Return to Transcripts main page


Sean Spicer Delivers the White House Briefing. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired March 22, 2017 - 14:00   ET


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: -- the investigation be conducted and that people gather up information.


What they have and to what extent, we'll know soon.

QUESTION: Sean, I have a series of questions on the topic. When (inaudible) the mother of Eric Garner (ph) met with an official in the White House yesterday, what is -- she is looking for fairness and justice in her son's case. What should be expect to come out of that meeting, with this White House official? Should there be a push to make sure that there is an indictment of the police officers?

SPICER: I don't think -- that's a Department of Justice question, and I think I would -- I mean for us to get involved in a case -- a specific case would be highly inappropriate, in terms of trying to guess what the outcome of a case should be.

QUESTION: Well along that line, the official according to Ms. Carr (ph), reached out to the Department of Justice's civil rights division, had the wrong number, called another department and had the right number. Now in previous administrations, to include the Obama administration and other administrations, the department of Justice had limited the numbers of people to call over to the Department of Justice. Has the Attorney General -- this Attorney General Sessions, changed that memo? What has he done ...

SPICER: Well it would have to be reissued, that's a separate issue. In terms of every Attorney General issues a memo, going back to, I think Mukazy (ph) was the first one that maybe -- post Watergate, I'm trying to remember who issued the first one. But has been a practice of -- I think almost every attorney General to issue a memo spelling out the procedures that officials in the Justice Department contact the White House and who they can contact and the nature of which and what their exceptions are et cetera.

Those memos get crafted by each administration, by each new Attorney General. I would refer you back to the -- to the Department of Justice on the status of that under this Attorney General.

QUESTION: So how many officials here have that right to call the Department of Justice? Even ...

SPICER: I don't know the answer ...

QUESTION: Even ask for a call ...

SPICER: ... I would -- I would refer you to the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: But is there -- was there wrong doing in this effort to ...

SPICER: I don't -- I don't know. I don't know the nature of -- I'll have to look into what you're asking, but I would again refer you back to the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: Yes thank you Sean. I have two quick questions. Last November President Trump dismissed reports, he was trying to obtain security clearances for his Children as quote a typically false news story. Now there are reports Ivanka Trump is indeed attempting to obtain a clearance. What changed there?

SPICER: Well at the time it was not true. I mean, she wasn't obtaining a security clearance. So it was not accurate then as you -- there was no -- I think we addressed it during the transition. And official had actually just inquired, there was no actual attempt at the time. The official in question was removed from the transition team. They had merely made in inquiry into what it would take to get an SF-86 process moving forward.

No paperwork was ever drawn. No account was opened and that official was let go. At this time, as I mentioned yesterday, Ivanka has decided to go above and beyond and act in certain ways to ensure that she complies with certain rules by maintaining the Federal Records Act, being -- getting a Security Clearance so that if she is privy to any information that is classified, she has to abide by the same rules and regulations, in terms of being in a room and how it's handled, et cetera. We've taken appropriate measure to do that. I mention the statement yesterday and we'll stick by it.

John (ph)?

QUESTION: Second question on Paul Ryan's report.

QUESTION: The Associated Press has a published a report based on documents that he had a plan to quote-unquote, "Benefit" Vladimir Putin for a client. And looking back at the headlines, I'm just wondering if you still stand by the comment that yeah, the quote- unquote, "limited role" on the campaign? And if you could explain a little bit more about how spend months as the campaign's top official is a limited role.

SPICER: Yeah, thank you. I've tried to avoid commenting, I think -- I know I've talked to a lot of you about the individual stories on -- but I think obviously, this one started to catch a lot of buzz. So, to comment briefly on this, I think nothing in this morning's report references any actions by the President, the White House or any Trump Administration official. I think that's got to be clear from the get go.

