Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

White House Briefing Coverage. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired September 15, 2017 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:30:00]

NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR to U.N.: We have three events that will be extremely important.

First, the president will highlight the U.N. reform event. It is very, very important. We've got a massive reform package being led by the secretary general that really streamlines not just the processes, but also that budget as it goes forward, and makes the U.N. much more effective.

We basically have the president headlining a U.N. reform effort, which would really support the secretary general. But the impressive part is we asked other countries to sign on to their support of reform and 120 countries have signed on, and will be in attendance. That's a miraculous number.

The vice president will be doing two very important briefings. He's going to do one on Human Rights Council. Now more than ever human rights matters. We say all the time if a government doesn't take of its people, bad things will happen. And I think we're seeing that in multiple places, and that's all the reason why the Human Rights Council really needs to be effective.

We have offered reform. I think the vice president will go and not only support the reform, but talk about why it's needed and the areas that are really needing to be addressed when it comes to human rights.

The second one he's going to do is on peacekeeping. And in the last several months, we have taken every peacekeeping mandate and changed it. Basically we have saved half a billion dollars in peacekeeping.

But before anyone thinks that's a travesty, basically the way that they handled peacekeeping in the past was if there was a challenged area, they would throw more troops at it. But they didn't see if the troops were trained, or give the equipment to do their job. Now we're going towards the political solution, making sure the troops are trained and armed, making sure that we're more effective.

So, it's smarter and it cut half a billion, and in some cases we're having to increase and in some cases we're having a decrease.

So, having the vice president talk about the importance of the peacekeeping being effective is going to be very important.

And then, as I said, there are no shortage of issues, with North Korea being front and center. Iran will be an issue. Syria will certainly be talked about. Terrorism efforts and how we counter that is -- is a huge topic on what we're dealing with. And, obviously, the humanitarian issues that we face around the world.

So with that, I think the General Assembly is going to be quite active next week, and I think the U.S. is going to be very strong next week. And we look forward to a very good week.

MCMASTER: Gentlemen, sir?

QUESTION: Thank you, General.

(LAUGHTER)

My question's about North Korea, which is perhaps the biggest foreign policy challenge for President Trump right now.

About a month ago, the president issued a threat to North Korea. He warned of fire and fury. And as you know, Ambassador, at the U.N. Security Council, you've imposed some sort of sanctions on North Korea. Both of these efforts do not seem to be changing their behavior.

QUESTION: Is it time for the U.S. to change its approach to North Korea? Is that something that we're contemplating?

And, General, if you could weigh (sic) on this as well, I'd appreciate it.

HALEY: I think what was really important with North Korea was that we try and push through as many diplomatic options as we have.

If you look at the resolutions that have passed in the last month, the two of them, they cut 30 percent of the oil. They banned all the laborers. They banned 90 percent of the exports. They banned joint ventures. We've basically taken, and in the words of North Korea, we have strangled their economic situation, at this point.

That's going to take a little bit of time, but it has already started to take effect.

What we are seeing is they continue to be provocative, they continue to be reckless. And at that point, you know, there's not a whole lot the Security Council is going to be able to do from here, when you've cut 90 percent of the trade, and 30 percent of the oil.

So having said that, I had no problem kicking it to General Mattis, because I think he has plenty of options.

QUESTION: General, can you (inaudible)?

MCMASTER: I would just emphasize the point that Ambassador Haley made. These sanctions are just now taking effect. What's really important is rigorous enforcement of those sanctions, so that we can let the economic actions and -- and diplomacy progress as best we can. But I think we ought to make clear, what's different about this approach is is that we're out of time, right? As Ambassador Haley said before, you know, we've been kicking the can down the road, and we're out of road.

And so, for those who have said and have been commenting about the lack of a military option, there is a military option.

Now, it's not what we would prefer to do. So what we have to do is call on all nations, call on everyone, to do everything we can to address this global problem short of war.

