strategically how to handle this as well as some of the members that we thought we would have with us. we are re-examining that on a variety basis. i wanted to ask you a question which is, does the white house know now what happened? do you have issues with the idea that someone perhaps an expectative branch shared information on the white house grounds without you knowing about it? are you investigating this? do you believe it was a leak? or was it, in fact, someone on the white house staff or on loan to you who provided the information and therefore it's not a leak?

>> all of what i know has been available through public comment. i know chairman nunes confirmed he was on white house grounds tuesday. frankly any questions regarding who he met with or why he was here should be referred to him. i have seen some of the comments he's made to your out let in particular about whom he met with. i would refer you to his comments that he made. i'm not going to get into who he met with or why he met with them. i'll let him answer. he is the one who has discussed what he is reviewing, and so i will leave it up to him and not try to get in the middle of that. >> i'm asking a slightly different question. which is, does the white house know what happened now beyond public accounts? and are you satisfied that you don't have a leak in the executive branch. >> no, we're not concerned about that. i know that he is -- everything

i know about what he's done is through public reports that he has made on the record to different folks when he has multiple sources. he has met with different folks to gather things as part of his review of the situation. and so all i know and what i'm willing to communicate is what has been made available to on the comments that he has made. i don't know that members of congress need to be cleared. >> wouldn't the white house want to know -- >> again, i think there's a difference. he's doing a review. it's not something we're going to get in the middle of or get in the way of. part of it is to let him review and have conversations and look at things that he thinks are relevant. >> on your answer to margret you said i don't know that members of congress have to get cleared in. there's some question about that. who in the white house signed him? >> i'll be glad to check on that. i'm not sure that's how that works but i will follow up on that point. >> i understand that you're not

going to speak about some of the world, surrounding this issue as chairman nunes. does the white house believe that he can still lead an impartial investigation, or would the administration support somebody who called for an independent committee to investigate this? >> first of all, i would question what "this" is. as i have mentioned countless times from this podium, there's two issues at hand. there's multiple. number one, there's any action with respect to russia itself and every single person that's been briefed by director comey in particular and the fbi and said there's nothing there. what he is looking into are two things that we are aware of because of the pleas that we have made. one is the leaks of classified information that have come out. and two is whether or not there has been people that have been unmasked. i don't know why we stand by the original request that was made. and i think director comey, in open testimony the other day,

talked about what the fbi was looking into. we have a lot of people looking into this whole situation. >> will the administration pursue, will the white house pursue a leak investigation into whomever is giving chairman nunes this information if it's in the executive branch? >> at this time we are letting his review of the situation procee proceed. i think there's a difference between a leak and someone pursuing a review of the situation that they have determined. there's a difference between a leak, someone leaking to reporters to take classified information and share it with people who aren't cleared. chairman nunes is cleared. he is the chairman of the intelligence committee. that is not a leak. >> does that look like the white house review? >> that would reflect the views

of the united states government. >> same thing back on -- you mentioned lessons learned off what went down last week on health care. can you talk about specifically what some of those are, in terms of, president talked a lot about loyalty. does he believe some members of his party are no longer loyal to him? >> i'm not going to detail, go through. i mean, obviously this is an internal thing. i will say that we look at things like, everything from who we met with and when we met with them, to whether or not we should have -- how the thing -- how everything rolled out and what organizations were met with. what commitments were met and when. there's a lot that goes into this. you look at whether or not that's applicable to another situation, will that's unique. you do look at some of the individuals that you met with, both in times of timing, commitment, substance, and evaluate, you know, just the process itself. but then also to some degree,

the individuals and whether or not that is someone that you, you know -- there are several folks. again, it defends on the aspect of it. there's a legislative affairs team, a comps aspect of this. we all entirely talk about what went well, what didn't. we do that not just with the bad, but the good. jonathan asked it at the beginning. most organizations, whether or not you do something really well or not as well, it's usually incumbent upon you to say, what did we do well? for things we did really well we sustain those aspects of something. there's always something to improve. even when you don't do. there's an on going piece of this. major? >> talking about chairman nunes. i have a question. so members of congress may not need to be cleared, but to get access to a skip, i do believe that requires some cooperation from the executive branch, because there are intelligence

