AND SONG MUN-KIM IS A WHITE HOUSE REPORTER FOR "THE
WASHINGTON POST."
WASHINGTON POST." THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR BEING
HERE.
HERE. SONG, LET ME START WITH YOU,
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE TIME
LINE OF THIS.
WE ALL WATCHED SARAH SANDERS
COME OUT EARLIER THIS WEEK AND
SAY BASICALLY, LOOK, THE
PRESIDENT IS CONSIDERING
REVOKING MORE SECURITY
CLEARANCES.
CLEARANCES. WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES TELLING
YOU?
YOU? WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF THE TIMING
OF THIS?
OF THIS? >> I THINK THE TIMING QUESTION
IS INTERESTING.
IS INTERESTING. WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT HAD COME
TO THIS DECISION THAT WAS
ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK BY THE
SECRETARY, NOT THIS WEEK, NOT
LAST WEEK, BUT ABOUT THREE WEEKS
AGO.
AGO. REMEMBER WHAT’S GOING ON RIGHT
NOW.
NOW. THE WHITE HOUSE IS, AGAIN,
ENGULFED IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE
FORMER EX-AIDE OMAROSA MANIGAULT
NEWMAN AND THE ALLEGATIONS SHE
MAKES IN HER BOOK.
SOURCES TOLD "THE WASHINGTON
POST" THAT SENIOR ADVISERS,
INCLUDING SARAH SANDERS HERSELF,
HAD ADVISED THE PRESIDENT TO
KIND OF DEFLECT FROM THE OMAROSA
NEWS BY ANNOUNCING THE SECURITY
CLEARANCE NEWS.
CLEARANCE NEWS. AND AS PETER VERY ASTUTELY
POINTED EARLIER, THAT THE
PRESIDENT REALLY LOVES LOOKING
LIKE HE’S STRONG AND IN CHARGE,
AND THAT’S WHY EARLIER THIS
YEAR, HE WAS SO FIXATED ON HIS
PARDON POWER AND IT SEEMED LIKE
HE WAS GOING TO DOLE OUT PARDONS
LEFT AND RIGHT.
WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY HEARD MUCH
ABOUT THAT SINCE.
BUT WITH THAT IN MIND, I
WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED THAT THIS
CONTINUES AS AN ISSUE IN THE
COMING WEEKS.
COMING WEEKS. >> I THINK IT’S AN IMPORTANT
POINT, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF
THE STRATEGY HERE.
NANCY, THE POLITICAL STRATEGY
THAT WE’RE SEEING, THIS IS A
WHITE HOUSE THAT WAS, FRANKLY,
UNGULFED IN CONTROVERSY FOR THIS
ENTIRE WEEK.
ENTIRE WEEK. THEY WERE VERY EAGER TO TURN THE
PAGE.
PAGE. AND NOW THEY’VE SPARKED A WHOLE
NEW CONTROVERSY.
NEW CONTROVERSY. THE PUSHBACK HAS BEEN FIERCE BUT
THEY’RE DIGGING IN.
IS IT YOUR SENSE THAT THEY’RE
NOT GOING TO BACK DOWN?
THEY’RE JUST GOING TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS?
>> YES, I THINK THEY’RE NOT
GOING TO BACK DOWN AT ALL.
UNLIKE THE OMAROSA TAPES WHICH
REALLY PUT THEM ON THE
DEFENSIVE, I THINK THE WHITE
HOUSE VIEWS THE REVOKING OF
SECURITY CLEARANCES AS SOMETHING
THAT PUTS THEM ON THE OFFENSIVE.
IT’S SOMETHING THEY’RE ABLE TO
CONTROL.
CONTROL. I THINK THE PRESIDENT FEELS LIKE
IT GIVES HIM A SENSE OF POWER.
IT MAKES HIM SEEM STRONG WHICH
IS SOMETHING THAT HE’S VERY
CONCERNED WITH.
CONCERNED WITH. AND SO I THINK WE’LL CONTINUE TO
SEE, LIKE, THE DRIP-DRIP-DRIP OF
THAT, PARTICULARLY AS THE
OMAROSA THING HAS A
DRIP-DRIP-DRIP EFFECT.
DRIP-DRIP-DRIP EFFECT. >> SHE CERTAINLY DOES.
LET ME READ YOU SOMETHING THAT
JEREMY BASH, ALSO A CONTRIBUTOR
HERE, HAD TO SAY.
