Return to Transcripts main page


White House Daily Briefing. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired June 5, 2018 - 14:30   ET



[14:31:18] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: We're back. Live pictures inside the White House press briefing. Getting an update on the economy. We're waiting to hear from Sarah Sanders. As soon as she takes the podium, we'll take it in full.

Meantime, 384 days since Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to this Russia investigation. President Trump shows again how his grudge against his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is festering. Tweeting today, "The Russian witch hunt hopes continues all because Jeff Sessions didn't tell me he was going to recuse himself. I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined. And Sessions knew better than most that there was no collusion."

Sessions is not the only former Trump campaign official taunting the president. His former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is now accused of witness tampering and may be forced to wait for his criminal trials behind bars.

This accusation coming a couple of days after the man to tried to downplay his ties to the man who once led his campaign. He played up the FBI's taunt with Manafort, who was under surveillance at one point in 2014.

Here's the tweet from the president: "Paul Manafort came into the campaign very late and was with us for a short period of time. But we should have been told that Comey and the boys were doing a number on him and he wouldn't have been hired!"

Shimon Prokupecz is all over this, our CNN crime and justice reporter.

Shimon, the court has just set a deadline for Manafort to respond. Tell us what you know. What's Mueller saying?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME & JUSTICE REPORTER: The deadline to respond is in a few days, Friday. This a significant accusation here by the FBI, by the special counsel, that they're essentially accusing Manafort of trying to influence witnesses, trying to get favorable testimony, trying to shape their testimony so that it's favorable to him. And the way in which he went about this was using, beside calling some of these people, he was using encrypted apps to try and communicate with them. Perhaps the argument here could be made he was trying to avoid anyone seeing these communications and so you go into encrypted -- (CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Taking extra steps.

PROKUPECZ: Correct. That also is something that the government can use because it goes to consciousness of guilt. Certainly a significant move. Yes, this could potentially force him back into jail where he will have to spend time awaiting the trial.

Really what's significant here is the amount of work already that the FBI has done to try and put this investigation together, this influence investigation. They have their search warrants, they went into his iCloud, and were able to see some of these messages. They've done toll records, phone records to see who he was calling. All very significant.

This is something that the FBI and Department of Justice take very, very seriously. Because what you can potentially do is shape testimony, it can change, make people afraid to come forward. When you read the 90-page court document that the special counsel filed yesterday, it just tells you how seriously they're taking this. He's not facing any charges for this right now, but he could at some point. They could decide to bring federal charges.

In the end, this tells us it's mounting pressure on Paul Manafort. There are some believe that ultimately the government wants him to cooperate with their investigation.

BALDWIN: Thus, the pressure and pressure and pressure for him to cooperate.

Stay with me.

I want to have a bigger conversation with two voices I want to bring in, former federal prosecutor, Jennifer Rogers, and CNN national political reporter, Maeve Reston.

Maeve, you think about all of this contact here - and I'd love for Shimon to jump in on this. We know the president is considering a pardon last week, he's considering a couple of others. What do you think this is saying that mule seller is volleying right back?

[14:35:06] MAEVE RESTON, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: I think he's saying I have eyes on everything. I'm watching everything. I'm monitoring encrypted messages, I'm not afraid to go into the iCloud. As much as this president has tried to discredit this investigation and has succeed to an extent among Republicans, it's certainly a signal to Trump but it's also a signal to other people who have maybe small bits and pieces of this investigation to make it clear that, you know, that he's not messing around and that this is a very serious matter. And Trump seems to keep putting tweets out there and having his advisers essentially suggest that he's above the law and Mueller I think is saying not so fast.

BALDWIN: Yes. And on the witness tampering, Jennifer, how would this affect the overall, and Shimon's point of putting the pressure on not on for Manafort but for others to cooperate?

JENNIFER ROGERS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think that's right. For Manafort himself, he may be going to prison now. That really --


BALDWIN: Despite his $10 million bond, he could be whoop!

ROGERS: Correct. The thinking is if he's using his time out on bond to tamper with witnesses, they're going to want to stop that from happening.

PROKUPECA: It's extremely serious.