places on capitol hill that are secure and wr this meeting could have taken place. it create timhe impression tha chairman nunes came here and was able to carry out this meeting and then make the announcement which is perceived by some, most of them democrats, that it was trying to be helpful to this president and this administration. it appears there was some degree of cooperation in this process that the white house tkpwrapbed chairman nunes making it not just an investigative action but a cooperative one. >> number one, we asked both of these entities, the house and senate intelligence committee to under take this review. it is partially at our request that they're looking into this. number two, number two, based on the public comments that he made to margret's organization, he has said, from my understanding on the record, that he did not se staff. so, again, i think you're trying to make something that he is

himself, from what i have read, not actually been the case. >> that's not what i asked you. i asked you about having access to a skip. something has to be carried out -- >> i will be glad to take a look at that and figure out whether or not that san accurate statement. >> okay. >> let me ask you about jarrod. there is an understanding that's trying to be worked out between jarrod and the senate intelligence committee. is that testimony? is that something that the committee has requested? has he volunteered? do they believe he has something to explain to that committee and the american public about what he did in the transition, with whom he met with, and some of the meetings that he took that are raising questions about russia and folks that he met with that are outside diplomatic channels but have other aspects to their russian by deals that may cross the lines. >> throughout the campaign and the transition, jarod served as the official primary point of contact with foreign governments and officials until we had state

department officials up. so given this role, he volunteered to speak with the committee but has not received any confirmation regarding a time for a meeting or anything. >> is this going to be a private meeting? >> i don't know. again, he -- i think based on the questions that surround this, he volunteered to sit down and say, i'm glad to talk about the role that i played and the individuals that i met with. given the role he lplayed, he mt with countless individuals. that was part of his job. that was part of his role. and he executed it completely as he was supposed to. >> so he doesn't believe he owes the american public an explanation. >> for what? you're acting as though there's something nepharious about it. >> it's not every day that someone in a senior position volunteers to go talk to the senate intelligence committee dealing with meddling by foreign

entities. >> i'm answering it. i'm just saying to you based on the media frenzy that existed around this, he volunteered to make sure that he said, hey, we've made some contacts. i'd be glad to explain them. let me know if you'd like to talk. plain and simple. >> just to be clear to follow-up on what everyone is asking. the white house does not -- does white house have knowledge of the information that chairman nunes received when he came to the white house the first time? if that's the case or if that's not the case, is it your position that the white house is not going to look into where he got the information from or who gave him the information until his investigation is complete? >> i think that -- i'm not aware of where he got it from. i know in his public statement, he talked about having multiple sources. so i don't know how he derived the conclusion that he did. i think that at this point, the goal would be to wait until the

review that he is undertaking is complete. >> why would nunes need to brief the president on documents he viewed on white house grounds? >> that's a big assumption that you're making, that that's the on thing. as i said a second ago, he had multiple sources on multiple topics. we don't know what he briefed him on in totality. to jump to that conclusion is irresponsible. >> when will the white house resume releasing visitor logs? >> we are reviewing that now. alexis? >> just to follow up. last week you were in the press corps that it didn't make sense for nunes to come to the white house and brief the president on something he had obtained from the white house tprrbg the administration. so my question to you, i know what you said said, but can you say factually, absolutely flatly, that it's not possible that chairman nunes came to brief the president on something that he attained from the white

house and the administration? >> no, i can say 100% that i know anything that he briefed him on. what i can tell you through his public comments is that he has said he had multiple source, that he came to a conclusion on. to a degree to which any of those sources weighed on the ultimate outcome of what he cade to a decision on, i don't know. that's something that, frankly, i don't even know that he discussed with the president. >> it's possible? >> anything's possible. >> okay. here's my question on taxes. the president has said that in the past that he thought maybe tax reform would flow over into 2018 calendar year, 2018. and we know from the president's admiration of the 1986 tax reform that took a few years. can you answer two questions about tax reform? does the president anticipate that it will take that long going into 2018 or beyond? and who is going to write the tax legislation? who is going to divide the plan that the president wants to put his name on?

>> so, on the first one, i know secretary mnuchin talked about august as the target date. it depends. these are big things. there's a lot of groups that are gonna want a ton of input because of the very nature. it's been 30 years. but i think part of this will be dependent upon whether -- the degree to which we can come to consensus on a lot of big issues. but i know we have a goal. and it will depend on a lot of these issues both on the corporate side and the individual side how that process evolves. i know the secretary would like to have it done. he'll play a huge role in this. gary cohen will play a role in it. there's a lot of folks on the team secretary ross on the commerce side. tphrz a lot of individuals that he's assembled a world class cabinet that has a lot of interest in helping grow the economy to attract jobs, create a more favorable tax climate

here in the country and also provide tax relief for middle class americans. we're not there yet. >> will it be a trump plan? will bit the president's plan? >> obviously, we're driving the train on this. we're gonna work with congress on this. the president, as you've heard through multiple time, the president will be very clear. this is something he feels passion itself about. we'll have more on that later. john? >> the documents the white house saw here. the executive branch documents. in the early days after the president sent out that tweet, the white house was digging around for anything to corroborate what the president had tweeted out. why did it take the intelligence committee chairman coming here to the white house to view executive branch documents to uncover this information? why couldn't the white house do it? >> as i mentioned i think to margret, i will stick to what the chairman has said publicly.

