Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Manafort, Gates Plead Not Guilty to Charges; White House Briefing. Aired 1:30-2a ET

Aired October 30, 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]

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: -- should do or should not do. They should be in consultation with their lawyers. I'm not going to speculate that; I'm not going to render legal advice. And I appreciate you asking me, but I'm not going to give people legal advice. I would tell them, don't do anything that would violate the law if I was their lawyer. That's what I'd tell them, do nothing --

(CROSSTALK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: You are the president's lawyer.

He has been asked to testify or answer questions from the special counsel?

SEKULOW: He has not.

BLITZER: If he is asked, will he cooperate?

SEKULOW: The president said he would.

BLITZER: And you think that would be a good idea for him to do so?

SEKULOW: Well, I -- whether it'd be a good --

BLITZER: -- as his attorney.

SEKULOW: -- when you say a good idea, I -- well, I mean, I would -- look. In the normal course of concluding this, if, in fact, the president was asked a series of questions by the special counsel, we have no indication of that. The president said he will be -- he said this months and months ago, that he would cooperate. So I'm not concerned about that.

BLITZER: Because I know the president said -- I'm asking you as his attorney -- would you advise him to do so?

SEKULOW: I'm not going to share with you, Wolf, advice I would give or not give my client on a matter that i haven't discussed with the client. So I'll just leave it at that.

BLITZER: All right. Jay Sekulow, it was kind of you to join us on this very important day, I dare say historic day in this entire investigation. Jay Sekulow is the president's attorney. Thanks so much for joining us.

SEKULOW: Thanks for having me, Wolf. Appreciate it.

BLITZER: Let's get reaction to what we have just heard. Jeffrey Toobin is with us, our senior legal analyst.

All right, Jeffrey, what did you think?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think the lines of defense on the two cases are quite clear, from what Jay Sekulow -- the first is Papadopoulos is a nobody and was not an important person in the campaign. So anything he may have done with the Russians is irrelevant.

Now that will be tested by looking at the e-mails and who really was on the other end of those e-mails and what, if any action, was taken. But I think this sort of defense line about Papadopoulos is clear.

And on the Manafort and Gates matter, the line of defense is, none of this has anything to do with the Trump campaign. And at one level, that is true because it is related to his financing of his business.

But that business was, for the most part, as outlined in the indictment, getting millions of dollars from Ukrainian interests that are very closely tied to the Vladimir Putin regime. Plus the conspiracy alleged in the Manafort indictment is said to include the time when he was the campaign chairman for Donald trump.

So I think it's -- these are intelligence appropriate defenses on the part of -- that Jay Sekulow was putting out there but they are also subject to real scrutiny as well.

BLITZER: And very quickly, you did say the president is not going to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and he's not thinking about pardons at this point in connection. That's important.

TOOBIN: That is important, but I would suggest that we check back regularly on both those questions because --

BLITZER: We will.

TOOBIN: -- they are extremely important. And Donald Trump has been known to change his mind. And I think of the issue of pardons and firing Director Mueller, those are good questions to keep asking.

BLITZER: We will. Stand by.

Everyone stand by. We are waiting for the press briefing to begin. We'll get the official White House reaction to all these dramatic developments. Sarah Sanders getting ready to answer questions. Let's see if she shows up with any other White House officials, maybe some legal advisers, too, because there will be a ton of questions on all of this. Also we are expecting to see Paul Manafort and Rick Gates make their

first court appearance momentarily. Special coverage continues right after this.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

BLITZER: All right. There she is, Sarah Sanders beginning the briefing.

SANDERS: Good afternoon.

I'd like to start the briefing today by addressing a topic that I know all of you are preparing to ask me about, and that's tax reform.

(LAUGHTER) Couple of you guys.

SANDERS: The initial House tax reform bill will be introduced on Wednesday by the Ways and Means Committee.

This is the product of months of work and is now going through an 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 bill week of November 13th.

In order to stay on pace, we want to see a House bill pass by Thanksgiving. This is 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're working to do using an anecdote we can all understand.

This story's been floating around the internet for a while and it's important to keep in mind that the numbers are not exact, and I'm also not encouraging any drinking. So file that away. It's mostly for my parents. But I think you'll enjoy it.

SANDERS: Suppose that every day, 10 people -- for our purposes, we'll say reporters -- go out for beer, and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If these 10 reporters paid their tab every night the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four, the poorest, would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The 10th, the richest, would pay $59. So that's what they decided to do.

