Return to Transcripts main page


Interview With Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin; White House Press Briefing. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired February 13, 2018 - 15:00   ET



QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) suggested that would be changed.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And they would be the ones that make that determination and play a role in what those changes would look like.


QUESTION: Sarah, are you saying that -- on four different occasions FBI recently said that it made the White House aware of the allegations and the White House said -- official said that until Tuesday night they did not realize the extent of the allegations. Should someone at the FBI or the Personnel Security Office be punished for not telling White House officials? How could those two things be?

SANDERS: That's something that would be well beyond my scope to determine, Josh.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) they weren't told. And if everyone knew, but no one in the senior staff found out, are your guys upset about that?

SANDERS: I -- I haven't asked them about that specifically.


QUESTION: Thanks, Sarah.

Raj the other day said -- last week -- that the situation could have been handled better. Yesterday you echoed that and said the situation could have been handled better. Today the chief of staff said it was all done right.

Can you explain, does the White House think this Rob Porter could have been handled differently or do you guys think this was all done right?

SANDERS: Look, as I said yesterday, I think every day we come here, we do the very best that we can, and every day we can do better than the day before and we're going to continue to strive for that.

We're humans, making us imperfect people, and so every day I think we can learn from the day before and we can strive to do better. And that's our goal, certainly within our team. And we're going to continue to try to do everything we can to help serve the American people to the best of our ability.

QUESTION: Was it appropriate for Hope Hicks to be involved in drafting some of these statements, given her relationship with Mr. Porter?

SANDERS: She was not part of a lot of the conversations that took place. I don't recall any you being in the room to be able to say specifically what comments she made or didn't make.

She's the White House communications director and is an important and valuable member of the staff and she has done a great job in that role.


QUESTION: Was there some discussion here about promoting Rob Porter to another job at the time this all blew up?

SANDERS: Not that I'm aware of. I just -- I don't know that answer to that.

Jeff (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, you said that -- the FBI has said it was completed in late July, but you said a follow-up required more field work on that. Was that because something that Rob Porter said in response to that, that the allegations weren't true? Or what required more field work follow-up?

SANDERS: I wouldn't know the specifics. I can only refer you back to the previous statement.


QUESTION: (inaudible) ask you again, though, in an op-ed this morning in The Washington Post, the first wife of Rob Porter said specifically of you, "I expected a woman to do better."

Based on what you know, do you believe you were personally misled? And do you have any regret for how you have explained this to the American people?

SANDERS: Look, as I said, we do the very best job we can every single day.

I would never presume to understand anything going on with that individual, nor would I think that she could presume what's going on with me or the way that I'm responding.

Look, we've condemned domestic violence in every way possible. In fact, the president's budget that he released yesterday fully funds the Violence Against Woman Act. We're looking for ways that we can take action to help prevent this from ever happening to anyone.

And to presume that I feel differently is simply a very strong mischaracterization of -- of who I am, and who this White House is, and what our actions are focused on, and what we're trying to do here. QUESTION: If I could ask one more -- where...

SANDERS: Sorry, I'm going to keep moving to...

QUESTION: ...where does John Kelly stand as we sit here today, in terms of if the president has confidence in him, why does he have confidence in him based on everything we've learned over the last week?

SANDERS: Look, I don't have anything further to add.

The president has confidence in his chief of staff. We're going to continue trying to do the best we can to help the American people.


QUESTION: So a clarification and a question.

In July, when the FBI was sent back into the field to get more information, are you telling us that no senior staff, not Don McGahn, not Joe Higgin, not John Kelly -- nobody in the senior staff in the West Wing was involved in that decision to tell them to go back and see if they could get more information on (inaudible)?

SANDERS: Again, I can -- not that I'm aware of. I can't say with 100 percent certainty, but not that I'm aware of -- of any conversations between those individuals.

QUESTION: Have you -- are you looking at, now, ways that you could change the process, so that if a senior official in the White House is facing credible allegations of spousal abuse or some other criminal charge, that senior staff would be notified in a more timely way?

I mean, this appears to have, if your timeline is accurate, taken more than a year.