my understanding from his public comments are thaf there are certain systems that he doesen have access to. that was his explanation and i think you should follow up with him on it. >> did white house ever search the same documents that the chairman searched? >> i don't know what he found so it would be hard to make an assessment of what he was briefed on. that's a hard question to answer. >> is it possible that thaoe documents were merely surveillance reports? >> i'm not going to get into hypotheticals. to say what's possible, what's not, i don't know. >> let me finish. is it possible these were surveillance reports that were filled out? >> i don't know. i don't know. i honestly don't know what he's got on his systems and what the intel community has on theirs that he wouldn't have access to. i don't know what he would have had access to already. amen? >> on tax cuts, you got little bit of political cover from the

house freedom caucus to do this without paying for all of it. that is adding to the deficit. what's the right number for the white house to add to the deficit in order to do that? how high are you willing to go in terms of deficit? >> it's a really early question to be asking at this point. i think the question is, as we construct this, both on the corporate side and then on the individual side, i think part of it is it's going to be an equation that isn't just driven by that, but more of what's going to attract jobs, what's going to grow the economy. i think we're potentially growing around 2.6 and the president really would like to see that growth right up in the high threes, fours and fives. so there's a question about what part of tax reform especially on the corporate side, will help us spur the economy and grow jobs. i think that's an on going discussion. i think that's more of the driver of this. as it evolves, we'll have a score and know more. >> are you entirely adding to

the deficit? >> you're asking really early in the process to make that kind of analysis before we have a policy set forth or have any kind of notion of what a score would look like. >> thanks, sean. there's been an escalation of the american war in the role against the islamic state, marines coming ashore in syria. i'm trying to understand the relationship between that change and the president's isis strategy review. has he personally signed off on all the changes in america's posturing in the fields seasons january 20th? is that something that's left up to the commanders in the field? >> it depends on which mission you're talking about. >> marines left in i think october. they obviously went ashore much more recently than that. so did he have to sign off on that? >> he speaks with general mattis, his security team very regularly. i'm not going to get into the details of the setting. i will say that as i have noted in the past, i think the

president had made it very clear that he wants to give the commanders on the ground much more flexibility to execute their mission, especially when it comes to defeating isis. that's a very big change in philosophy. it also depends on the magnitude of the mission, the number of ground troops in particular. so this is an on going discussion that he has with secretary mattis an others. >> on the review, are you waiting? is the president waiting until the review is complete before you announce sort of a new posturing strategy? or as conclusion come in, you're adjusting day to day? >> i think some of it is an on going discussion that we're having with the chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary mattis, dod. there are certain times when they meet. they'll update him on certain things and give him an update on where they're headed right now. as the review is on going, there are certain events that are part of, will be part and parcel of

the review. we'll update him on that and talk to him about the tweet. >> president trump sent out two tweets criticizing members of the house freedom caucus for preventing planned parenthood from being funded by the aha. >> i think he's made very clear what his position is on planned parenthood. and obviously this was an opportunity to defund it. and he -- but i don't want to get ahead of our legislative strategy. we'll look at other opportunities. this is one that was a way to make that happen. steve? >> on that legislative stratty, there's a school of thought in this town that last week proved that the president is lacking in political capital. i have two question. number one, what's in it for democrats to work with the president now? two, if fully pursued to get

things through the house, democrats and republicans work together. wouldn't that tend to undermine the job security of speaker ryan if the house freedom caucus is frozen snout >> two things. number one, i think the message that -- as i mentioned to jonathan at the beginning. it's a two-way street. you see, whether judge gorsuch, which they're throwing down decades of senate tradition by saying we're just gonna filibuster this guy. i don't think there's anyone in america that can honestly look at his qualifications and suggest that he's not qualified as a jurorist for the supreme court. there's nothing anyone has seen or laid a glove on him that suggest that he's not qualified to serve. and i think that so -- again with obamacare, repealing and replacing it, several of the democrats came out from the get go and said we have no interest in doing that. there's a point in which both parties can look back and figure out whether or not it's worth engaging. i think the president, as i

