c-span's washington journal. live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, inside elections editor nathan gonzales discusses the early outlook for campaign 2018. universitywashington law professor talks about the indictments of three former trump campaign officials in special counsel's rush investigation. be sure to watch c-span's western journal live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. announcer: at monday's white house briefing, press secretary sarah sanders spoke about the president's timeline for tax legislation into questions on the federal indictment of paul manafort and two others. this is just over 20 minutes.

ms. sanders: good afternoon. i would like to start the briefing today by addressing a topic that i know all of you are preparing to ask me about, and that is tax reform. [laughter] ms. sanders: couple of you got it. the initial bill will be introduced by the house and wanes committee. it is going to a open process in the house. the committee plans to mark up the bill next week starting on monday. the house is likely to consider the bill the week of november 13. in order to stay on pace, we want to see a house bill passed by thanksgiving.

this is a very aggressive timeline but one that will help us get tax cuts this year so families and businesses can plan for 2018. we look forward to the details of the tax bill being released on wednesday. but today i want to take a step back and explain what we are working to do using an anecdote we can all understand. this story has been floating around the internet for a while. it is important to keep in mind that the numbers are not correct. and i'm also not encouraging any drinking. that is mostly for my impact -- my parents. i think you will enjoy it. people, for our purposes, we will say reporters, go out for beer. the bill for all 10 comes to $100. if these 10 reporters pay their tab every night the way we pay our taxes, it will go something like this. the first four would pay nothing very the fifth would pay one dollar, the sixth would pay three dollars, the seventh would pay seven dollars, the eighth would pay $12, and the ninth

would pay $18, and the 10th, the richest would pay $59. that is what they decided to do. the 10 reporters drink in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day, the bar owner threw them a curve ball. since you are all such good customers, i am going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. drinks for the 10 reporters will now cost just $80. the group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our firstour -- e how could they divide the windfall so everyone would get their fair share? these are the reporters and they are concerned with fairness. if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth reporter and the six reporter would each end up being paid to drink beer. so the bar owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each

man's bill by a higher percentage the pooerer he was. by doing that, they continued following the principle of the texas and they have been using. he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay. so the fifth reporter, like the first four now paid nothing. he got a 100% savings. the sixth now paid $2 instead of three dollars, a 33% savings pay the seventh now paid $5 instead of $7, a 28% savings. the eighth now paid $9 instead of $12, a 20% savings. the ninth paid now $14 instead of $18, which was a 22% savings. the 10th now paid $49 instead of $59, a 16% savings. each of the six was better off than before, and a first four continue to drink for free. once outside the bar, the reporters compared their

savings. i only got a dollar said the six reporter. she pointed to the 10th reporter and said he got 10. it is unfair that he received 10 times more benefit than me. why should he get $10 back when i only got two. the wealthy gets all the breaks. wait a minute, yelled the first four in unison, we didn't get anything at all. this new tax system exploits the poor. the non-reporters yelled at the tent and made him feel bad. the next tonight, the 10th man didn't return for drinks. the nine had their beers without him. when it came time to pay the bill, they discover they no longer had enough money between them all to even cover half of the bill. that, ladies and gentlemen, is how our tax works. taxing them too much and attack them, they might start thinking overseas where the atmosphere is

friendlier. this is a silly story, but it illustrates very important points. our tax cuts and reforms will create a fair system that works better for everyone. it will make our country the friendliest in the world for american families trying to build a better life for their selves and their families and american company seeking a competitive edge. i will be happy to get that story to everyone so you can get the numbers later. i know that may be an oversimplification, but i think it paints a very good picture of the tax system. with that i will take your questions. >> i would like to get white house reaction to the indictment of paul manafort and gates. specifically, we have heard a couple tweets from the president. if you can help me understand, when he says why aren't crooked hillary and dems the focus, is the president saying that special counsel mueller should be investigating hillary clinton and the democrats, and is he going to roll out firing robert mueller? sarah: i said last week, and i have said several times that, there is no intention or plan to make any changes in regards to special counsel.