The report is entirely focused on actions that Paul took a decade ago regarding -- he's a former adviser of the campaign, and the actions that came to light this morning are about a client that he had last decade. I know I commented on this the other day and clearly, I should have been more precise with respect to Paul's role, so let me clarify this and kind of go through the facts.

Paul was over -- Paul was hired to oversee the campaigns delicate operation. He had played a significant role in the convention and delegate operations of four previous Republican nominees, Bob Dole, former President's George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. And to be clear, he got the job done on the delegates.

The President won the Republican nomination after months of speculation, after a potentially contested contest convention. In total, he was involved in the campaign for a total of just under five months. He was first hired on March 28th to oversee delegate operations. He was made the Chief Strategist and campaign Chairman on May 19th, and his relationship with the campaign ended on August 19th.

The AP story focuses on his activities from the last decade and they're placing context -- Paul represented many foreign clients, according to publicly available data in the Caribbean, Asia, Africa and Europe. His representation of foreign clients is public, and is similar to the work of Tony Podesta, a Clinton campaign fundraiser, whose brother John, Chaired Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Last year, not last decade, Tony Podesta lobbied against sanctions for Russia's largest bank. And John Podesta, Clinton's campaign Chair sat on the Board of a Russian-based Energy Company. This was something tied to Hillary Clinton, who was the face of the failed Russia reset policy. So, it's not even close -- that's -- what we're talking about now isn't even close to her most significant role, with respect to Russia. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, along with the Obama Administration approved a deal that gave Russia one-fifth of America's uranium reserves. Hillary's husband, former President Bill Clinton, received over half-a-million dollars by a paid speech by a bank connected to the uranium deal. And Vladimir Putin personally called the former President and thanked him for giving the speech.

So, an individual who worked for less than -- the campaign, for five months -- for the President's two-year long campaign, who worked with a Russian entity a decade ago, is the subject of rampant media speculation all day long. Even though the Clinton's had much more expensive -- extensive ties. Well, as Secretary of State, Hillary was crafting a policy she said was designed to quote, "strengthen Russia".

And to be clear, the President has no personal or financial dealings with Russia. He has ties are limited to hosting a contest in Russia once in selling a Palm Beach home to a businessman in 2005 and that's it.

At a former members -- for members of the media trying to conflate Paul's role and activities with Monday's hearing, I have another reminder. Numerous individuals, including former Obama Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper and acting CIA director Mike Morrell and members of the Intelligence Committee from both parties who have been briefed have said across the board that they have seen zero evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. And that's not gonna be changed by a former business dealings of a -- of a campaign staffer from a decade ago.

QUESTION: So, Sean...


SPICER: Sarah?

QUESTION: Thanks, Sean. Do you and another senior administration officials have stopped (ph) to assure skeptical Republican lawmakers that phase two of these regulatory modifications will address some of their concerns? So, what is Secretary Tom Price (ph) waiting for? Why not roll out phase two now if the vote is looking like it's going to be a very close margin?

SPICER: I think in some of those cases, the -- the -- and it's tied to the -- there -- it's all one package. And that's why I think you saw some of the stuff he is working on -- some of the stuff he is doing. But I think the important piece is to get the phase one part of it done. He has assured them and talked to 'em about different administrative actions.

Again, part of this is sequencing. I mean, it's the same way that in Obamacare they didn't just have Kathleen Sebelius then go out and start implementing things. They passed the bill through the reconciliation process, got that done, then she did the administration piece -- administrative piece, rather. We're doing the same process because of how it has to -- how some of the sequencing has to occur. And then the same thing in the legislative front.

We've introduced in the House all those pieces of legislation have been down. Leader McCarthy has started to talk about them that do all of the prong three stuff. So, a lot of it is coming together. But part of it is, is a sequencing aspect that -- that needs to get taken care of. But we are moving in the right direction.

Can I go to John DePetro for the first question on Skype?

QUESTION: Yes. Good afternoon, Sean. From UAVJ (ph) in Newport.