mentioned, is eager to get to 218 on a lot of his initiatives. whether it's tax reform, infrastructure. there are a lot of things. i think he is going to be willing to listen to other voices on the other side to figure out if people want to work with him to get these big things done to make washington work, to enhance the lives of the american people, then he's gonna work with them. he had a great meeting with the cbc the other day where he talked about infrastructure. he talked about loans and small business lending, education. there are things that he is willing to engage individuals with or groups or caucuses to get to 218 and further advance his agenda. so it's not about undermining anybody. it's ab moving the agenda forward and getting things done. >> speaker ryan was on the floor, not the president. what's in it for speaker ryan? >> getting things done. i think there is still an interest in doing what's in the best interest of this country

that exists. let's just make sure we understand. his goal, he came here to get things done. and i think, you know, as was pointed out, there was a level of disappointment that he expressed on friday. people want to work together. i think what this event on friday did was draw more people into the process. okay, let's figure out if we can come together to get to 218. whether or not they come from one side of the aisle or the other, to pass this bill and make a better system. he understands that there's an tune here. with health care being such a big issue, with obamacare being such a looming disaster. that we have an opportunity to do some stuff. if democrats want to join in, then that's great. we'll do that. mike? >> excuse me. you talked up there about the wide latitude that secretary price has to disband obamacare. is that still the case? will he try to dismantle

obamacare while you're trying to work on health care reform? also the health care bill would have repealed almost all of the obama care taxes. do you want to see those repealed as part of the tax reform bill? >> i think secretary price is up here today. there's a lot of meetings that are already taking place internally with the team. there are options on the table especially when it comes to what we call phase one and phase two. trying to get some of that stuff out the door. as we look back on, talking about lesson learned, any one of them is to try to get phase one, phase two mesh together and pushed out. how we do that, whether we wait for the revival of legislation before we put up. remember, i think just so we're clear, and i mentioned earlier, obamacare had a ton of fits and starts during its process. it was left for dead multiple times. they pushed forward. i do think that we have to recognize that we are, you know,

17, 18 days into this process. i think the president's made very clear, it's not over. there are people coming to the table. but he's going to listen to all good ideas to figure out what it takes to get to 218. we'll see where we go from there. john? >> question on the health care bill would have revealed the obamacare taxes. >> that's par and parcel of that discussion. how we look at the tax and some of the phase one stuff, but we're not ready to announce anything right now. john decker? >> as far as the chairman's offer to meet with chairman byrd and talk with the senate intelligence committee, is there any particular reason why the white house would not be opposed to the idea of jarod kushner volunteering? >> he volunteered to testify. >> in the white house's view, a

dangerous precedent in having a senior aide to the president going up. ordinarily we see sometimes the white house invoking executive privilege. why haven't you done this? >> i think jarod did a job during the transition in the campaign where he was a conduit to leaders and that's until we had a state department functional place where people could go. we had a delay on some of the things. that was his role. he wants to make sure that he's clear about the role that he played, who he talked to. that's it. jim? >> is obamacare repeal dead? >> i don't think it's dead. >> it has to be dead if you don't have democrats working with you. >> i don't know that that's true. >> why would they work with you? >> it's dying. >> you're still trying to repeal it. >> part of it is there is a recognition that it is failing. it will be dead -- >> it's not dying.

there are repairs that need to be made. but to kill the whole thing -- >> i understand what they want. i think there's a difference. we premiums continue to go sky high, deductibles are going sky high, choices are going down. leader peloi's own metric, this is dying. she's the one who crafted the metric. she said there was a three prong system to determining its success. it is a failure. if they want to come back to the table and recognize how we can do it in a more responsible way to achieve the goals that obamacare set out to do but do so in a way that's going to do the opposite of what obamacare did, which was to increase drive down cost, we're willing to have that discussion. >> repeal has to be -- >> one of the things that i mentioned is we have to figure out how we get to 216, 218, depending on what the number is. that doesn't mean we need the entire democratic caucus. we need some responsible democrats who want to have a