SANDERS: Look, again, I think that this is a process that the law enforcement and intelligence community should weigh in on and determine if changes should be made to the way that it's carried out.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I'm not talking about their process, I'm talking about the process here, where an investigation, where serious allegations could surface, and that nobody in the West Wing would be aware of that (inaudible).

SANDERS: But that would include those agencies and those departments, so you couldn't exclude them from a conversation about what changes should and need to be made to any program.

I think that that would have to be something that involved all of the stakeholders and something, certainly, far beyond my purview to walk you through today.

QUESTION: Sarah, just following up on what Julie was asking, you're saying that law enforcement should weigh in, but you're the White House, you're in charge and this is your process. Should you not weigh in and...

SANDERS: It's actually not our process. A lot -- a large number of the background component is run by the FBI; other intelligence agencies weigh in.

Again, what I said is that all of the stakeholders should be part of that discussion, and it should be looked at and determined whether or not changes need to be made to the process.

QUESTION: Given that it -- it impacts the White House staff, do you not want to request an improved process here?

SANDERS: Again, that would go beyond my scope that I could walk you through here today. But I think it's certainly a conversation that all of those stakeholders should have.


QUESTION: Sarah, a couple questions.

In light of everything that's going on, is there a review now, an internal review, of all of those who have interim security clearances to see if they should stay or should they go?

SANDERS: I can't speak about whether or not different staff have interim or permanent security clearances...

QUESTION: I'm not asking about the (inaudible). I'm asking about the process.

Is there a review of those who have interim passes to see if they're going to stay or they're going to go, because -- in light of what's happening now?

SANDERS: My understanding is that has been ongoing for awhile. And that determination would be made outside of anything I can walk you through at this point.

QUESTION: And you spoke of fully funding the Violence Against Women Act; it's up for reauthorization. Tell me the price, how much the president is trying to put in that. And was that the price prior to all of this that's happened, with these two people in the last week?

SANDERS: I'm sorry, I'm not following your question.

QUESTION: The budget. You said the president's going to fully fund the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that's up in March. How much -- what is he putting in his budget proposal (ph)?

SANDERS: I'd have to look at the specific number, but it was rolled out in the budget that was presented yesterday.

QUESTION: You've mentioned it but is the number the number that's always there or did -- was it just done (ph) -- what have -- you talk to us about the funding (ph)?

SANDERS: I know it was what -- that what was requested has been put into the president's budget.

QUESTION: When was it put in?

SANDERS: It was in the budget that was rolled out yesterday that's been part of the ongoing process.

QUESTION: We just got the budget (ph).

SANDERS: We don't write a budget, like, in 20 minutes, so it's been part of something that's been ongoing.

QUESTION: I understand that. I understand that. I understand that. But there's some things in that budget Mr. Mulvaney did not tell us about yesterday.

SANDERS: That means you probably didn't ask those questions.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

SANDERS: I'm going to keep going.

John (ph), go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) didn't give us an answer. He (inaudible) didn't give us that information.


QUESTION: Thanks a lot -- thanks a lot, Sarah.

I wanted to just get some clarification from you regarding the testimony -- the sworn testimony today by the FBI director, laid out the timeline. And according to the FBI director's testimony, the FBI submitted a partial report on the investigation in question, Rob Porter's background check, in March, and then a completed background investigation in late July.

Yesterday, when I was asking you about when the White House counsel learned about Mr. Porter, had he learned before the report in the Daily Mail last week, your reply to me was the process for the background was ongoing, and the White House had not received any specific papers regarding the completion of that background check.

So those two statements, Mr. -- the FBI director's statement, Mr. Wray, and your statement yesterday, seem to be at odds with one another. Do you see anything that you'd like to clarify, in terms of what I asked you today, based upon your answer yesterday?


As I said earlier, my understanding is any information would have gone to the Personnel Security Office. That office had not completed their process in order to make a recommendation for adjudication to the White House. That was still ongoing, and therefore a recommendation had not been made.

QUESTION: You said the specific papers regarding the completion of the background check had not been received.

SANDERS: That's part of that process that the White House Personnel Security Office plays, run by career officials. And we hadn't received a recommendation from that office.

QUESTION: Yes, yet the FBI director said today, under oath, that the completed background investigation was actually submitted in late July. So which one is it?