So that is implementing now these significant sanctions that have just now gone into place, and it is convincing everyone to do everything that they can. And that it's in their interest to do it.

What's different, I think, about this approach to North Korea is worth noting.

First of all, there is consensus among all key nations that denuclearization of the peninsula is the only acceptable objective.

The second thing is, this is not an issue between the United States and North Korea, this is an issue between the world and -- and North Korea.

And the third recognition is, there is a lot that we can do about it together.

And so -- so we need time, obviously, for any strategy to work. It is a sound approach to a very difficult problem. And we'll see if it succeeds.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Ambassador Haley, at a conference call preceding your briefing here, Jonathan Alterman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that next week's UNGA "will be as much the world taking measure of the United States, as it is the U.S. speaking to the world."

He went on to say that -- that "the UNGA, because of its very quick meetings, is sort of like speed dating from Hell," and that it's a very sophisticated dance that neither Secretary of State Tillerson or -- or the president have a particularly strong point on.

What would you say to people who are wondering how the U.S. will do at next week's UNGA?

HALEY: I think there's a lot of interest in how the U.S. is going to do. And they're going to find out we are going to be solid, we're going to be strong.

If you look at all of the meeting that the national security team has, these are important meetings. These aren't just wasting time. This is going to talk about terrorism; this is going to talk about the issues in North Korea; this is going to talk about the issue in Burma, and what we're dealing with there; Venezuela; all of these issues.

No one is going to grip and grin. The United States is going to work. And I think with all of the challenges around the world, I think the international community's going to see that. This is a time to be serious, and it's a time for us to talk out these challenges and make sure there's action that follows it.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: One of the questions from some of the people outside this room in other countries is, in addition to what we do militarily, is the humanitarian effort. And we've been criticized for not being involved in humanitarian effort too much, especially by the Third World.

So when you go to New York, in addition to addressing the security measures, how are you going to address the criticism about the U.S. not leading humanitarian efforts?

HALEY: We actually have led humanitarian efforts, and continue to.

Human rights, in general, is very important. That's something we've been loud on, which is the fact that you have to protect human rights.

But the humanitarian side of what we're seeing in South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, what we're seeing with the Syrian refugees that are in Turkey and Jordan, the fact that we are trying to deal with Burma and find out ways that we can get humanitarian access in there; Yemen is something that the United States has been working very closely with the Saudis on and the U.N., to try and make sure we get humanitarian access.

So we have been as -- active and vocal and leading the charge on humanitarian access in all of these areas. And we are making a difference.

I think, just in Syria, we've had over $3 billion that we've given, in terms of helping that situation.

Venezuela: You saw what we did with the sanctions, but we're making sure they get that.

Right now, in Burma, we are taking that very seriously. And that's of utmost importance, that we get front and center on that one.

QUESTION: And then, quick follow-up -- a quick follow-up, if I may...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I have a question, first, to General McMaster, before I get to (inaudible) for you.

General, you mentioned the, obviously, terror incident overseas in London. The president tweeted this morning that it was sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. You may have seen Prime Minister May said it was not helpful for people to speculate.

Did the president share information that he wasn't supposed to? And if not, why was he speculating?

MCMASTER: I think what the president was communicating is -- is that, obviously, all of our law enforcement efforts are focused on this terrorist threat. From -- for years, Scotland Yard has been a leader, as our FBI's been a leader. So I think, if there was a terrorist attack here, God forbid, that we would say that they were in the sights of the FBI.

So I think he didn't mean anything beyond that.

QUESTION: Meaning -- I'm sorry, I'm not clear.

Meaning he was saying, generally, terrorists are a focus for Scotland Yard? Or was he saying, in this specific incident, Scotland Yard knew, potentially, this was coming?

MCMASTER: I think -- I think he means, generally, that this kind of activity is what we're -- what we're trying to prevent. And so these organizations that are responsible for it, whatever comes out of this investigation -- that remains to be seen -- it is likely that law enforcement had been working on that problem set.