ROGERS: So he may go in. That's one thing that brings the pressure. They may bring additional charges. They can bring it in at trial, even if there aren't separate charges, it's consciousness of guilt.

I want to be clear about one think.


ROGERS: They weren't monitoring him. I don't think it's correct to say they were monitoring what he was talking about. I believe what happened here is that witnesses they were interviewing in the case disclosed to Mueller and his team that they had been contacted by either and intermediary or Manafort himself. Then they went and got the warrants to look.

BALDWIN: They would have gone backwards --


ROGERS: Correct. They wouldn't have monitoring a represented party in an ongoing case. This would have come from the witnesses and they would have worked backward to make that case.

BALDWIN: Got you.

Let me move on and ask about this moment on Capitol Hill.

Maeve, as you know Capitol Hill quite well. Senator Ted Cruz was up on the Hill yesterday. He was asked about what he thought about the president's tweet from yesterday where he said he had the absolute right to pardon himself. So one of the reporters is shouting this question at the Texas Senator, and this is Cruz's response, but you have to wait for it.


UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Senator, the president says he can pardon himself. Would you agree with that?


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Historic obstruction by Senate Democrats.

BALDWIN: We'll get back to that. Let's go to Sarah Sanders at the briefing.


SANDERS: And there is a long to-do list, including important nominations and appropriations bills that we hope that they can get taken care of.

And with that, I will take your questions. John (ph).

QUESTION: On the president's decision to disinvite the Eagles, he's suggesting this is about the National Anthem. Is the president aware that not a single player on the Eagles through the entire season knelt for the National Anthem?

SANDERS: The president's position on, not just the anthem, has been clear, but let's not forget this isn't -- there were 80 members of the Eagles organization that RSVP'd and committed to attend this event as recently as Friday, as well as over 1,000 fans of the Eagles organization. And the Eagles are the ones that tried to change their commitment at the 11th hour, and the president frankly thinks that the fans deserve better than that, and therefore we changed the ceremony to be a focus on celebrating our great country.

QUESTION: Why does he (inaudible) this is about the National Anthem, and is he concerned that -- we heard from Steph Curry and Lebron James, a suggestion that whoever wins the NBA championship, they're unlikely to be here. Is this about something more than the National Anthem, something other than the National Anthem?

SANDERS: Look, if this wasn't a political stunt by the Eagles franchise, then they wouldn't have planned to attend the event and then backed out at the last minute. And if it wasn't a political stunt, then they wouldn't have attempted to reschedule the visit when they knew that the president was to be overseas. And if this wasn't a political stunt, they wouldn't have waited until Monday, well after 1,000 of their fans had traveled, and taken time out of their schedules to offer only a tiny handful of representatives to attend the event.

Pamela (ph)?

QUESTION: To be clear on that point, this isn't about the National Anthem. It's about so few players coming in the end, correct?

SANDERS: Certainly, the president has been very clear what his position is in regards to the National Anthem. We've never wavered on that. The president thinks that people should stand for the National Anthem, --


-- particularly when it comes to the NFL. It's not about a particular team. It's about having pride in our country, and about being respectful to the men and women who have fought and died to preserve our country.

In terms of this, the Eagles are the ones that changed their commitment at the last minute. The president felt it was appropriate to change the event to be a ceremony to celebrate our country.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, Sarah...


SANDERS: Catherine (ph)? Sorry, I'm going to keep going.

QUESTION: ... really important, on the -- on the statement that you made, you referred us to the outside counsel on these Don, Jr. statements that the president was involved in. The outside counsel did weigh in, saying that yes, the president did -- did dictate the statement. Rudy Giuliani was on CNN, saying it was a mistake to say that the president didn't dictate it. So do you want to correct the record on your statement from August, when you said he certainly didn't dictate?

SANDERS: Once again, I'm not going to go into detail, and go into a back-and-forth. And I know that you guys would love to engage on matters of conversations between the special counsel and the outside counsel, but we've purposely walled off, and I'm not going to comment on that outside counsel.


QUESTION: (inaudible) and there's outside counsel in August as well, but you still talked about it. So why can't you correct the record now?

SANDERS: Again, I'm not going to answer questions that deal specifically with conversations been the outside counsel and the special counsel.