SANDERS: As I -- let me read this to you again.

The White House Personnel Security Office, staffed by career officials, received information last year, and what they considered to be the final background investigation report in November. But they had not made a final recommendation for adjudication to the White House because the process was still ongoing when Porter resigned.

In the view of Personnel Security Office, the FBI's July report required significant additional investigatory fieldwork before Personnel Security Office could begin to evaluate the information for adjudication.

We find those statements to be consistent with one another.



QUESTION: ... Mr. McGahn...

SANDERS: Sorry, John (ph), I really (inaudible)...


QUESTION: ... come out here and answer any questions that we might have regarding what he knew and when he knew it?

QUESTION: Sarah, you've said repeatedly that you and the (inaudible) you can to relay whatever information you know up there.

So is there a feeling that Chief of Staff John Kelly has misled you and his colleagues on what he knew and when, and set up the communications staff for failure to relay critical information to us over the past week, in order to cover up the way that he handled the firing of Rob Porter?

SANDERS: No. We're simply stating that we're giving you the best information that we're going to have.

Obviously, the press team's not going to be as read-in, maybe, as some other elements at a given moment on a variety of topics. But we relay the best and most accurate information that we have, and we get those from those individuals.

(CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Can you just talk about the other -- can you just talk about the other staffers who have been dismissed previously for not passing background checks, and why Porter wasn't treated in a similarly timely manner?

SANDERS: My understanding is, the same process was followed for all employees, and it's the same process that was used in previous administrations. And I -- I can't comment on anybody else's dismissal.


QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah.

You've talked multiple times about (inaudible) the best information that you have. This scandal has been going on for a week now, and we still don't have answers to the basic questions of, sort of, who knew what when, whether General John Kelly....


SANDERS: I've -- I've done the best I can to walk you through that process, as has Raj. We've done that pretty extensively, and I'd refer you back to all of the statements we've given.

QUESTION: So I wanted to ask you whether you've spoken specifically to General John Kelly and to the White House counsel to ask them these questions. Because you've said "I'm not aware," or "I'm not sure..."

SANDERS: I have. And this is the information that was given to me by those individuals.


QUESTION: House Speaker Paul Ryan, this morning on the Fox Business Network, said, "We've got to get out on entitlements." (inaudible) about structural deficit. (inaudible) he said, "we need to get our other partners in government, the White House included, to be willing to do the kind of entitlement reform that we're willing to do in the House."

QUESTION: What -- does the president disagree with House Speaker Paul Ryan on that question of the structural deficit, the -- and the problem of mandatory spending?

SANDERS: I would have to ask him specifically on that question.

I know the president certainly would like to reduce the deficit and it's one of the reasons that his budget -- this budget reduced the deficit by $3 trillion, which was one of the largest in history. And he's going to continue to look for ways to do that.

QUESTION: The speaker says that it's the structural deficit for mandatory spending, not -- not the discretionary spending that is the driver. And he's been saying this for years. Does the president disagree with him? I know he's said doesn't agree with that approach to entitlements. Why does he not agree with that assessment?

SANDERS: I'd have to ask him what the specifics are that he doesn't agree with him on.

Dave? We'll make this the last question.

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah.

Majority Leader McConnell said today that the DACA negotiations have to be done by the end of this week. Did he give the White House a head-up on that decision?

And does that reflect any view from the White House that Democrats are not bargaining in good faith? For example, they blocked a vote on sanctuary cities today.

SANDERS: Look, it's up to Congress to set the timeline.

The president has laid out the priorities that he has for that legislation and we're only going to support legislation that deals with those four priorities that we've laid out. We hope Republicans and Democrats can come together to a consensus to fix that problem and not kick the can down the road.

Thanks, guys.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, let's get quick reaction here.

David Chalian, our CNN political director, obviously, despite Elaine Chao coming out, Cabinet secretary, at the top, this was all about more and more fallout from this Rob Porter scandal.


B. BALDWIN: What was your initial takeaway?


Yes, the Chao appearance was not the news of that briefing. That's for sure.

B. BALDWIN: Yes. Yes.

CHALIAN: Here's my takeaway. I don't think I have ever seen White House a press secretary distance themselves so publicly from their superiors, like the chief of staff or the White House counsel.