QUESTION: And did that come up in the call with Prime Minister May?

MCMASTER: I was not on that call this morning.

QUESTION: And, Ambassador, to you, on North Korea, obviously, there's some more U.N. Security Council action that could be taken.

Are you at all hopeful that there's any chance for a full oil embargo, as this administration had wanted?

Or at what point -- President Trump himself said this was a small step, the last U.N. Security Council vote -- I think, disagreeing with you, but Secretary Tillerson agreed with him that it seemed to have been a small step.

So at what point does this administration take a bigger step and, for example, put tougher sanctions on China in order to put pressure on North Korea?

HALEY: I think, first of all, let's talk about what a big sanctions resolution this was.

The first one was $1 billion. This second one was $1.3 billion, not counting the 30 percent decrease in oil. We did a 55 -- and just imagine if this happened to the United States -- a 55 percent reduction in diesel and oil; an overall ban on natural gas; overall ban of any substitutes; overall ban of textiles; stopping the laborer program, which we call as modern-day slavery; stopping all joint ventures so foreign investment goes in there.

We have cut off now 90 percent of trade going into North Korea, and they are saying that this was -- so, you know, whether some believe it's big or small, I think what the president's saying is this is just the beginning of what we can do. So it's going to be -- by the time we get going on this, if we have to go further, this is going to look small, compared to what we do.

But no, it was a massive sanctions bill. And I think the fact that we had a 15 and 0 record and you have China on board and Russia on board -- I think that's very important.

We've cut 30 percent of the oil. Is there more you can do? There's always more you can do. But then you get into the humanitarian aspect of it, which is at what point are you going and actually hurting down to the people of North Korea.

But we will always explore all options that we have.

Yes, in the red.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

You said that Syria's going to be on the agenda. As you know, today Turkey, Russia and Iran agreed to deploy 1,500 monitors in the Idlib province. Does that leave the U.S. behind? And what exactly the focus will be when you talk about Syria in the U.N. next week?

And, General, if I can, you said that the meeting between the president and Prime Minister Netanyahu will talk about Iran. How much of the peace process with the Palestinians will take place in that meeting?

Thank you.

HALEY: I think the efforts in Syria have been remarkable -- both Syria and Iraq. To see how we have really bulldozed through ISIS in the way that we have shows how strong the U.S. has been in partnership with them.

But I think we're also looking at post-ISIS. What does that look like? And I can tell you, Iran is not going to be in charge and Iran is not going to have any sort of leadership in that situation to where they can do more harm.

But Syria is always going to be a topic. I think we continue to be strong in making sure there's no chemical weapons and making sure that we're looking at the humanitarian situation. But the U.S. is a very strong partner in the resolution for Syria and will continue to be until we know that everything's stable.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), does that include the U.S. (ph)?

HALEY: Well, I think we're not going to be satisfied until we see a solid and stable Syria, and that is not with Assad in place. But what we are going to do is continue to be very effective and be a part of that process so that we get to a resolution.

MCMASTER: Yeah, I'll just say that of course the president will talk about the prospects for lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, among a broad range of regional issues, with -- with really all of the leaders he's meeting during the week.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Ambassador, two quick questions.

The first one is the fact that President Putin and President Xi Jinping won't be there, will it have an impact on what the outcome of whatever you will discuss on Syria and North Korea?

And, General, you've been insisting a lot on -- on the respect of sovereignty. Wouldn't an investment in peacekeeping mission be part of getting involved and having a stronger impact on this?

HALEY: I do think that it's still going to be strong and have an impact, because you've got two very strong foreign ministers from Russia and China that are going to be there. And the idea that we're going to be talking about Syria and North Korea and Iran and all of those other things, I think it'll be serious discussions.

And I think the fact that President Xi and President Putin couldn't be there is not going to change the effect of what -- the talks that we have next week.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed that they're not going to show up?