QUESTION: Have you been advised not to answer the question?

SANDERS: Again, I -- I'm not getting it into a back-and-forth with you on that, and I'd refer you to the outside counsel.

Catherine (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, President Trump won Pennsylvania by a narrow margin. The GOP is looking to pick up a Senate seat there. Does he risk alienating key voters in that state by vote -- by disinviting the Eagles, but also, by the statement that the team abandoned the fans?

SANDERS: Certainly, we would hope that all of the people of Pennsylvania would share the president's commitment to the National Anthem, and the pride that we have in our country. And it's certainly not meant to be a slight to anyone, but frankly, a reaffirmation of what a great country that we live in. And to stand for the National Anthem is something the president has been very clear on.

Sarah (ph)? QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah. On Thursday, Prime Minister Abe will be here. Does the president -- what will be on his agenda going into the meeting? The president -- will they discuss trade issues? And the president said the other day that Japan, China and South Korea can provide economic assistance to North Korea, and does the president plan to raise this issue with Prime Minister Abe?

SANDERS: I'm not going to get ahead of the president's meeting with the prime minister, but we certainly anticipate the -- the summit with North Korea that will be next week to come up, as well as trade issues and other matters, and we'll be happy to have -- provide a readout, and the president will speak to that tomorrow.

Josh? Sorry, I'm going to keep going. Josh, go ahead.

QUESTION: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, ask (inaudible) we reported today, that helped his wife get a Chick-fil-A franchise. Does the president think that's ethical behavior?

SANDERS: I haven't spoken with the president about that since that report came out.


QUESTION: One follow-up for you, Sarah. Back to her question, I'm asking, really, about special counsel, the outside counsel. The only question is, do you think your statement in August -- go back to it, your statement, not this -- was your statement accurate or inaccurate?

SANDERS: Again, I know you want to get me into a back-and-forth with you on this conversation.

QUESTION: No, it's not a back-and-forth. You said something. We just want to know if it was accurate or not. Was your statement accurate?

SANDERS: Look, I know your goal is to engage me in a conversation about matters dealing with the outside counsel, and I'm not going to do that today.

QUESTION: It's not about the outside counsel. It's, you said something from the podium. Was it accurate or not? That's all we want to know.

SANDERS: Again, I -- I work day in, day out, and I believe, frankly, with the majority of you here in the room, I think you all know I'm a person, who works extremely hard to provide you with accurate information at all times. I'm going to continue to do that, but I'm not going to engage on matters that deal with the outside counsel. Justin?

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about OMB, but just to follow on especially and I think you were asked the question earlier, is the reason you're unwilling to engage on this because either you have already or you just made (ph) yourself having to talk to Special Counsel about this statement?

SANDERS: It's because the appropriate venue for these questions to be addressed would be through the outside counsel, and that's why I would refer you to them to answer them.

QUESTION: So on OMB, the issue they revised (ph) a precision request today, and I'm just curious about the proposed cuts on Hurricane Sandy recovery funds, ebola funding. I'm wondering if you could -- we should see those retreats as the administration inaccurately completing that first, that this was sort of money that was no longer needed.

And if that happened just in the last couple of months, why that wouldn't be true for other areas of budget the administration is targeting going forward.

SANDERS: Not necessarily, but I would refer you to OMB to get into the details of that, and we'll be happy to provide additional information also over the next few days on specifics with provisions (ph). John (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, the President again took a stick to his favorite pinata Jeff Sessions today.


What is the -- what is the President's goal here? Is it just simply to remind the Attorney General that he's really PO'd at him and he's not going to let him forget it? Is -- is he -- is he trying to get him to quit? Is he trying to emasculate him, holding him up?

I mean what is he -- what is the President trying to do?

SANDERS: Look, the President's made his position on this extremely clear and I don't have anything to add beyond on that. Sayir (ph)? Just because you laughed the hardest at John's (ph) joke, I feel like you've earned the right for the next question.


QUESTION: Sarah, the President tweeted today that he was concerned that the FBI was weakening or slow walking the DoJ and IG investigation into the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation handled by FBI Director James Comey.