discussion about how to do that. there may be enough of them willing to do that. i understand where the democratic leadership is. and that's one thing. they continue to stake out a very very far left position. that's not where all their members are. i think we can, based on the calls that have come in over the last 50, 60 hour, i think that there might be some room to have a conversation with people who want to engage in a constructive conversation on how to move forward. let's see how that evolves. i don't know that we're ready to jump into this today. as the calls come forward, the president's view is, if you want to get together and start to come together to a resolution, we're willing to listen. i'm not going to jump ahead, but i will say that we believe there's something that could still be done at some point. i think the further along we go, where premiums continue to go up, more and more people will be drawn into this discussion

because there's going to be a continued cry from people in terms of the impact that it's having on their pocketbook or ability to see a doctor that is not able. >> quick follow-up on nunes. do you reject that there's any kind of perception problem whatsoever in having the chairman here the day before he comes out publicly and says, by the way, there information that's helpful to the president. >> the chairman made clear what his goal was. you can't ask someone to do a review of the situation and then sort of create inferences because they're reviewing a situation that there's something, you know, that's not right about that. he is reviewing a situation. he did exactly that. i think he's been fairly open with the press as far as what he was doing, who he spoke to and why. i think, you know, from our standpoint, that's what we asked him to do in the review.

april? >> sean, number one, you heard the question i asked about the attorney general and the hate crimes that happened in new york. white supremacist who want to new york and targeted a black man. hate crimes are on the rise. what do you say? what is the white house saying about this obvious apparent hate crime? >> i'm not -- you yell at the attorney general on a specific case. >> you talked about issues -- >> i want to be very clear that i'm not going to reference any case before the doj. i will say that the president has recognized that we need to bring the country together. he wants to unite this country. he wants to bring people together. he had a very long conversation with respect to race in pittsburgh which is something, if i'm not correct, in your question. just want to be clear. thank you. that was one of the topics that

he talked about with the cbc. some of the issues with respect to crime an education and some of the solutions that they suggested that could be done during their meeting. i think those are the kind of things that i think we can continue that conversation. >> sean, unfortunately there's been a rise in hate crimes when it comes to different groups. >> yes, and -- owe. >> you commented from this podium, this gentle man said he wishes the man were younger. what do you say? this is clear, racism. >> two issues. number one, i think hate crimes, anti-semetic crimes of any nature should be called out in the most rep rehenceable way. there is one issue that despite

policy should unite us. that is calling out hate, calling out divisiveness based on the color of one's skin, one's gender. president called it out before with respect to certain particular situations. he made it very clear at the opening of his joint address, that's what he led with, is a call to denounce hate, no matter where we come from politically. he's also talked about it. the night that he took the stage on that wednesday morning around 2:40 a.m. about how one of the things that he needed to do and wanted to do as president was unite all americans. i think there's one other piece to this, april, that i want to be clear on. anti-hate, semetism where it exists. in your case in particular, while i don't know all of the details and i don't want to reference one specific case, but we saw this the other day with some of the behavior that was going on with respect to people, the jewish faith. it's that we saw these threats coming into jewish community

center. there was an immediate jump to criticize folks on the right and denounce people on the right and ask them to condemn them. it turns out that, in fact, it wasn't someone on the right. and it was -- the president from the get go said i bet it's not someone. he was right. and yet -- i understand that. >> a whaoeult supremacist. >> in those cases there is no question black and white, we need all instance of this. with that being said, while we're on the topic, i do think there's been a rush to judgment in a lot of other cases when it comes to in particular some of the anti-semetic discussion, where people jumped to the conclusion ab denouncing people on the right and asking for this. in that particular case we saw that the president was right and that this rush to judgment by a lot of folks on the left was wrong and none of them have been held to account on that. that is something equally needs to be called out. when people are charging something of someone that is not true, there has been nothing to go back to those individuals, nothing, on the left who came

and asked for everyone on the right to denounce something that they weren't guilty of. there needs to be an equal time to go back and call out those individuals for rushing to judgment. >> my second topic and i will be done. someone who was in the room, talking about the cbc meeting last week. someone who was in the room at that meeting said that the issue of hbc came up. that's a very simple subject in the black community and here at the white house. the issue came up. omarosa said that she would be the one heading the hbc office at the white house. the president did not make a response confirming or denying. this will be the case? >> we don't have any announcements to make. i assume you're referring to the executive order. >> thank you.