HALEY: That's their choice to not show up.

QUESTION: But...

MCMASTER: I would just add on to say the U.N. General Assembly's not a substitute for bilateral relationships with -- with any nations.

And as you know, the president's been working very closely, especially with President Xi, on this common problem and -- and this world problem of North Korea. So those discussions will continue, and they'll continue in the context of multilateral engagements, but also in context of our bilateral relationship with China.

HALEY: Back in the back.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Ambassador, General.

A question regarding etiquette.

In the past, presidents have copiously avoided certain world leaders. A decade ago, President Bush avoided President Ahmadinejad when he was at the opening of the U.N. Will the president speak to President Maduro at all when he is there?

MCMASTER: Yeah, I think it's unlikely that he will speak with -- with President Maduro.

As you know, the United States designated President Maduro, after he -- he victimized his own people, denied them their rights under his own constitution. And I think that the president's made clear he's willing to talk at some point in the future, but it would -- it would have to be after rights are restored to the Venezuelan people.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Ambassador.

Two questions.

One, what is the future of India and the United Nations membership in Security Council? Because when Minister Modi visited the White House, he brought this issue with Mr. President Trump.

HALEY: Well, I think that Security Council reform is still being talked about, and I know that it's something that India wants. Many other countries want it as well. So we'll have to wait and see.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Sir, one question for you, please? One question for...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Do you have any -- do you have any indications right now that sanctions will work towards North Korea?

HALEY: You have to look at how much has been cut off. They've already started to feel it, but they're getting ready to feel 90 percent of their exports going away, 30 percent of their oil. Imagine what that would do to the United States, if it was there.

And, you know, if you -- if you look at what -- I was looking at what North Korea was saying. They said it was a full-scale economic blockade, suffocating its state and its people. This is dramatic.

This is something -- and not only is it dramatic, but you're looking at -- Peru has dropped ties. Thailand has dropped ties. We're seeing so many just, kind of, get rid of either the ambassadors or the trade that they're doing. There is no way that North Korea doesn't feel this.

Now, how they choose to respond -- this is totally in their hands on how they respond.

(CROSSTALK)

HALEY: One more -- one more question.

(CROSSTALK)

HALEY: I'll let you pick who gets the last question.

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah, I appreciate it.

(LAUGHTER) So, I was wondering -- you talked a little bit about the president -- the speech that he'll deliver on Tuesday. But I'm wondering if you could talk in any more detail now. And I'm sure we'll get more detail later. Will he be sending directed messages about Iran and North Korea in that speech? Are there any more specific themes?

And also, Ambassador Haley, I wanted to ask you, on the question of U.N. funding, I know reform is probably an important part of this question, but as a candidate, President Trump was -- then-candidate Trump was somewhat skeptical about the reach and the import of the U.N., the point of it long-term. As president, I'm sure he's learned more.

Is the U.S. committed both -- to fulfilling its financial obligations? And where does it stand in terms of its voluntary funding in terms of the U.N. going forward? Could you talk a little bit about that?

HALEY: Right.

To start off with the speech that the president gives, I think you can see it for yourself. I personally think he slaps the right people, he hugs the right people, and he comes out with the U.S. being very strong in the end.

QUESTION: So it's written? You've seen it?

HALEY: I have seen it. Yes.

QUESTION: Slaps and hugs.

HALEY: And then the second part of it is, you know, the U.N. -- when I originally spoke with the president, what I said is, "We'll see what we can make of it."

And that's the thing -- is, we're creating an opportunity. We're making the most of it. We're moving foreign policy. We're changing the way peacekeeping is done. We're really bringing up human rights.

And, more importantly, what I appreciate is, they stopped focusing on the commas and the periods and were actually acting. We're actually seeing strong things happen.

And so, I think the president has always believed there's great potential in the United Nations, but I think now the world is seeing it, that it is actually changing and it's actually becoming more effective.