The 10 reporters drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day the bar honor -- bar owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you're all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the 10 reporters would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six, how could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their fair share? These are reporters, after all, so they're concerned with fairness.

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then the fifth reporter and the sixth reporter which -- which -- would each end up being paid to drink beer.

So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was. By doing that, he explained, they'd continue following the principle of the tax system they'd been using. So they proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should pay now.

And so the fifth reporter, like the first four, now paid nothing. He got a 100 percent saving. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3, a 33 percent saving. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7, a 28 percent saving. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12, a 25 percent saving. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18, which was 22 percent saving. And the 10th now paid $49 instead of $59, a 16 percent saving.

So each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the reporters began to compare their savings.

"I only got $1 out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth reporter. And she pointed to the 10th reporter, "He got $10."

"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth reporter, "I only saved $1 too. It's unfair that he received 10 times more benefit than me."

"That's true," shouted the seventh reporter, "Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy gets all the breaks."

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four reporters in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor."

The nine reporters yelled at the 10th and made him feel bad. So the next night, the tenth man didn't show up for drinks and the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: They no longer had enough money between them all to even cover half of the bill.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how our tax system works. The people who already paid the highest taxes will naturally benefit from a tax reduction, but not the largest percent benefit. Taxing them too much, attack them, and they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

This is a silly story, of course, but it illustrates some very important points. Our tax cuts and reforms will create a fairer system that works better for everyone. And it will make our country the friendliest in the world for American families trying to build a better life for themselves and their children, and for American companies seeking a competitive edge.

And I'll be happy to get that story to everybody so that you can get those numbers later.

Again, I know that that may be an oversimplification, but I think it paints a very good picture of the tax system.

And with that, I'll take your questions.

QUESTION: Sarah, first I'd like to get the White House reaction to the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and the agreement (ph) with George Papadopoulos.

And specifically I know we -- we have heard a couple of tweets from the president. If you could help me understand, when he says, "Why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????", is the president saying that special counsel Mueller should really be investigating Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?

QUESTION: And is he going to rule out, once and for all, firing Robert Mueller?

SANDERS: Look, I'll address the second question first.

The president said last week -- I believe it was last week -- and I've said several times before, there's no intention or plan to make any changes in regard to the special counsel.

But look, today's announcement has nothing to do with the president, has nothing to do with the president's campaign or campaign activity.

The real collusion scandal, as we've said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Russia. There's clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election.

We've been saying from day one, there's been no evidence of Trump- Russia collusion, and nothing in the indictment today changes that at all.

QUESTION: George Papadopoulos...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) it is about the campaign. It is specifically about the campaign.

SANDERS: It has nothing to do with the activities of the campaign. It has to do with his failure to tell the truth. That doesn't have anything to do with the campaign or the campaign's activities.

QUESTION: But it is the clearest evidence yet of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

SANDERS: Again, there are no activities or official capacity in which the Trump campaign was engaged in any of these activities. Most of them took place well before the campaign ever even existed.

John (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, could you just explain what George Papadopoulos' role with the campaign was? SANDERS: It was extremely limited. It was a volunteer position.

And again, no activity was ever done in an official capacity on behalf of the campaign (inaudible).

QUESTION: What about the outreach that he was making to campaign officials to try to put together this meeting...

SANDERS: You mean the outreach that was repeatedly denied and (inaudible)...

QUESTION: Well, that's -- that's what I meant.

SANDERS: ... and said we're not going to take any action on that?

QUESTION: Can you -- can you explain what happened with his outreach?

SANDERS: He reached out and nothing happened beyond that. Which I think shows, one, his level of importance in the campaign; and two, shows what little role he had within coordinating anything officially for the campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: (Inaudible)?

QUESTION: Thanks a lot, Sarah.

I wanted to ask about Mr. Mueller's investigation. The president at times has called it a hoax and he's called it a witch hunt. He's used similar type of language before as it relates to his investigation.

Last week you indicated, Sarah, that you believe that Mr. Mueller is wrapping up his investigation. And I've heard similar things coming from other senior administration officials.

Do you still believe that Mr. Mueller is in the process of wrapping up his investigation?

SANDERS: We still expect this to conclude soon, yes.

(Inaudible)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah.

Paul Manafort was high-ranking in the president's campaign at one time. I'd like to know what the president's relationship is with him now.

Do they still talk? When was the last time they might have had contact? SANDERS: As far as we can tell, we know that they haven't spoken in several months. The last known conversation was back all the way to February.

And as far as anything beyond that with Paul, I'm not sure (inaudible).

QUESTION: With Gates as well?