talking about repealing and replacing obamacare. does the president think he can work with the freedom caucus on future pieces of legislation? >> i think it's going to depend on what legislation. it's not a question of we're going to work with anybody who wants to work with us on achieving the goals that the president settle out. we're not putting anyone and saying we'll never work with you again. it is that balance -- as he mentioned, he learned a lot through this process about loyalty. it's not just a block. it's certain individuals. i'm not going to get into naming names, but the president learned a lot through this process. one of the things that's interesting is, when you look back and i know there has been a lot to make of this, the president recognizes when there's not a deal to be made, when to walk away. that's not just about making deals. it's knowing when to walk away from deals and knowing when there's a bad deal that's the only solution.

i know the president understood that while you can get a deal at the time, that sometimes a bad deal is worse than getting a deal. and i think he smartly recognized that what was on the table was not going to be keeping with the vision that he had and so he decided that this was not the time and a deal was not at hand. >> let me ask you about this tweet over the weekend. does he regret tweeting to his followers that they should tweet in to judge janine. >> that's it. plain and same. . >> does he owe speaker ryan an apology? >> they talked extensively over the weekend. i think they talked both saturday and sunday at length. but again, he is a fan of the show. he tweeted out support it. that's it. i know what a lot of people think, chris. for what? for supporting a show on fox? no. dave? dave? >> two question. one on the president choosing

jared kushner for this new office. obviously jared has 60 some days of experience in washington. never had prior government jobs. does the president view that as an advantage? >> in some cases. where you look at the individuals that he's bringing in. one of the things jared and again they may talk more about this lear. one of the things jared's looking at is some of the procurement, the technology aspect. if you've ever really dealt with the government and recognized how outdated and unmodernized this is. it is not serving the american people. it is not serving the constituents that many departments have. looking at how we procure different things and procure technology in particular is important. it's important when -- i think when you look at the va in particular and recognize how it handles certain thing. there are certain things it does very well. it buys prescription drugs really well.

buys in bulk, gets the job done. but there are certain things that it may not do in terms of how it keeps its record and how it lends money, etc. that we can look at and figure out, is there a better way? government is not business, right? we recognize there are certain things that by would never do, in terms of what government has to do because we serve all of our people. but there are certain practices that we can put in place that can help us deliver a better product, better service to the american people in some key areas. i think when you look at some of the business acumin that jared and some of the other individuals that he is bringing into this process can really -- i think it is a great service to this country. there are so many sreu walls that jared has talked to that have done so well and have been blessed by our nation that have wanted to give back and are using this opportunity to help our country an serve our country in ways that they believe they can use their expertise to do.

>> healthcare. this review that you talked about, what went right, what went wrong. i know you don't want to name names, but would it be fair that the president has written some people off? >> i think i answered that question. it's not a question of writing someone off. there's an understanding of how you deal with certain people and how they dealt with you. it is not a question of writing them off. we're going to need to get to someone who keeps saying 218 is easier. i won't screw that one up. we recognize that as we go down this path of a big bold agenda that the president has, we're going to need every vote. we are not writing off anybody. we do recognize there's some lessons learned from this process. the president made it very clear on friday. thank you very much, i'll see you tomorrow. have a good day. >> dana: all right. that was sean spicer wrapping up

a very busy press briefing. hello, everyone. i'm sandra smith. spicer weighing in on the new details that devin nunes was meeting on the white house grounds the day before his presser announcing some plans of the trump transition team were caught up in some incidental surveillance. there were many questions as you saw firing off there about who at the white house knew or did not know that chairman nunes was there. we have team coverage of all of this. chris starwall is here to analyze this. first we part with peter doocy. as we were just watching that briefing together, it was a point of contention. there were a lot of questions there fired off to sean spicer about just that. do we know who nunes was talking to at the white house? >> reporter: we don't, sandra. sean spicer continues to insist throughout that briefing from beginning to end that he doesn't know either. when reporters were asking,

well, why don't you just look at the visitor logs and see who invited chairman nunes and who signed him in, or who gave him access to a secured compartmented facility, a skip, at the white house to view classified information. spicer said, well, i don't know if a member of congress especially chairman of a committee like this needs to get signed in, get cleared in by anybody. but he said he would check to see if there is any kind of paper trail that shows how nunes got from capitol hill to a secure compartmented information facility on the white house grounds last tuesday. now, for nunes' part, he says and his office said that the reason he had to go to the white house is because he was reviewing executive branch documents that haven't yet been provided to his committee. in a statement his office says this, because of classification rules, the source could not simply put the documents in a backpack and walk them over to the house intelligence committee space. the white house grounds was the

best location to safe guard the proper chain of custody and classification of these documents so the chairman could view them in a legal way. the official line from the trump administration came just before the briefing started and i says this. we have been made aware through public that chairman nunes confirmed that he was on the white house grounds tuesday, and any questions concerning his meeting should be directed to the chairman. the reason this is so confusing is because the timeline as we best understand it is nunes goes to the white house tuesday, gets white house grounds tuesday, gets some kind of scoop, leaves the white house grounds then goes back to the white house grounds wednesday to tell president trump what he learned on white house grounds the night before. he still has not shared with other members of the committee, democrats or republicans, a what exactly he heard. that is something that is starting to bug his democratic counter part, adam schiff, from california. >> he hasn't shared it with me. you can check with my colleague.