QUESTION: Will he affirmatively articulate his intention to continue traditional U.S. funding at full levels?

HALEY: I think you'll have to wait and see.

Thank you very much.

MCMASTER: Thanks.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: Thank you, General McMaster. Thank you, Ambassador Haley, General McMaster.

I figured you guys would rather take questions from them, since you see me every day, so I tried to let that go on for a little bit longer. We're going to be pretty tight on time, so I'm going to try to get through things pretty quickly.

Before I take your questions, I wanted to make one quick comment about our new friend Frank, that many of you got to see here today. We welcomed Frank to the White House this morning.

Frank is an inspiring 11-year-old young man from Virginia who started his lawn-mowing business. He wrote the president a letter earlier this year that I read from the podium, about his admiration for the president's business background, and offered to cut the grass at the White House. He got to do that this morning.

SANDERS: The president has always loved go-getters like Frank, and invited him to come spend the morning with our world-class grounds crew. Frank did a great job cutting the grass in the Rose Garden and later spent some time in the Oval Office with the president. The president believes it's our duty to keep the American Dream alive for kids like Frank and it was an honor for all of us to host him here at the White House.

So thank you, Frank, for coming.

And with that, I'll take your questions and we'll try to get through as many as we can.

Jeff (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, a follow-up on something that Ambassador Haley said. She mentioned that she would feel comfortable kicking this issue to Secretary Mattis.

Should Americans be concerned about the possibility of -- of war? And how much time are you willing to give China to implement the resolution from the U.N. Security Council agreement?

SANDERS: As we've said many times before, we're not going to broadcast, we're not going to lay out a timetable on what that would look like.

We're continuing to keep all options on the table. We're going to push forward with the plan right now.

And again, as both General McMaster and Ambassador Haley stated, we are working on putting that pressure on North Korea to reach that ultimate goal of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. That's what we're focused on. We're going to keep pushing forward on that front.

But at the same time, we're going to keep all our options on the table as we do that.

QUESTION: What will the president say to the leaders that he meets next week who are eager and -- for talks with North Korea? I know that the president has opposed that. How will he -- how will he address that with the Europeans and others who are in favor of that?

SANDERS: I'm certainly not going to get ahead of any conversations that the president's going to have. As always, we'll provide readouts and background of those conversations.

But I think the president will be very clear that putting extreme pressure on North Korea is very important.

QUESTION: Sarah, thank you.

The president today tweeted out that he wants to see ESPN apologize for what he called untruths. What -- by him saying that, though, does that mean that he's willing to apologize for birtherism claims that -- that he had -- that he called on for years?

SANDERS: I think the president has made plenty of comments on that front.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SANDERS: I think the point is that ESPN has been hypocritical. They should hold anchors to a fair and consistent standard.

ESPN suspended a long time anchor, Linda Cohn, not too long ago for expressing a political viewpoint. The network's public editor has said that there is a perception that ESPN has become political and that has harmed the network.

This is clearly a political statement. They should be consistent in whatever guidelines that they have set themselves in that front.

John (ph)?

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: I'm sorry. I'm going to try to keep moving so I can cover as much ground as possible.

John (ph)?

QUESTION: Do you still stand by your statement of the other day when you said what Jemele Hill did was a fireable offense?

SANDERS: I do. And again, I think that they laid that out themselves by suspending one of their own anchors for political comments.

QUESTION: Back on the president's response to the London attack, is the president aware that the British prime minister said that his speculation was not helpful? What was his reaction?

SANDERS: I know that the president and the prime minister spoke and we'll offer a readout on that call later today.

QUESTION: Did this come up?

SANDERS: I believe it did. I understand it may have come up.

QUESTION: Sarah, the president this morning tweeted that chain migration could not be apart of any immigration bill. What did he mean by that?