What is he basing that concern on? Is it based on conversations that he's had with FBI personnel currently? Or is it simply an observation based on the past?

SANDERS: Look, I think the President would like to see this process move faster. They've been obsessed with a number of other issues in which they've spent a great deal of time on. I think he'd like to see some of that spread out and some time put on that.

QUESTION: Does he think it's appropriate -- does he think it's appropriate to encourage the Inspector General to release based on his timeline rather than on their own?

SANDERS: The President wants full transparency in this process, but he also wants it to be expedited and completed quickly on all fronts. Andrew (ph)? QUESTION: Thanks, Sarah. I wanted to follow up on Josh's question and Sarah's (ph) question but in a larger -- in a larger sense. The President, whether it's on his Twitter account or otherwise keeps saying that are not borne out by the facts.

Whether it is the Eagles thing is about the National Anthem or we got six billion dollars for opioids and getting rid of that scourge that's taking over our country and the numbers are way down. We have thousands of immigration judges.

And so the President keeps saying that aren't true and this thing with -- with dictating the ...

SANDERS: ... question, sorry Andrew (ph). If you get there.

QUESTION: Why, if things that you keep saying from the podium turn out to not be true and things the President keeps saying, in a number of venues keeps saying keep turning out not to be true, why should we be able to trust that the information we're getting from this administration is accurate, and more importantly why should Americans be able to trust that what they hear from this White House is always the truth?

SANDERS: Once again, I don't know how many times I have to address this, but I work every single day to give you accurate and up to date information, and I'm going to continue to do that. Frankly I think my credibility is probably higher than the media's.

And I think that in large part, that's because you guys spend more of your time focused on attacking the President instead of reporting the news.

I think that if you spent a little bit more time reporting the news instead of trying to tear me down, you might actually see that we're working hard trying to provide you good information and trying to provide that same good information to the American people.

John (ph)? Sorry Andrew, I gave you quite a bit of time. John (ph), go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks a lot, Sarah. I just wanted to get your reaction, the administration's reaction to a statement that was put out by a player on the Eagles, Malcolm Jenkins. He's a strong safety on the Philadelphia Eagles, very well respected on the team and throughout the league.

He put out a statement today in which he said the decision that was made by the President to cancel this event celebrating the Super Bowl victory by the Eagles paints the picture that these players are anti- America, anti-flag and anti-military.

What is your response to what Malcolm Jenkins put out in a statement today?

SANDERS: I have addressed this a few times. Again, the Eagles were the ones that committed to an event on Friday, they submitted over 80 members of the Eagles franchise for the event along with over 1,000 fans to participate, and it was the Eagles organization that tried to change their commitment at the 11th hour.

If this -- once again, if this wasn't a political stunt, then they wouldn't have planned to attend the event and then backed out. If it wasn't a political stunt, they wouldn't have attempted to re-schedule an event for when they knew that the President would be out of the country.

And they wouldn't have waited until the very last minute to make these changes if this wasn't about some type of political statement that they were trying to make towards this President. Cecilia (ph)?

QUESTION: Are you saying that the President -- are you saying the President bears zero responsibility in this cancellation? This is a President who called NFL players SOB's, who implied that some players who don't stand for the National Anthem do not belong in this country.

Does he bear zero responsibility for players like the Warriors and the Cavs not wanting to come and the Eagles bailing on this?

SANDERS: The President has -- his position hasn't changed on this throughout the process, and the President's position was very clearly stated in a number of forums and venues. And the Eagles made the commitment to come and to be a part of that event well after the President had established his feelings in regards to the National Anthem.

And once again, they made that change at the last minute, not the President.


He is the one that has been completely consistent in his viewpoint when it comes to this. Steve?

QUESTION: Sarah, the President last year broke with recent tradition and did not host an iftar dinner. Is the President hosting such a dinner this year and can you tell us how the invitees were selected?

SANDERS: He is hosting a dinner tomorrow evening. There will be a -- roughly I believe about 30 to 40 different attendees. Be happy to provide you with more specifics, but I believe that it takes place around 8:45 tomorrow evening. Blake (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, thank you, let me ask you about two possible trade deals, one involving the Chinese in which it would be $70 billion of buying American products, the United States would back off its threat of tariffs. Is that something that President Trump would support?