SANDERS: I know that there was some initial contact after the president was sworn in, with him at meetings here at the White House, but nothing directly with the president.

Debra (ph)?

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Sarah.

On March 31, according to the affidavit by Mr. Papadopoulos, he attended the foreign policy meeting. The president was there. He said that he talked about how he -- that Russia wanted to talk to the president.

What did the president think when he said he wanted to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin? And how did other people in the campaign react to that?

SANDERS: I'm not sure that the -- the president recalls specific details of the meeting. Again, it was brief meeting that took place quite some time ago. It was the one time that group ever met.

And beyond that, I really don't have anything to add.

SANDERS: John Gizzi?

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Sarah.

As you mentioned, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates were named in this for things not having anything to do with the campaign, but with alleged money-laundering regarding other business. Now, under those circumstances, will the president consider or rule out pardoning either of them?

SANDERS: I haven't had any conversations with him about that. I think we should let the process play through before we start looking at those steps.

(inaudible)?

QUESTION: Papadopoulos at this time was working -- was reporting to Jeff Sessions at the time, who was overseeing Trump's foreign policy advisory committee. What does this mean for Jeff Sessions?

SANDERS: Again, somebody on a volunteer committee, I'm not sure how that would impact the attorney general directly.

(inaudible)? QUESTION: Can you say -- given what we have learned over the last few hours, can you say when the president was first aware that Russia was behind the hacking and was in possession of e-mails -- what they considered to be damaging e-mails about the Clinton campaign that they were trying to get to -- to the Trump campaign? When was he first aware of that?

SANDERS: I'm not sure of the specific date of when that took place. So I'd have to look into that and get back to you.

QUESTION: Sarah, does the president regret having had -- having hired Paul Manafort to be his campaign manager?

And is he and the rest of the White House concerned that this issue will distract from tax reform and the other domestic policy and foreign policy...

SANDERS: We're not worried about it distracting because it doesn't have anything to do with us. Because this is something that is action that took place outside of the campaign or campaign activity. QUESTION: And as far as whether he regrets having hired him for -- to be campaign manager?

SANDERS: I didn't ask him that question specifically.

QUESTION: Sarah, how can you describe Papadopoulos as having a limited role when there's -- there's a photograph of Mr. Papadopoulos sitting at a table with then-Candidate Trump...

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: ... has thousands of photographs with millions of people, so.

QUESTION: And he was also cited by then-Candidate Trump in a meeting with the Washington Post as to who his top foreign policy advisers are. That seems to fight against what you're saying.

And also, how -- how is it not collusion when George Papadopoulos 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?

SANDERS: This individual was on a...

QUESTION: He made contact with Russians in -- in pursuit of information that was damaging about the Clintons. How is all that not collusion?

SANDERS: Look, this individual was a member of a volunteer advisory council that met one time over the course of a year and he was part of a list that was read out in the Washington Post. I'd hardly call that some sort of regular adviser or, as you want to, you know, push that he's like a senior member of the staff.

He was not paid by the campaign. He was a volunteer on a -- again, on a council that met once. (CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: The collusion activity, Sarah, he was -- he was pursuing information from the Russians...

SANDERS: Again, he was a volunteer.

That's something you need to ask him. I'm not here to speak on behalf of the -- you know, thousands of people that may have volunteered on the campaign.

QUESTION: Believe it or not, I have a question on this but also on tax reform.

The president has called on Congress to investigate Hillary Clinton. Is he confident that they will do that?

SANDERS: I think that's a question you'd have to ask Congress. But I think that there are enough reports and enough information out there that seems to suggest it might not be a bad idea.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) congressional leaders of committees if they plan to do it?

SANDERS: I don't know if -- I don't know if he's had a member of Congress specifically tell him that they're planning (inaudible)...

QUESTION: My question about tax reform is, where does the president stand on the idea of phasing in the corporate tax cut so it would reach 20 percent sometime around 2022?

SANDERS: I think the president's been clear that his priority's to make sure that that's where we start with the tax plan.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

SANDERS: I think, again, he's laid out what his principles are. As of right now, that hasn't changed and don't anticipate that it will.

(inaudible)?

QUESTION: Sarah, just so we have the terminology straight, when you say George Papadopoulos had no official capacity, what do you mean by that?

SANDERS: I mean he was a volunteer on the campaign and a volunteer member of an advisory council that met one time.

QUESTION: So his activities were entirely of his invention. No one asked him to do any of these things. Is that what you're telling the American public?

SANDERS: I'm telling you that he was a volunteer member of an advisory council that literally met one time.