SANDERS: The -- the president is focused on making sure that, in the efforts of these ongoing conversations between both Democrats and Republicans, that we deliver on responsible immigration reform. He wants to help American workers and families.

No deal has been final -- reached on this process. He supports making an agreement on DACA, but that would have to include massive border security and interior enforcement.

The president continues to push for those things. He's still 100 percent committed to the wall. And we're going to be laying out what our specific priorities and principles are in that front over the next seven to 10 days. And we'll make sure that you guys are all part of that.

David?

QUESTION: (inaudible) that he laid out, chain migration, this is referring to the idea that people given status in a bill could not then sponsor relatives later for immigration status. Has he drawn a red line on that?

SANDERS: As you know, this president doesn't use the term "red line."

But, again, we're going to lay out specific priorities, what that looks like, over the next 7 to 10 days, and I'd imagine you'll get more details on that front.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) clarify something that was said several times yesterday about the president on Air Force One, by the -- one of your deputies, that the White House did not support an immigration bill that deals with amnesty.

And how would you define amnesty? And does a path to citizenship for DREAMers or other undocumented people fall into that category?

SANDERS: The -- the president supports the DACA program, and supporting making a deal on that. But, again, that has to include that massive border security.

QUESTION: That could include a path to citizenship. The -- DACA is deferred deportation, as you know.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: The whole -- the whole definition says "deferred," so I think that takes away the idea of the permanent piece. When the idea of DACA's -- literally, the definition of it is deferred action...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... so you do see...

SANDERS: ... meaning it's not a permanent process.

QUESTION: ... you do support -- so you don't support the path to citizenship. Is that what you're saying?

SANDERS: Again, if we want to have these conversations, we're going to lay out exactly what those principles look like over the next 7 to 10 days.

Right now, our goal, our focus is making sure that that program gets taken care of, with -- also coupling that with massive border security, interior enforcement.

Some of the specific things that we'd probably like to see: end to sanctuary cities, expedited removal, more immigration judges, supporting things like the RAISE Act. Those are things that you'll see us focus on and talk more about in the coming days.

Hallie?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) a quick one, because I know you're tight on time.

Number one, the president said today he wanted the travel ban to be larger, tougher and more specific. As you know, arguments are set to start next month on the travel ban currently in place. Why is he fighting for it if it's, in fact, too small, not tough enough, and too broad?

SANDERS: It's a step in the right direction. The president's travel executive order is motivated by national security, and every step we can take to protecting people in this country, that's a step we're going to take, and we're going to continue to push forward.

Jon Decker?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... follow on the second part, Sarah, on your comments on ESPN. Did it give you any pause to make those comments about a private company from the podium here at the White House?

SANDERS: I -- wasn't being talked about a private company, but an individual.

Jon Decker?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: That's better (ph)?

QUESTION: When a deal is ultimately reached, if there is one reached, on the issue of DACA, will it be a deal that's reached between the president as the top Republican -- the president, along with the speaker of the House, the majority leader in the Senate, and Democrats? Or will it be just the president alone?

SANDERS: We certainly hope that it's a bipartisan bill that has both Republicans and Democrats coming together to really focus on responsible immigration reform.

I think there are a lot of people on both sides that want to see this happen. We've had a lot of conversations with both Republicans and Democrats over the past week, and we're going to continue to do that and push forward.

Francesca?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah. A quick -- a question, but a quick clarification on the -- on the ESPN matter.

You had said it was a fireable offense. That's being interpreted as saying that she should be fired. Are you or the president saying that she should be fired?

SANDERS: That's not a decision that I'm going to make. That's something for ESPN to decide.

Again, I was asked about that. I think it is a fireable offense, based on the standard that ESPN has set themselves, by saying that people that go too far and make political comments have been suspended from their own network. I think that that is a consistency that they should probably focus on.

Margaret?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... advice to a private company, Sarah...

SANDERS: Margaret?

Hallie, I've already taken a question from you.