SANDERS: We're in the negotiation process and as Kevin said and as the President stated many times before, our focus is on making sure we get good deals. I'm not here to make an announcement on what those look like, but he's going to continue pushing forward to make sure that he gets the best deal for American workers. John (ph)? QUESTION: Sarah, real quick (ph) on NAFTA. Larry Kudlow said today, name in reference that maybe the President wants to deal with Canada solely, with Mexico solely and that the idea of negotiating NAFTA might be gone at this point.

Is this possibility of getting to a NAFTA deal done as this administration sees it?

SANDERS: It's not done, but again the President is open to having individual deals. But he's looking at the best way to make sure he gets the best deal possible for American workers, and whether or not that's through NAFTA or other means, those options are on the table.

John (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah. Back to the issue of presidential pardons, there's been considerable furor in Illinois among Republicans, particularly, supporters of the president, and allies in Congress such as Congressman Randy Hultgren, about him even suggesting commuting the sentence of former Governor Rod Blagojevich. Several party activists and colleagues of Congressman Hultgren are becoming increasingly outspoken. Is he going to go ahead with the commutation, or is he backing down? And is he aware of the criticism from supporters of his?

SANDERS: The president hasn't made a final decision on that, but as you know, the president doesn't base his decisions off of the criticism of others, but on what he thinks is the right decision to make, and that's what he'll base it on.


QUESTION: Thanks, Sarah. The president is also meeting with lawmakers here this afternoon. What's on the agenda?

SANDERS: A number of items will be discussed at that event, and we'll be sure to provide info afterwards.

Hunter (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah. Does the president still think his response to the hurricane in Puerto Rico deserves a 10 out of 10 score, now that estimates say almost 5,000 people died there?

SANDERS: The federal response, once again, was at a historic proportion. We're continuing to work with the people of Puerto Rico and do the best we can to provide federal assistance, particularly working with the governor there in Puerto Rico, and we'll continue to do so.


QUESTION: The administration came out in support of the bakers' freedom of expression in yesterday's Supreme Court case. I guess I'm asking, why are athletes' rights to express themselves freely any different than the bakers'? SANDERS: When it comes to the bakers, we're pleased with the Supreme Court's decision. The First Amendment prohibits government discriminating against the basis of religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for his religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights.

QUESTION: So -- so I guess my question is simple: So if the White House supports the bakers' right of free speech, why doesn't the White House support the players' right to free speech?

SANDERS: The president doesn't think that this is an issue simply of free speech. He thinks it's about respecting the men and women of our military. It's about respecting our National Anthem, and it's about standing out of pride for that.

I'm sorry. I'll take one last question.

QUESTION: Will the president then -- if it is about free speech and he supports these ideas, will the president commit to a roundtable with America's athletes on topics of social injustice?

SANDERS: I'd certainly be happy to ask him.

Celia (ph)?

QUESTION: Does he not -- has he not -- just for clarity, has he not -- is it not something that has any discussion to this point, given all of the division in this country over this topic of social injustice?

SANDERS: Certainly, we look at ways every single day to unify our country. The president has worked actively and tirelessly to be the president of all Americans. I think you can see that reflected in the policies that he's put forth. I think one of the biggest things that you've seen come out of this --


-- administration, frankly, that is far and vastly different than previous administrations is providing economic opportunity for all Americans. And one of the greatest equalizers that we can have is to provide a level playing field, and the president has worked increasingly hard to make sure that that happens. Kevin spoke about that earlier, and he's going to continue to do that.

We'll take one last question. Steven (ph)?

QUESTION: It's about police-involved shootings.

SANDERS: Steven (ph)?

QUESTION: Is the president aware that this is about...

SANDERS: Sorry, Steven (ph). Go ahead. QUESTION: ... police-involved shootings and not about disrespecting the flag. Is the president aware of it, Sarah? Please...


SANDERS: Statement (ph) (inaudible) go ahead.


QUESTION: I'm just (inaudible) to Steven (ph), but I'm asking.


QUESTION (?): ... answer that.