Sean, what do you (inaudible) -- lot of members of the media say that President Trump must (ph) be the president for all of the (ph) people (ph). What does the president say (inaudible) artist (ph) ship (ph) (inaudible)?

Yesterday, you had live (ph) at the Senate (ph) self (ph) White House grandstanding at the confirmation hearing who had Elizabeth Warren (inaudible) was a hearing with (ph) a big piece and Boston Globe condemning the nation (ph) good (ph) Rhode Island governor Gina Raimondo, point (ph) five (ph) (inaudible) whilst (ph) contained (ph) fundraise around the country. What does the president say (ph) to frustrated from supporters don't feel they're getting (inaudible) representation of the local level and in Congress?

SPICER: Well, I mean, I -- I think with respect to Judge Gorsuch, which is I think what you're -- I'm pretty clear that's where you're headed on this.


SPICER: Thank -- I -- I just -- I mean, we've gotten -- when you look at the praise, I mean obviously, I'd love for it to be universal. And while we've gotten bipartisan praise from pundits and former law clerks from both -- both parties, high -- high number of jurists and former -- you know, people -- legal scholars, members of Congress.

You know, we're not gonna win everybody. And I -- I think that Democrats have tried to score some points on the committee. They've largely fallen by the wayside. And, you know, we -- we've seen very high praise for him.

So, I -- I would just suggest that anybody who's got a problem with 'em, you know, I -- I -- I'd love to hear it. Because so far, most of the issue -- no one seems to have a problem with his academic credentials, his record, or anything else. So, I -- I just -- you know, I'm -- I'm pretty buoyed by a lot of what we've seen come out of Capitol Hill with (inaudible). Blake?

QUESTION: Sean, thanks. You said (inaudible) House Freedom Caucus that there were not there, and if there weren't (ph), there are at least 2,000 or so who are known. So, how do you get from this point right now policy wise to tomorrow something, anything that -- that maybe might be looked at?

SPICER: I think we're doing it. I mean, we -- we -- piece by piece, member by member we're getting there and we're getting much closer.

The last couple days we've continued to do that. And not just -- but then today alone I mentioned a couple of the other members. Slowly but surely we're getting there. And I feel confident that when the vote comes up we'll have the votes.

QUESTION: Let me ask you, today Patrick McHenry, Congressman, Deputy Whip, described the president as members of Congress were coming in here to the White House, as the closer. Do you embrace ...

SPICER: He is the closer.

QUESTION: Do you embrace that label here as it relates to health care?

SPICER: Absolutely.


QUESTION: (Inaudible). You just seem that you're confident that the health care bill will pass tomorrow. I want to get a sense of how confident you are. I don't know if you want to rate it, put a percentage on it? Like, how confident are you that the bill will pass? And if it doesn't pass, is there a plan B? Like if there's ...

SPICER: No, there is no plan B. This is -- there's a plan A and plan A. We're going to get this done.

QUESTION: And so you're confident? A hundred percent confident?

SPICER: We're going to get it done. That's it. Plain and simple.

(Sean) ?

QUESTION: Thanks, Sean. I know you said you didn't know what information you're going to find out today from Chairman Nunes, but my question for you is, when did the president know about this surveillance that the Congressman brought up today on Capitol Hill? He spoke late last week about -- we'd find out more information that would support these wire tapping claims. Is this the information he was talking about? SPICER: Until Chairman Nunes briefs him, we don't know what he knows versus what the president's been made aware of. And so how that -- how that jives, I don't know. I hope to have more for you later.

QUESTION: A quick follow up on health care. And just to quick follow up on Aisha (ph), does the president believe the health care bill will pass the House tomorrow?



QUESTION: Two questions on Paul Manafort. Did the president know that he had worked to advance Putin's interests previous to becoming the campaign chairman?

SPICER: No, the president was not aware of Paul's clients from the last decade.

QUESTION: But (inaudible) a problem. Like, you know, now that all this is coming out, and ...

