think bill was making, that i would agree with. we don't know about the timing here but it's awfully odd that an institution, wikileaks, that is clearly linked to russia. that's been established by the intelligence community now, take this is action during a week when the president has created yet another problem for himself with the nutty tweets that he did over the weekend that once again threw the spotlight on this russia story. i think that's the thing that stands out most for me here. we have to understand that wikileaks is now an intruement of the russian government. >> john, you said there's a lot of smoke here. is there a feeling from the intelligence community, and i know you probably can't confirm it for us on the air if you have heard, but that there was some definitive connection between anybody in the trump campaign, even one person in the trump campaign, and the russians in the timing of the various leaks and dumps that happened during the campaign and this dump that happened a couple days ago or yesterday? >> well, the honest answer, katy, is i don't know that that suspicion exists. that's probably where i have to leave it. the report that the intelligence community put out with a high degree of confidence, of course, said the russians had done the hacking. secondly, it said that the pattern they saw indicated a clear preference for helping candidate trump. i think beyond that, to my knowledge, the intelligence community can't -- don't know, but i'm not aware it can go beyond that at this point. presumably, that is the reason why we're having the investigations in the senate and house intelligence community. but not just on that point, but to understand, how did this hacking occur? in the course of understanding that and trying to prevent a hacking again, presumably, they will look at the question of whether there was some connection, some motive here. and the president doesn't help himself with the kind of things he did over the weekend. >> only ten seconds, john, so please, if you can in a short way, how does this affect the president's relationship with the intelligence community any further, the fact he's claiming this wiretapping happened? >> well, i think it's pretty clear if you're in the intelligence community you pay attention to what your leaders say. the two principal leaders of the intelligence community here on the foreign side, former deputy -- former dni clapper and on the domestic side, the fbi director, have both said it didn't happen. so, if those in the intelligence community, leaders are telling you it didn't happen and yet you're hearing there's going to be an investigation in congress, that's got to leave you a little puzzled. >> john mclaughlin with the last word in the 2:00 hour. former acting director of the cia as well. hallie jackson at the white house, kasie hunt, i know we'll get her, also bill, "weekly standard," joan walsh, charlie sykes, thank you for joining me for that quick ten minutes. that wraps things up for me. i'm katy tur. kate snow picks things up with a full hour, we promise. >> yes, thank you so much. hello to you. i'm kate snow. here are our top stories at this hour. it is full speed ahead for republicans on the hill. work has started now on modifying their obamacare replacement plan, but it is far from a sure thing. coming up, the faxes inside the gop, each fighting for their own si

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Arkansas , West Bank , Alabama , China , Virginia , Syria , Washington , Russia , Seattle , Mexico , Israel , North Korea , Maryland , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , South Korea , Americans , America , Mexican , Syrian , Russian , Russians , American , Dave Boyer , Nancy Pelosi , Ronald Reagan , Sean Spicer , Jon Walsh , Cedric Richmond , Hallie Jackson , Janet Yellen , Al Qaeda , Charlie Sykes , Joan Walsh , John Podesta , Heidi Cruz , Hillary Clinton , Elijah Cummings , John Mclaughlin ,