but look, today's announcement has nothing to do with the president. it has nothing to do with the president's campaign or campaign activity. the real collusion scandal, as we have said before, has everything to do with the clinton campaign, fusion gps, and russia. there is clear evidence of the clinton campaign colluding with russian intelligence to smear the president and influence the election. we have been saying from day one there is no evidence of trump-russia collusion and nothing in the indictment changes that today. >> specifically about the campaign? sarah: it has nothing to do with the campaign, it is his failure to tell the truth. >> [indiscernible] sarah: the trump campaign was not engaged in these activities paid they took well before the campaign ever even existed. >> can you explain what george

eapadopoulos' role was with th campaign? sarah: it was extremely limited. it was a volunteer position. no activity was ever done in an official capacity on behalf of the campaign. >> what about the outreach acing the campaign officials trying to put together -- sarah: it was repeatedly denied. will not take action on that. >> can you explain with -- what happened with the outreach? sarah: it shows his level of importance in the campaign and it shows what little role he had within coordinating anything officially for the campaign. >> i wanted to ask about mr. mueller's investigation. the president has called it a hoax and a witchhunt. last week, you indicated that you believe that mr. mueller is wrapping up his investigation. i have heard similar things coming from administration officials.

do you still believe mr. mueller is in the process of wrapping up his investigation? sarah: we still expected to conclude soon. >> paul manafort was high ranking in the president's campaign that one time. i would like to know what the president's relationship is with them now. do they still talk? sarah: they are not talked in several months. the last conversation was back in february. anything beyond that with paul, i am not sure. i know there was initial contact after the president was sworn in with him at meetings at the white house, but nothing was the president directly. >> on march 31, according to the affidavit, he attended a foreign policy meeting and the president was there.

he said that he talked about that russia wanted to talk to the president. what did the president think when they say they wanted to trumpe a meeting between and putin, and how did other people in the campaign react to that? sarah: i'm not sure he recalls specific details of the meeting. it was a brief meeting that took place quite some time ago. it was the one time the group ever met. beyond that, i don't have anything to add. >> as you mentioned, mr. manafort and mr. gates had nothing to do with the campaign but alleged money laundering and

other businesses. under those circumstances, with the president consider a rollout pardoning them? sarah: i have not had any conversations with impaired we should let the process go through before we start looking at that. >> papadopoulos was referring to jeff sessions at the time overseeing foreign policy committee. what does this mean for jeff sessions? sarah: somebody on a volunteer committee, i'm that sure how that would concern the attorney general directly. >> can you say given what we have learned over the last few hours, when the president was first aware that russia was behind the hacking and what they considered to be damaged emails about the claim command that way -- they were trying to get to the trump campaign? when was the first aware of that? sarah: i am not sure of the specific date when that took place. >> does he regret hiring paul manafort? he and the rest of the

concerned it will distract from -- sarah: he is not worried about it distracting because it is nothing to do with us. this took place outside of the complaint or campaign activities. >> how can you describe mr. papadopoulos having a limited role when there is a photograph of him sitting at a table with candidate trump? sarah: he met with millions of people. >> he was also cited by president trump in a meeting in washington. that seems to go against what you are saying. how is it not collusion when george, who is in contact with various people who are promising dirt on hillary clinton, a series of events that closely mirrors what occurred with the president's own son? sarah: this individual was a member of a volunteer advisory

council that met one time over the course of a year. he was part of a list that was read out in the washington post i would hardly call that some sort of regular advisor or as you want to push that he is a senior member of the staff. he was not paid by the campaign volunteer that met o himnce. >> in regard to the collusion activity, he was pursuing information from russians. sarah: he was a volunteer. you'll have to ask him. >> the president called on congress to investigate hillary clinton. is he confident they will do that? sarah: you would have to ask congress. there are enough reports and information that suggests it might not be a bad idea. i don't know if he has had a member of congress specifically

tell him. >> on tax reform, where does the president stand on corporate tax cuts reaching 20%? sarah: that is his idea and he has laid out his principles and what they are. that hasn't changed. >> you say george had no official capacity and what do you mean by that? sarah: i mean he was a volunteer on the campaign and a volunteer member of an advisory committee that met one time. >> so these activities were his invention. no one asked him to do these things? is that what you are telling the american public? sarah: i am telling you he was a

volunteer of a counsel that met one time. >> there were two episodes that people associate with the campaign with george papadopoulos as a member of a foreign policy board. sarah: the only interaction i am aware of that deals with this individual was him at reaching out and being repeatedly denied. that is all i can tell you. he asked to do things. he was pushed back or not responded to. any action that he took would be on his own, and you will have to ask him about that. >> but he had the same kind of meaning in trump tower. what explains that later those being in the russians getting information about hillary clinton? sarah: it is not a pattern of getting information about your opponent. the big difference is you have a meeting that took lace versus