On repeated attempts to get some clarity here, Sarah Sanders was asked time and again if, indeed, she believed that Kelly had information about the allegations against Porter, and all she could say is that she had to rely on the information she had at the time and that's the best they could do. Later on, she said the communications shop press people may not be

fully for things. We can only come out and say things when those other senior staffers brief us properly.

I just have never seen that kind of intrafamily White House fight aired so publicly from the podium. They are clearly not all on the same page inside that West Wing.

B. BALDWIN: OK, Maeve and Brian, stand by.

I want to get to our senator who has patiently standing by on Capitol Hill, Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, one of 12 Democrat senators who wrote Chief of Staff John Kelly and White House counsel Don McGahn requesting a timeline on when officials learned of Porter's abuse alleges.

Senator, timely time to be talking to you. Thank you so much for coming back.


B. BALDWIN: Let's just begin with the deputy chief of staff. That is the position -- according to our reporting and our sources, that's the position that the White House was seriously considering for Rob Porter before he upped and resigned.

And have learned this as the White House knew the FBI flagged concerns about Porter's security clearance, knowing Porter in some capacity was an alleged spousal abuser.


T. BALDWIN: Right.

B. BALDWIN: When you first that, Senator, what was your visceral reaction?

T. BALDWIN: Well, it's hard to believe.

And this story disturbs me on so many levels.


T. BALDWIN: First of all, the idea that spousal abuse was known about within the White House with regard to Rob Porter, and yet they kept him on for months and months, the fact that, right now, as this timeline is coming out, it is clear that the White House is not being truthful with the American people.

The stories that there are literally dozens of members of the White House staff that do not yet have their security clearances, that, too, is disturbing, because they may have access to highly classified information, as Mr. Porter did.

And last on my list is the fact that we saw the president introduce a budget and an infrastructure package that demands the public's attention also. And because they are so out of control in this White House, we're not focused on that. All of those things are so troubling.

B. BALDWIN: Yes. Let me get to infrastructure in just a bit.

But I have got to stay on this issue of Rob Porter.

T. BALDWIN: Yes. Yes.

B. BALDWIN: Because we know that President Trump today was asked, if he had a message for the survivors of domestic abuse, domestic violence at the end of this meeting he had today with law enforcement, and, Senator, he totally declined to take that question.

Why do you think the president will not send a strong message to women, and men, in this country?

T. BALDWIN: It just defies imagination.

And I have to think it's also about his own history and his own story. Lots of folks have been asking whether the chief of staff should resign. The real question to ask is, should the president fire him? And I think the answer is yes, if he wants to make a clearer statement on these deeply troubling ways in which this White House and this president is ignoring the voices of women.

B. BALDWIN: So, you think the president should fire John Kelly to send that message?


B. BALDWIN: With all the warnings from the FBI, listening to Christopher Wray today, with the two ex-wives, the ex-girlfriend, the restraining order, the photo of the black eye, is it even possible for the president to comment with sincerity now after so many calls to say something?

T. BALDWIN: Well, and certainly he did tweet something that was a step backwards, that was horrifying to those of us...

B. BALDWIN: Flew in the face of the MeToo movement...

T. BALDWIN: ... who know people who have been victims of sexual assault, of domestic abuse, harassment.

This is a step backwards for the president, in terms of tweeting about mere allegations. It's clear that he is not hearing or understanding the stories and realities of women across this country, and men, too.

B. BALDWIN: What did you make of Sarah Sanders' explanation just then, that they were waiting on guidance, that the FBI had I guess wrapped the investigation, but they were waiting on guidance from the White House Personnel Office on what to do about Porter?

T. BALDWIN: What sort of guidance do they need in this instance?


B. BALDWIN: Why do you think this White House doesn't listen to the FBI when it doesn't benefit them?

T. BALDWIN: Well, we have see an active campaign right now to undermine the credibility of one of the most highly regarded law enforcement agencies in this country.

You know, why didn't the president allow the Democratic memo to come out? There's lots of questions that are being raised. But, again, it's deeply troubling, where we find ourselves right now, both with regard to respecting and honoring the voices and experiences of women, but also with regard to the handling of highly classified information by White House staff that haven't received security clearance.