SPICER: Yes, but what is coming up? What else don't we know? I mean where he went to school, what grades he got, who he played with in the sandbox?

QUESTION: We didn't know that Michael Flynn was ...

SPICER: Okay, thanks, Peter. We're -- I'm having a -- I'm answering a question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

SPICER: No you're not, actually.


SPICER: The answer to your question is, I think to talk about someone having a client from 10 years ago that had a consulting company with clients from around the world ...

QUESTION: Got paid millions of dollars (inaudible) person's interest.

(CROSSTALK) SPICER: I don't know what he got paid to -- if you listen to what Paul ...

QUESTION: Well the document said ...

SPICER: Hold on. I understand. I'm going to answer your question if you give me a second. That he was a consultant. He had clients from around the world. There is no suggestion that he did anything improper or -- but to suggest that the president knew who his clients were from a decade ago, is a bit insane. There is not -- he was not a government employee, he didn't fill out any paperwork attesting to something. There is nothing that he did that suggested, at this point, that anything was nefarious. He was hired to do a job. He did it. That's it. Plain and simple.

QUESTION: I'm just saying, given that it was such a focus -- and you brought up just then, with Hillary Clinton, that these were corrupt arrangements and that the Clinton Foundation was described as a criminal enterprise, and there was all this discussion of Russia. And you ...

SPICER: There's a big difference between ...

QUESTION: I understand, I'm not ...

SPICER: ... there were dollars -- hold on ...

QUESTION: I'm not (complaining) the president. I'm just asking, is he disappointed now that he's found this out? That there was ...

SPICER: Found out what, (Jonathan)? That he had a client ...

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a lot of money ...

SPICER: ... over a -- in the past decade, he had a client and you're worried about what? That he held -- I mean ...



SPICER: I don't know what work he was doing? So to suggest that just because he had a client in the past decade that no one's suggesting was anything improper. He was hired to count delegates, which is what he did. And he was successful at it, as he had done for George Herbert Walker Bush, Gerald Ford and Bob Dole. He was hired to do a job and he did it. And he did it fine. So ...

Steven (ph)?

QUESTION: Why did the president fire Paul Manafort? (Inaudible).

SPICER: Well for two reasons. One is I think that there were some issues coming up with -- with his ties to Ukraine that were becoming a distraction. And secondly, he was, I think, 16 points down at the time. And he was down to 20s in women and I think the president recognized that he needed to make a change for those two reasons.

QUESTION: If -- as confident and as optimistic as you are, if at this point tomorrow, you don't have the magic number, should the speaker pull the bill from the floor...

SPICER: This is it. If you're -- if you want to see Obamacare repealed and replaced, this is the vote, this is the time to act, this is what people have told the American people is going to happen. This vote needs to happen. If you're waiting for your chance, this is it. We need to act. Cheryl. (ph)

QUESTION: Thank you. Wall Street appears to be getting a little nervous about the possibility of tax reform this year. Can you say definitively that the president will present a package of tax reforms this year?

SPICER: Yes. Darlene. (ph)

QUESTION: What time is the president (inaudible)

SPICER: I don't -- I was walking out as the chairman was reiterating (ph). I literally heard him on the streaming, like on the -- you know, his comments as he was saying them. So I don't know that it was scheduled. The president was on the -- wrapping up a call with Prime Minister May at the time that I walked out so I don't know what was scheduled.

QUESTION: And was there any consideration given to not meeting with the chairman given the...

SPICER: I don't know. I just know what the chairman said he was doing. I walked out of here before anything had been finalized. He was still wrapping up the call with Theresa May at the time. Zeke. (ph)

QUESTION: You said the president's disclosed her (ph) there's no plan b. Tomorrow is it. So if ...

SPICER: You've done a very good job, Zeke.


QUESTION: So if tomorrow night's outcome doesn't go your way, if the vote fails, what should we then read into the president's ability to negotiate and close deals, the White House's ability to plan any sort of legislation, handle legislative...