THIS IS WHAT HE TOLD AXIOS
TODAY.
TODAY. "MY CONCERN THIS MORNING IS
TRUMP WILL STRIP THE CLEARANCES
OF BOB MUELLER AND THE
INVESTIGATIVE TEAM.
INVESTIGATIVE TEAM. IT’S CRITICAL THAT CONGRESS
PROTECT THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION NOW BY PASSING A
LAW THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
TRUMP TO RESTRICT THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL’S ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION."
INFORMATION." SO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU EXPECT
CONGRESS TO TAKE ANY TYPE OF
ACTION?
ACTION? WE HEARD REPUBLICANS YESTERDAY
BASICALLY BOLSTERING THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. AND IS THAT MORE AND MORE WHAT
YOU’RE HEARING, THAT THAT’S THE
CONCERN HERE?
CONCERN HERE? THE PRESIDENT’S TRYING TO SEND A
MESSAGE NOT ONLY TO THE INTEL
COMMUNITY BUT DIRECTLY TO
MUELLER?
MUELLER? >> SO NUMBER ONE, NO, I DON’T
EXPECT CONGRESS TO ACT.
THERE’S --
THERE’S -- >> ON ANYTHING PERHAPS.
>> YES, IN PARTICULAR ON
QUESTIONS PROTECTING THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL IN THIS WAY.
NUMBER TWO, AND I’VE BEEN WRONG
ABOUT THESE THINGS BEFORE AND
CERTAINLY PAUL RYAN, THE SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE WHO SAID TRUMP WAS
JUST TROLLING PEOPLE WITH THIS
SECURITY CLEARANCE THREAT, HAS
BEEN WRONG ABOUT THESE THINGS IN
THE PAST.
THE PAST. I THINK IF THE PRESIDENT WANTS
TO GO AT MUELLER THE WAY THAT HE
SUGGESTS IS AN UNLIKELY ONE.
WITH ALL RESPECT TO JEREMY AND
THE CONCERNS HE MAY HAVE THERE,
LEGITIMATELY, THAT SEEMS LIKE A
PRETTY POLITICAL ARGUMENT ABOUT
MUELLER.
MUELLER. THE ONE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY,
TO THE EARLIER POINTS, IMAGINE
BEING IN THE PLACE AT THE WHITE
HOUSE WHERE YOU THINK YOUR BEST
WAY OF GETTING OUT OF A FIGHT
WITH OMAROSA, THE BEST POLITICAL
THING YOU CAN DO IS TO PICK A
FIGHT WITH A FORMER CIA
DIRECTOR, KNOWING AS ANYONE WHO
IS REMOTELY LITERAL WOULD KNOW,
THAT ANYBODY ELSE IN THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY IN
THE PAST WILL COME OUT IF FULL
FORCE BEHIND THEM.
BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAVE THIS
PERSONAL STAKE IN IT.
BUT ALSO BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT
THIS IS JUST THIS RETALIATION
LOOKS TERRIBLE.
LOOKS TERRIBLE. THE McGRAVEN LETTER YESTERDAY
WAS UNBELIEVABLE.
WAS UNBELIEVABLE. YOU’VE EMBARRASSED US BEFORE THE
EYES OF OUR CHILDREN,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT. >> AND HE LED THE BIN LADEN
RAID, I MEAN, HE’S SOMEONE WHO
EVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
SUPPORTERS MIGHT LISTEN TO.
HE’S ONE OF THESE FIGURES WHO
HOLDS A FAIR AMOUNT OF WEIGHT I
WOULD THINK.
WOULD THINK. >> LOOK THE TRUMP FOLKS LOVE TO
EXPLODE THE IDEA THERE ARE
PEOPLE WITH EXPERTISE OR THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT OPPOSE
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO ARE
ESSENTIALLY UNASSAILABLE.
ESSENTIALLY UNASSAILABLE. WE’VE SEEN BOY SCOUTS IN THE
PAST FALL IN CERTAIN WAYS,
WHETHER YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT
PETRAEUS, POTENTIALLY JIM COMEY,
YOU KNOW, WE’VE SEEN SOME FLAWS
IN THEM OVER TIME.
McRAVEN HAS A STERLING
REPUTATION, AND IT DOESN’T HAVE
ANY OF THAT.
I MEAN, DOESN’T HAVE -- THERE’S