QUESTION: ... try to (ph) clarify that? And I know you have, and I appreciate that, but you said it was an individual, not a private company.

SANDERS: I'm just asking you to be respectful to your colleagues, so that I can get around the room.

QUESTION: But (inaudible) an answer to that (ph).

SANDERS: I've got about two minutes left.

Go ahead, Margaret. QUESTION: You haven't answered it. Could you?

QUESTION: I'll yield, if you want to answer that.

SANDERS: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SANDERS: And this will be the last question, since we're tight on time.

QUESTION: Can (ph) we do a schedule before the end? That's all I wanted to ask.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I don't want to take Margaret's question away. I just was...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I haven't had a question (ph)...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: This is -- I'll call on that clarification, Sarah, because you said you don't have advice for a private company, yet you're giving advice to -- to ESPN.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: I said it's not my decision to make for a private company.

I was asked specific about that individual. I made a comment. I stand by it. I think ESPN needs to stand by the standard that they have set, and the -- own actions that they've taken about previous employees.

I really don't have much else to add on that front.

Margaret?

QUESTION: For scheduling purposes, the U.N. stuff starts Monday, and that briefing's over, but can you walk us through the president's schedule? Is there anything we should listen for in his speech this afternoon? Can you talk about whether he's doing anything, kind of, policy related or meeting with anyone (inaudible) Bedminster over the weekend? Is there anything else that they didn't go over on the schedule for next week about UNGA, involving the first lady or anyone else in the administration?

Just to get our heads around next week.

SANDERS: The first lady does have a couple of events. We'll be sure to get the details of those out for next week. She will be participating in the activities and some of the meetings at the United Nations General Assembly next week.

The president will be spending most of this weekend preparing for the meetings and the speech that'll be taking place next week.

As you can hear, the president's getting ready to depart and with that we'll end.

Hope you guys have a good weekend. We'll see you on Monday.

[13:57:52]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, quickly wrapping up a briefing, a briefing that included the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, and General H.R. McMaster, the president's national security advisor.

We'll get quick analysis. First of all, on Iran, John Kirby, H.R. McMaster said there's a military option. It is not what we'd prefer to do. Is that realistic that there is a military option? Because the assumption has always been the North Koreans would slaughter a lot of people in South Korea if there's a preemptive military strike.

JOHN KIRBY, CNN ANALYST: Sure, there's always military options to international crises. It would be foolish for them not to be thinking through what the military options might be available to them. But I think they have made clear again today that diplomacy is the lead effort. The Defense Department is in support of State Department. And that's really -- I still believe there's room for diplomacy to work and it is important they are focusing on this.

BLITZER: On domestic issues, she said, Sarah Sanders, the president supports DACA. But the president was tweeting this morning he doesn't want chain immigration, meaning those who are allowed to stay could bring their parents or their other siblings into the United States.

KAROUN DEMIRJIAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Which, if there's a path to citizenship, they would have the right to sponsor others to come as well. You heard her also harping on the idea of deferral. That this current program is taking two years at a time. If you have that be the law, that preserves DACA, but isn't really the Dream Act that everybody was hoping the legislative solution would look like, whether it could move alone or in concert with other enforcement.

BLITZER: Chris Cillizza, you heard, on the London terror attack earlier on the subway in London, the president tweeted this morning, "These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard." That resulted in a very negative reaction from the British prime minister, Theresa May. You heard what H.R. McMaster, how he tried to finesse that.

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER & CNN EDITOR-AT-LARGE: I was going to say it is virtually possible, but we'll change it an impossible situation to be put in. H.R. McMaster tried to make it that Trump was talking about terrorism generally, and that Scotland Yard would be watching, just like if there was a terror incident in the United States, the FBI would be aware of it. It seems to me, you are really stretching those 140 characters to take that from it. If you read that, I think you show that to a hundred people outside, 99 or 100 of them is going to think --