SPICER: Look, and I know what you're trying to get me to -- but I feel -- we feel very good about the trajectory of this. Members continue to come with us. The number's going higher and higher, not lower and lower so the trajectory is great. As I mentioned, everybody's out there, full-court press on this and this is the opportunity for anybody who wants to see this done.

But I just want to be clear. We have a robust agenda. Tax reform, as I just mentioned, trade, immigration, there's a lot of other things that need to get done and I think there's continued to be widespread support. In a lot of cases, bi-partisan support for the president's agenda and so we're going to roll on in that but we feel very good about where we are now. Mark.

QUESTION: I was going ask in terms of after vote tomorrow night, for those republicans who decide to not support the White House, what kind of relationship, any changes in the relationship would they see going forward? Would they see going forward -- would they expect to see maybe a primary challenge later on or is this one of those things where they can vote their conscience if they really believe this is the bill?

SPICER: I think -- we're obviously -- we believe that this is a great opportunity to achieve the principles that we laid out to the American people. I don't -- we're not looking -- this is not -- the president made clear yesterday when he visited with the conference, he's not there to threaten them, he's just there to explain the political landscape to them and to explain that -- I think that when you keep your promise no matter what business you're in, you tend to be rewarded by -- whether it's your customers, your friends, your family, your voters, that -- Washington for too long has suffered a deficit of trust and that we made very clear to the American people if you gave us this opportunity, this honor to govern that we would get certain things done and this was at the top of that list.

And this bill represents the best chance of repealing and replacing Obamacare and instilling a patient-centric health care system that increases choice and lowers cost and that this is the only train leaving the station.

Jonathan --


QUESTION: Sean, would then-candidate Donald Trump have hired Paul Manafort to such (ph) an important and prominent position in his campaign if he had known that he had had a $10 million contract with somebody so close to Vladimir Putin to quote, greatly benefit the Putin government? If he had known that, would he have hired him?

SPICER: I don't know. I don't want to -- Paul was hired, as I said, to count delegates. That's why he was brought in, as he had been, for George W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole. He did his job. That's what he's there for.

QUESTION: And to (ph) run the campaign. He was Chairman of the campaign.

SPICER: No, no. After -- after what, May 19 or something. But again, I'm not going to --

QUESTION: And to run the convention. I mean, you'll acknowledge, it was a very prominent role.

SPICER: Yes. And -- as he had done for the other three. He had held very significant -- look, so again, you're basically saying, hey, the work that he did, he had a client a decade ago, would he have -- I don't know the answer to that --

QUESTION: (inaudible) to promote the interests of Vladimir Putin --

SPICER: I don't -- the answer to your question, I don't know. To look back right now and to say, if we knew now what we know then (sic), would we have done things different? I don't know. That's a question that the President would have to weigh at the time.

QUESTION: He definitely didn't know?


QUESTION: You're saying he didn't know?

SPICER: No. He did not -- of course not. To suggest that -- that's like -- you can think about how many people are involved in a campaign of some sort. And granted, in this campaign, it was run lean and mean. But to suggest that everybody knew everybody's background -- did they pay their taxes, how much did they pay, what deduction did they take, who did they work for in the past --

QUESTION: Shouldn't he have (ph) disclosed that, if he --

SPICER: Disclose what? That he had done --

QUESTION: He worked on behalf of an adversary to the United States.

SPICER: Again, I'm not here to vouch for what he did or how -- I don't know. But I'm just -- I don't --


QUESTION: -- would want to know, wouldn't he?

SPICER: Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what the circumstances were at the time, and I don't know what exactly were (ph). So for me to start to infer that what he did or did not do was anything improper is not appropriate at this time. I don't know what work he did. I know what he was hired to do, and he did his job.