QUESTION: Is the -- this is -- there's an underlying issue that just keeps going about disrespect of the flag and soldiers. There are black and brown soldiers that fight in the military as well, who feel that taking the knee, bringing attention to police-involved shootings is something that this White House should deal with.

Is the president aware that taking the knee is about police-involved shootings?

SANDERS: The president has made his position crystal clear. And that it's about...

QUESTION: Is he aware (ph) of (inaudible) the police-involved shooting...


SANDERS: ... I let you rudely interrupt me and your colleague.

QUESTION: I'm sorry but (inaudible) report (ph) that...


SANDERS: I'm going to ask that you allow me to finish...

QUESTION: ... answer (ph)...


SANDERS: ... my answer. I -- I would be happy to answer it if you would stop talking long enough to let me do that. The president has made his position crystal clear on this topic.

He feels strongly that standing for our national anthem is something that we should do, something that matters to what makes our country special and unique, and what sets us apart.

He's not going to waver on that. He's not going to apologize for it. And, frankly, more than 70 percent of Americans agree with him on that matter. If you go back to what the original intent was, this has been made a political argument of which the president is not going to back down from, and he's been clear on it.


SANDERS: Steven (ph)? Last question.

QUESTION: We (inaudible) deal with the issue of police-involved shootings...


SANDERS: April, I've addressed your question and I'm not going to continue to engage with you.


QUESTION: I understand people (ph) are now standing, (inaudible) NFL is now telling people they have to stand. Will the president deal with the issue of police-involved shootings?

SANDERS: I'm going to deal with the issue of addressing your colleague's question.

QUESTION: But it's a real question. Can you take it to the president and come back to us with it?

SANDERS: Steven (ph), go ahead.

QUESTION: Always happy to yield to a colleague.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: But let me ask you about Scott Pruitt. Because the two Republicans who represent Iowa in the Senate have had it with the EPA administrator.

Chuck Grassley said that Pruitt has betrayed the president. Joni Ernst says that Pruitt is as swampy as you can get. Josh (ph) and his colleagues report in the Washington Post today, new elements of just how swampy that is.

So let me ask you, how is it, in the face of all that we've learned, how is it that President Trump continues to have confidence in the EPA administrator, assuming that he still does?

SANDERS: Once again, I haven't had a chance to speak with the president directly about the Washington Post's new report. We continue to have concerns and look into those, and we'll address them.

Thanks, guys.


BALDWIN: OK, so we're going to take it from there. A lot to get through.

But I think the dominant theme here is the fact that the president of the United States disinvited the Philadelphia Eagles, the Super Bowl champion NFL team, from what would have been potentially a huge gathering today. You heard Sarah Sanders say on Friday they thought they had at least 80 members of the Eagles team coming. That changed. They, being the Eagles, tried to change their commitment. She kept saying Trump feels the fans deserve better. And she finally said it's a political stunt by the Eagles.

Let's start there. Kelvin Washington is back with me on that part.

Kelvin, we were chatting about this earlier. She says it's a political stunt by the Eagles. You heard April Ryan trying to get in there and ask the follow-ups about will the president answer the -- address the issue of why they were kneeling in the first place. What did you think of her response?

KELVIN WASHINGTON, FORMER ESPN RADIO ANNOUNCER: April got to the heart of the matter. Not once in that entire press conference have we heard the real conversation of what the protest was about, which is social injustices, police brutality and things happening in the black and brown communities that need to be addressed. That was what this protest was about. It was not about the NFL. It was also not about the military or the flag. The president continues to take that narrative and hijack the conversation and use that against the NFL in a way to separate the NFL from their fans. I wish the president's base would hear what the protest what all about. I wish they would understand that, in fact, NFL players stopped kneeling because they felt as though they've already staked their claim and made their voice heard and were willing to move on and do things practically whether our judicial system and schools and police academies as well. And then he makes the NFL get into it and cause as feud. It is not about the flag and it not about the national anthem. In fact, this is being very patriotic by trying to express your First Amendment rights. Is that not correct?

BALDWIN: As I'm listening to you, there's the president, hand over heart. This is the event that is happening at the White House, minus the Philadelphia Eagles team.

She's in my ear. What did she say?