-- took places versus millions of dollars to create fake information to influence the election. when you compare those two, they are apples and oranges per what the clinton campaign and the dnc did was actually exchange money. they took a meeting. they are far different. one is a common practice to take a meeting. the other one is actually paying money to get false information. that is a big difference. >> if i could follow up on the comments, many senior levels have pointed to during the questions about the special counsel. has the white house asked the department of justice to look into this issue? sarah: not that i am aware of. >> have you spoken to the president today? sarah: yes, i have. >> can you give us a little bit of information?

was he disappointed that paul manafort received this news today that he was being charged on these 12 counts? way a he responded the lot of us did. that he did not have any reaction because it did not have anything to do with us. through and including the rnc last year, now under federal and that it meant. allegedly conductor never work for the campaign but doesn't it seem to the president's judgment he would choose to these two individuals in very high positions having allegedly committed these crimes? sarah: you make it sound like they were regular offenders that of been in massive amounts trouble. these were seasonal operatives that worked on a number of campaigns. paul manafort was brought into help with a delicate situation which he didn't soon after he was discharged.

>> you believe the investigation will conclude soon and you also believe there will be more indictments. and welfare reform, trying to find out what is the focus. how does he plan to implement welfare reform? sarah: we have not made any specific announcements when it comes to welfare reform. we're looking at ways to improve the system but nothing specific to rollout at this time. >> what lead to to believe this will conclude the military investigation? have you been given a headset? sarah: there are indications we have. i can't -- >> who and where? indication from where? sarah: as i said, i can't -- >> and miller indictments at all? question you would have to ask robert mueller. we contend it will be concluded soon but beyond that i don't

have anything to add on a specific timeframe. >> in march, the president a led george papadopoulos guy. does he still believe george papadopoulos is a guy? sarah: he was complimentary on people who were helping on behalf of the campaign. a supervisor told him, i would encourage you to make the trip to russia. how does that not constitute the campaign encouraging him to make contact with russia? not aware ofam that conversation so i'm not prepared to speak. >> the two people who worked for andpresident are now under i meant. one is pleading guilty. he promised to hire only the

best people. is this an example of the best people? sarah: this is outside the scope of the campaign. >> were these the best people to hire? president hired paul manafort to handle the delegate process. allowing 18 to have an abortion in one case, what is the white house reaction? sarah: i can't comment on the specifics. i did not speak directly to him about the case. >> i would like to ask you about a different topic. the briefing to be on the president to change military service policy for transgendered people. sarah: this is something just announced. the department of justice is

reviewing it. i would refer you to them for any specific questions. robert mueller's investigation, and you think there should be an investigation are you asking for that? forh: we have not asked that investigation to take place. i think anytime there is a leak it should be looked into but i don't have that information right now. president trump was responsible for bringing paul manafort on board. this is not at the very least bring questions about president process anding judgment when it comes to green these people? sarah: i don't think so. i think i have answered that quite a few times today. >> you said back in july, does the president believe bob

mueller overstepped the boundaries of his position? , regarding question the plea agreement was george papadopoulos. you indicated the president did not remember the meeting. sarah: i said he did not remember the comments. >> did he remember anything about the meeting? i don't believe he went into detail. whomever said taking lace but we did not go into anything beyond that. >> do you remember his presence or interaction? >> not that i'm aware of. what is your reaction to the approval rate of the president? is the president aware of this? sarah: we are focused aggressively on pushing through a very bold agenda. i think as the economy continues

to grow and strengthen that is something that will certainly change those numbers. these are some of the polls that said this office would never be resident so i don't have a lot of confidence in that. >> can you please their fight your answer about the stock market moving downward about the news possibly the corporate rate could be phased in over several years. i wasn't sure if you're trying the point that the president would be for or against it. sarah: the president laid out his principal and it does not include the phasing and we are still committed to that moving forward. i don't have any reasonably good reasons to change it. i am saying those of a principles that we have laid out and we have not changed the principles since the process started. thank you so much, guys. have a good day.

announcer: senate democratic leader chuck schumer spoke about the manafort indictment during remarks on the senate floor. morning, the former chairman of the trump campaign for president and a close associate turned themselves in to federal authorities on a dozen charges, including acting as unregistered agents of a foreign power and conspiracy the united states. the indictments of mr. manafort and mr. gates show that the special counsel's probe is progressing in a very serious way. is moving forward. what we know now is that an alleged unregistered foreign