i don't think he's shared it with anyone on the committee. so we're all quite in the dark on this. >> reporter: nunes has apologized to the other members of congress on this committee, democrats and republicans, for going to the president and the president with this information that he got apparently on the white house grounds. nobody at the white house, sean spicer or these other members of the committee seem to know exactly what makes him think that members of the trump transition team, possibly the president, were caught up in incidental surveillance. >> sandra: peter, just seems like there's some very simple questions that were being asked there that the white house couldn't provide answers for. peter, we're gonna leave it there. thank you very much for that information. let's bring in fox news politics editor. chris, you were listening to all of this. some of the kpabg wording coming from the white house, from the press secretary, i don't know who signed him in. reporters said, isn't there a

log you can check? don't you have to sign in or be cleared? i guess we're all wondering why there isn't just evidence that he was there, first of all. >> yeah. it's a little murky out there right now is what i would say. whenever you're dealing with the cloak and dagger world of intelligence intercepts and courts, you're starting out in a pretty opaque space to begin with. when you add in people trying to duck, dodge and weave, it gets positively baffling. but we are left with this unmistakable knowledge. there's no question about this. devin nunes tried to help the president. he has ended up harming him, or at least in the short term. he wanted to help the president see that there's this incidental collection and probably trump's unverified claim about wiretapping and president obama in his feud with obama. so this probably looked to nunes as an opportunity to help the president, whose transition he

served and of course party he is part. thought this would probably be good. now it's turning into a subcontroversy of its own an giving democrats lots of ammunition to say something stinks. >> sandra: everything we just saw really developed into quite a thing. sean spicer saying i'm not getting into who he met with or why he met with them. i can't say 100% that i know anything that he on by him. but then he went into explain why this isn't a leak, chris. he said someone who is cleared to share classified info with someone else who is cleared is not a leak. >> okay. well, my brain hurts and it's not because i was just having an slurpee. reality is that this is something both parties have done. obama administration did it big league with the bin laden killing. they circulated the information in a way that they knew it was going to get out because they wanted it to get out. partisans do this.

they want credit and blame signed to the right space so they share classified information designed to attain leakage. nunes delivered. maybe he delivered too robustly in a way that the president and his team don't like. i don't know. but it's turned into a complication. >> sandra: it was interesting the way this all started out. over an hour ago, chris, jeff sessions was brought out and introduced by sean spicer. he had a very strong message on sanctuary cities and that they will be punished. we're going to get to our panel on that in a moment. i'll ask you this question. was that meant as a distraction? as this was the first press briefing at the white house since the healthcare failure. >> well, you can say it's a distraction, but the nunes thing now becomes the distraction to the distraction of the distraction about the distraction. the truth for this administration is this. very simply. the healthcare thing won't

matter because nobody liked the bill anyway. everybody's glad it's dead. so it's not like people are gonna say, oh, bring back trump care. they'll say, whoo, dodged it. >> sandra: now my head's spinning. thank you. good to see you. attorney general jeff sessions making a major announcement at the start of today's white house briefing. revealing a new effort to crack down on sanctuary cities. >> today, i am urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these medical laws, including eight usc section 1373, failure to remedy violations could result in with holding grants, termination of grants, disbarment or ineligible for future grants. public safety, as well as national security, are at stake. >> sandra: the democratic strategist and senior director of research for bustle.com and pher samercedes is a former spo

person for george w. bush. mercedes, sanctuary cities will be punished. he came out with a very strong message. he said he is willing to with hold potentially billions of dollars of federal funding from those cities if they do not oblige. >> yeah. obviously, this is something that president trump has focused on, has been a critical issue as part of his revamping immigration in the united states. you got to look at the numbers here, sandra. in 2013, you're talking over 30,000 illegal criminal aliens were released into the public. you're talking that about 1,000 of those were reconvicted of a crime. so really, when you look at those numbers, it shows that we need to have a better handle of what's happening with those criminals, those illegal immigrants who are here in the united states. then you have about 23 of these