Shane (ph) --

QUESTION: I want to ask about Paul Manafort here, too. Saying he wasn't --


QUESTION: Are you saying he wasn't disappointed to learn in the last 24 hours --

SPICER: I don't know. I haven't asked the --


SPICER: No, no. Because again, you're -- I don't know, because the story that came out this morning said that he had had this client, Paul's put out a statement that suggested this is what he did, this is how he handled it, there were -- you've all read the same -- we have not spent a ton of time going to investigate what he did for that client a decade ago -- I really have not discussed with the President with -- I know what he's made very clear. He hired him to do a job, he did the job well, he got him over the finish line. On August 19, he was let go in the campaign for the reasons that I have mentioned.

QUESTION: (inaudible) Paul Manafort played any role in the hiring of any people in the federal government after the election?

SPICER: Not to my knowledge at all.

John --

QUESTION: Thank you, Sean. Going back to the American Healthcare Act, there was always nervousness that moving too quickly on it would leave some very dangerous points in the details. Several publications, including Sarah's, reported today that as a result of a change of a few words, veterans, who benefited from a program called Veterans Affairs, or had the option of getting tax credits, would now get neither under the new legislation, and that 7 million veterans would be cost healthcare. Is the administration following this and is it urging Congress to do anything about it?

SPICER: Most veterans get their healthcare through Tricare or through Medicare if they're over 65 or a combination thereof, correct?

QUESTION: And it's -- well, but there's two programs. One is the Veterans Affairs program, and the other is the options, under the current law, to have tax credits. And my understanding, again, from Sarah's publication this morning and several others is that 7 million veterans could possibly lose both under this program.

SPICER: I'd have to follow up with you. I'm not aware of any modifications to TRICARE in particular that would have that effect.

QUESTION: On Monday, the president accused former President Obama and Democrats of rushing through a healthcare law, jamming it through when in fact they actually debated it for about a year. This healthcare law was rolled out about 15 days ago so don't you run the risk of rushing this through, of not giving it enough time for public debate?

SPICER: I think Republicans have talked about repealing and replacing Obamacare since 2010. We've campaigned on it in every election since. The principles that are in a lot of these have been very public for a long time.

QUESTION: Understood but you just rolled out the specifics, Sean. You just rolled out...

SPICER: ...And it's gone through three committees, two of which had unanimous Republican support.

QUESTION: These committees (ph).

SPICER: I understand that but we're working it through the process. This was something the president campaigned on, told the American people would be his top priority, Republicans who ran for the House and Senate said it'll be a top priority. It's something that he talked about for seven years, Kristen (ph), so to suggest that we're rushing anything, I think we've done this very, very, very deliberately and very responsibly to make sure that people can read it.

Again, with all due respect to the folks who tackled this in the past, we actually put the bill online, let everyone in the entire world read it, didn't jam it through and, to quote Former Speaker Pelosi, say "if you want to read the bill, wait till we pass it." We actually let it - let the American people and the entire world read what was in it, watch the process occur, and I think that is a much more open and transparent process.

QUESTION: Let me just ask you a quick question about the terror attack. You said that the president's been briefed. He also spoke with Prime Minister Theresa May. Can you give us any more information about who may have been behind it? And should Americans have any concern about various security changes (ph)...

SPICER: ...It would be highly irresponsible at this point. I know the British government is investigating this as an act of terrorism at this moment so for me to sort of get out ahead of - I know our homeland security team and our national security team are in contact with them. Secretary Tillerson's issued a statement, as has homeland security Secretary Kelly. So we are continuing to monitor the situation, we're in touch with officials in the British government. As I mentioned as I was walking out here, the president was finishing up a call with Prime Minister May and so we'll try to have an additional readout to you to the extent that that's possible. But we're going to provide the assistance we can to the British government to help get to the bottom of this.

At this time, it would be highly irresponsible for us to get out in front of British officials.

QUESTION: You mentioned that there is no Plan B, that Plan A is the only vehicle, the only train leaving the station, I believe you said. Does that mean that if the plan fails, if the bill fails, will the president move on to other issues he's concerned about like trade and leave Obamacare in place? And if so, how long is he comfortable leaving it in place?