B. BALDWIN: Yes. On Porter and the fact that we know he was dating Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, she was asked if she was worried, the she being Kellyanne Conway, recently on TV asked if she was worried that Hicks might be or could ever be a victim as well.

And I want to play Kellyanne Conway's response to that.


KELLYANNE CONWAY, TRUMP SENIOR ADVISER: I'm very close to Hope Hicks. And I don't worry about her in that -- in that respect. I'm sorry for any suffering that this woman has endured.


But in the case of Hope, I have rarely met somebody so strong with such excellent -- excellent instincts and loyalty and smarts. I didn't have the presence of mind and the professional capabilities at her age that I see in her every single day.

TAPPER: She's definitely strong, but strong women get abused too. It's just not weak women.

CONWAY: Oh, many women get abused, no question. And let me agree with you on that.

There's a stigma of silence surrounding all of these issues.


B. BALDWIN: Still, you heard her original statement.

And what -- one of Porter's ex-wives, Colbie Holderness, jumped on that. And part of her response in this "Washington Post" opinion piece, let me just read this briefly, Senator.

"Borrowing Conway's words," she writes, "I have no reason not to believe her when she says that Hicks is a strong women, but her statement implies that those who have been in abusive relationships are not strong. I beg to differ." What do you think of that?

T. BALDWIN: I beg to differ also.

I heard those words, as reported, and thought exactly the same thing. And the suggestion that this is about strength of women is really ill- advised.

The other thing I would say is that sadly too seldom -- or let me rephrase that -- it's sadly seldom that domestic abusers only act in one instance or one time only. Obviously, what we're hearing about two ex-wives of Mr. Porter suggest that that's the case with him. And that's another thing that we should know.

B. BALDWIN: Senator, I wanted to ask about infrastructure and immigration.

T. BALDWIN: Let's do that.


B. BALDWIN: I know you have a tight schedule. I know you have to go.

But can we talk again, Senator Tammy Baldwin? I really appreciate your voice and you speaking up on these issues.

T. BALDWIN: Well, I appreciate it.

I just want to put one quick comment on infrastructure.

B. BALDWIN: Please. Please.

T. BALDWIN: Because this is obviously something that affects all of our constituencies.

The president put out a plan yesterday. After running for his entire campaign on buy America, hire America, there's not one mention about that. And I was appalled to see that.

He said in the State of the Union, with American hands, American heart, and American grit. And I expected to see a commitment to using American products and American workers in this $1.5 trillion infrastructure package.

I am appalled not to. And we're going to fight to make sure that our infrastructure commitment includes a buy America commitment.

B. BALDWIN: Senator Tammy Baldwin, thank you so much.

T. BALDWIN: Thank you.

B. BALDWIN: Thank you.

Let me bring my panel back.

And, Maeve Reston, just first react to what the senator said. A couple of minutes ago, when we were talking about, you know, why doesn't the president send a message to men and women, he hasn't said anything publicly, other than the tweet, which I think flies in the face of any of this MeToo movement we have been talking about, the fact that she said, you know what? Forget John Kelly resigning. How about the president firing John Kelly? And that would be sending a message.

MAEVE RESTON, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, I mean, it's such an interesting point, because clearly, Kelly is someone who has been such a valued member of the president's inner circle in the sense that he has brought a sense of order to the White House.

But the fact that he is out there now completely vulnerable and that the president has said nothing to stem the political fallout on this issue, much less talking about what he would like to see his chief of staff do, is just, you know -- it's causing so much running damage.

I was talking to a Republican source yesterday who was literally screaming into the phone, so frustrated with how the White House has been handling this issue and the fluctuating timeline and the fact that, you know, people like Sarah Sanders are suggesting that they didn't have all of the information at first.

There's just a sense of panic about the fact that this White House cannot get this issue right, and that they're clearly -- you know, the president does not have much credibility at all on these issues, and the fact that he has not stepped out and said anything, particularly to try to stem some of the damage from his tweet on Saturday, is just befuddling to everyone, especially Republicans, who would like to maintain control of the House this year, and have some kind of a bridge to women voters.