countries who don't even want these violent criminals back. so that is why they've got to put the federal government putting pressure on these local counties, these states, that are building these sanctuary cities, allowing for these sanctuary cities. >> sandra: while it was a forceful message, jessica, it was a simple one. these cities must obey the law or his department will with hold those federal funds. in his words, he said countless americans would be alive today if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended. we have got to end this policy. jessica? >> he is not going to be able to end the policy. there are a bunch of issues going on. jeff sessions makes a lot of sense. local police forces need to comply with ice officials. if someone's been convicted of a crime, this is something broadly americans agree with, they should be deported. that's a separate issue from a path way to citizenship for 1 #

1 million undocumented immigrants who are here in this country. so those two issues often get confused. public opinion is split on that. you have support for the path way to citizenship but then sanctuary cities being less popular. it is smart for him to send this signal. i'm not sure how that's going to play out. there are cities like chicago that are definitely not going to play ball, los angeles, for instance. but sanctuary cities as a policy were put in place by republicans. you had rudy giuliani ex-tolling the virtue of sanctuary cities on record in 1996, talking ab how immigrants can come out of the shahhed dose and report crimes. i don't think the issue could be confused. >> sandra: also part of his message, he said i will plead with maryland not to become a sanctuary city. thank you very much for staying with us. thank you. good to have both of you here. last week's deadly attack in london is reigniting the debate

over privacy an security. should the government have a back door to see what they're up to? so you're having a party?

how nice. i'll be right there. and the butchery begins. what am i gonna wear? this party is super fancy. let's go. i'm ready. are you my uber? [ horn honks ]

hold on. the biggest week in tv is back. [ doorbell rings ] par-tay! xfinity watchathon week starts april 3. get unlimited access to all of netflix and more, free with xfinity on demand.

>> sandra: the british government calling for a back door to read messages on encrypted messaging platforms. following last week's deadly attack outside westminster, detectives revealing the suspect may have used what's app just minutes before his rampage, but they can't break the encryption. trace gallagher is live with more on that. hey, trace? >> reporter: say, sandra. the westminster attacker is now officially being called by his muslim name khalid masoud. just three minutes before he drove and used his vehicle and knife to kill four people, he

sent a tes message to someone using the what's app message service owned by facebook. authorities don't know who he was communicating with. unlike a normal text message or social media account, what'sapp uses something called end to end encryption, which means only the sender and the recipient have access to the message. no third parties. whatsapp said private communication is part of its core beliefs. in fact, company said the service is so secure that not even company technicians can access the messages. but the head of the u.k.'s homeland security department said encrypted messaging sites are helping the terrorists. watch. >> it is completely unacceptable. there should be no place for terrorists to hide. we need to make sure that organizations like whatsapp and plenty of others like that don't provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other. >> reporter: the homeland

secretary is pushing for whatsapp to kre kwraeucreate a . it's unlikely whatsapp will fly. like apple requiring it to provide the fbi access to phones following the san bernardino terror attack in 2015. apple argued that forcing it to write new software violates first amendment. social media companies have also been criticized for not blocking isis manuals showing how to better use your vehicle to attack people and other jihadist propaganda as well. sandra? >> sandra: going to be very interesting to see how that plays out. trace, thank you. some big news breaking in the world of football. the oakland raiders have just won approval from nfl owners to relocate to las vegas. the team is in the planning stages of a nearly $2 billion, 65,000 feet stadium that would be located on the vegas strip. but that isn't expected to open until 2020 at the very earliest.

the raiders will still reportedly play the 2017 football season in oakland. all right. well, listen to this very closely. you are about to hear a golf ball hit an alligator in the head. wonder what happens next? don't change that dial.

>> caught on camera. a golf ball knocked on alligator on the head. he gets his revenge. wait for it. gone! the gator ate that golf ball, the whole thing! caught on camera thanks to a golfer that spotted the red or

the on long marsh golf course in florida. i'm wondering, what do you do? do you take a drop shot? do you get the penalty? i'm sandra smith. here's shep. >> shepard: there is breaking news at noon on the west coast. 3:00 at the white house. right now president trump is set to sign a series of bills that as we get word that his son-in-law jared kushner could soon answer questions in congress about russia. plus, more u.s. troops headed to the war in the middle east. inside the battle to defeat isis in iraq. caught in the crossfire in west mosul. take this city and isis could be crippled. but will