SPICER: Well, as I mentioned, we're not going to leave it in place because we're going to repeal and replace it tomorrow, move it through the Senate, and the president will sign the bill. We continue to see the enthusiasm and momentum coming to our direction so I don't - I'm not looking - as I mentioned, we're not looking at a Plan B. We have Plan A, it's going to pass, we're going to go from there.

QUESTION: Talk about China for a moment. Do you know of the ability of the formally announced debates (inaudible)?

SPICER: I do not, not at this time.

QUESTION: Why not? SPICER: Because that's not how it works. You don't just to ask...


...because that's something that we continue to work with President Xi and the Chinese government to coordinate the final dates and times. And then obviously we coordinate the announcement with them as well. But trust me, when we're ready, we'll let you and everyone else know.

QUESTION: Are you going to be prepared to talk about the parameters of the bilateral relationship at that time?

SPICER: I'm sure - my guess is there will be a lot to discuss at that time.

QUESTION: Has the president asked the FBI director or the NSA or any other agencies involved to come here to the White House and brief him on this new information or is it just the intel chair? And if so, why not?

SPICER: Well Jeff, it just happened. So it's a silly question, literally as I'm walking out here when the Chairman was wrapping up an event saying that he is announcing that he is coming down here.

It's not like we picked up the phone and then called everyone else. The first step is to actually hear what he has to say. And to find out who else he briefed, where's he got that information from, and then we'll take the next steps going forward.

QUESTION: Is this the first of several meetings...?

SPICER: I don't know.


SPICER: It's literally - it literally just happened as I was walking out here. So to suggest that other steps have occurred, until the briefing occurs, I - we'll see what this leads to. Sincerely, I don't.

QUESTION: What's the state of it's credibility tonight? The Wall Street Journal which has been very supportive of his candidacy and agenda simply raised a question that he is not a doing very well and may the city - could be on the verge of being a fake president. What do you believe the state of credibility is as we sit here today and we go on?

SPICER: I think the President has made several promises to the American people, and he's kept them. He's appointed Gorsuch as the judge, which was 1 of 20 people on a list. We withdrew from the Trans- Pacific Partnership. He established a five year lobbying ban and a foreign ban on lifetime, which is all what he said he was going to do.

He's said he was gong to cut regulations, and he did that. He said that he was going to start to bring back jobs, he did that. He said that he was going to start to pay real attention and respect tax payers bringing down cost, he's already done that. He's backed a plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare. We've talked about Adnazium(ph).

He's talked about putting forth a budget that puts defense first, he did that. He took action on Dakota and Keystone Pipeline, he did that. I think when it comes to the President making promises to the American people and keeping them, he's got a pretty high record of doing it.


QUESTION: Do you mind if I could ask you about the conversations we've been having about Paul Manafort, specifics of Paul Manafort. What do you - Michael Flynn's name came up at the time having not registered as a foreign agent, there was a lot of focus on the betting process that goes into individuals.

Back then, you said, "We trust people to fill out the appropriate forms that they need to, he has been very," referring to the president, "he has been very committed to making sure we institute high standards and we're held to them." So given your words, is it sufficient to trust the information that the people you hire give you? And can you say with certainty right now that there isn't body else that's working in the interest of other foreign government, working for this government right now?

SPICER: Yes, it's a good question Peter, because there's a big difference between working for a campaign or for entity where there's no forms to file. When you worked with the United States government, especially here in the White House, you fill out a (audio gap) clearance form, you fill out an employment form that asks certain questions under the penalty of law.

Those questions - Hold on.

QUESTION: Still got through I guess.

SPICER: No, well but again he filled out forms, under the penalty of law. I don't know what was on his forms and what not was on his forms. Remember with the president let him go for, was not being truthful to the vice president, not necessarily was on a form. Which I do not know what he filled out or did not fill out.