We are like a week out. I think it's been seven days, Brian Stelter, I'm sure you're keeping tally, since this whole story break.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: It came out Tuesday evening last week.

B. BALDWIN: I give a nod to our friend Philip Rucker over at "The Washington Post" who was tweeting when we saw at the top of the briefing.


Obviously, we know what was dominating the briefing. But they sort of trot out this Cabinet secretary to talk about infrastructure, when, you know -- they bring out these special guests when they know chaos is a swirling.


When the real special guest would be Chief of Staff John Kelly or would be the head of the White House Personnel Security Office. It seems to me that the new development here is, Sanders is pushing

all this off to the White House Personnel Security Office. We're going to hear that term a lot now all of a sudden, because they were still -- she said they were still conducting a process looking into Porter, even though the FBI had finished the background check last July.

So, it's going to hinge on this obscure office.

RESTON: Which is incredulous.

STELTER: And, yes, we would love to talk to the head of that office, and Sarah Sanders is not providing that.

Really, the White House is stonewalling here. It's pretty clear that's what they're doing, because this is a story about dysfunction and about dishonesty at the White House.

And, by the way, talking about people who are being silent, it's not just John Kelly. It's not just the personnel folks. It's also Hope Hicks, who is at the center of this story, who has not said a word about it publicly.

It's gone on for a week now. And I think that the silence from these individuals who are so involved, that's partly what's keeping this going.


CHALIAN: Sorry, Brooke.

B. BALDWIN: No, no. Go ahead. Go ahead, David.

CHALIAN: Just to Brian's point, Sarah Sanders is now putting it off entirely on White House Security Personnel Office, because she attempted to put it off completely on the FBI yesterday, and the FBI director made that entirely clear that that wouldn't work for him.


B. BALDWIN: That's where -- I was about to say, the person we did hear from today was Christopher Wray, the FBI director, totally contradicting the White House's timeline. Here he was.


CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: The FBI submitted a partial report on the investigation in question in March, and then a completed background investigation in late July that, soon thereafter, we received requests for follow-up inquiry.

And we did the follow-up and provided that information in November. And then we administratively closed the file in January, and then earlier this month, we received some additional information, and we passed that on as well. HUCKABEE SANDERS: I can tell you that we were -- the process with the

background was on going. And the White House had not received any specific papers regarding the completion of that background check.


B. BALDWIN: So, David Chalian, to your point precisely, the FBI director coming out today totally contradicts what we heard from the White House yesterday.


And what's left hanging out there that we don't know, because Sarah Sanders can't say she knows for a fact, we don't know what -- when exactly did John Kelly get information and first learn that Rob Porter had allegations against him of spousal abuse?

When exactly did that happen? We don't know, because all we know from Sarah Sanders is it's her understanding the best facts available to her are that he didn't know until "The Daily Mail" story was reported. But that is where...

B. BALDWIN: Such a simple question.

CHALIAN: ... we still need to press for questions -- for answers here.

B. BALDWIN: When did he know. When did he know?

Maeve, the point, too, you have a couple of people who fall under the category of, yes, this could have been handled better. Raj Shah from last week, filling in for Sarah, Sarah, and also the vice president. And then you have the guy in the center of all of this, one step removed from Porter, is John Kelly, who talks to "The Wall Street Journal" and says, hey, everything was handled just right, Maeve, no remorse.

RESTON: So, so amazing. It was such a short, declarative sentence to "The Wall Street Journal," saying that, no, he didn't think this could have been handled any better.

And, again, I think that's so maddening to a lot of people, because the very fact that we have a story that has gone on for two weeks and the fact that the White House can't talk about its actual agenda means that that statement is not true.

So, clearly, you know, John Kelly at this point would like to stay in his job, and is doing what the Trump administration likes to do best, which is to double down and not apologize. But I don't think that that's working in this case, and it's especially not working for John Kelly. Maybe Trump can get away with that. But I don't think that that's working here.

B. BALDWIN: Coming up next, we're going to talk to Phil Mudd here.

He will weigh in on how the FBI had its findings, relayed those to the White House, and yet still we hear from Sarah Sanders today, saying that they hadn't concluded their own investigation with the Personal Office over at the White House.

That's coming up.