QUESTION: The reason I ask is now there are two episodes in which people associated with a campaign at (inaudible) level, at least one is --George Papadopoulos is a member of a foreign policy or military advisory committee -- sought dirt on Hillary Clinton from people representing themselves as either linked to or associated with the Russian government. Is that just a coincidence?

SANDERS: The only interaction I'm aware of that deals with this individual was him reaching out and being repeatedly denied. So that's all I can tell you is he was -- he asked to do things. He was basically pushed back or not responded to in any way.

So any actions that he took would have been on his own. And you'd have to ask him about those because I can't answer...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) that same kind of meeting at Trump Tower.

SANDERS: I'm sorry.

QUESTIONS: What explains the campaign's later involvement with those associated with the Russian government or said they were to get dirt on Hillary Clinton later in the campaign?

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: They took one meeting. Nothing came of it. No, I don't believe so.

QUESTION: That does not indicate a pattern of trying to obtain that information from...

SANDERS: A pattern of getting information about your opponent? No.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

SANDERS: The big -- the big difference here is you have a meeting that took place versus millions of dollars being sent to create fake information to actually influence the election. You compare those two, those are apples and oranges.

What the Clinton campaign did, what the DNC did was actually exchange money. They took a meeting. Those are far different. And -- and one is pretty common practice in any campaign to take a meeting. The other one is actually paying money for false information. That's a big deal and a big difference.

QUESTIONS: Thanks, Sarah.

I have two questions for you, but first I could follow-up on your comment about the GPS dossier.

This is an issue that many senior-level administration officials have pointed to during these questions about the special counsel. Has the White House asked the Department of Justice to look into this issue?

SANDERS: Not that I'm aware of. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) up on Mueller, you've spoken with the president today?

SANDERS: Yes, I have.

QUESTION: Can you give us a little bit about his reaction to the news this morning? Obviously news that swept the nation's capital. But what -- how did the president respond to this news about two people who did work for his campaign? Was he disappointed that Paul Manafort received this news today that he was being charged on these 12 counts?

SANDERS: He responded the same way the rest of us in the White House have, and that's without a lot of reaction because it doesn't have anything to do with us.

QUESTION: We are now talking about two of the most senior members of the campaign at a very pivotal time through and including the RNC last year who are now under federal indictment.

SANDERS: For something that he did outside of the campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... that admittedly they did not allegedly conduct during the work for the campaign.

But doesn't it speak to the president's judgment that he would chose to have these two individuals in very high positions having allegedly committed these crimes in the years leading up to their roles?

SANDERS: These were seasoned operatives. Not -- you make it sound like they were, you know, regular offenders that have been in -- in massive amounts of trouble. These were seasoned operatives that worked on a number of campaigns.

Paul Manafort was brought in to lead the delegate process, which he did. And was dismissed not too long after that.

QUESTION: But the president has no regrets?

SANDERS: Again, I didn't ask him that question specifically.

(inaudible)?

QUESTION: What leads you to believe that the Mueller investigation will conclude soon and you also believe that there could be more indictments?

And my third question on another subject, welfare reform. The president talked about this a couple of weeks ago and have been trying to find out, what is the focus? How do you plan to implement welfare reform?

SANDERS: We haven't made any specific announcements when it comes to welfor -- welfare reform. Those are ongoing conversations and we're looking at ways to improve the system. But nothing specific to roll out at this time.

Sorry, what was the first part of your...

QUESTION: The first one, what leads you to believe that this will conclude the Mueller investigation? Have been giving -- given a heads up? What?

SANDERS: Those are the indications that we have at this time. I can't go any further than that.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Indications from who and where? Sarah, indications from where?

SANDERS: As I just said, I can't go any further than that.

QUESTION: And also, what about -- do you -- you don't believe there'll be any more indictments at all?

SANDERS: That's a question you'd have to ask Robert Mueller.

QUESTION: But you're saying (ph) it's going to be concluded soon.

SANDERS: I'd still attend (ph) that we believe that it will be concluded soon. But beyond that, I don't have anything else to add on a specific time frame.

(inaudible)?

QUESTION: Sarah, thanks (ph).

In March, the president called -- in March 2016 the president called George Papadopoulos an excellent guy.

Does he still believe that Papadopoulos is an excellent guy?

SANDERS: Look, he was referring to the council. He was going through the list of names with the Washington Post and nothing more than that. And complimentary of the people that were volunteering on behalf of the campaign.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) that a campaign supervisor told him, "I would encourage you to make the trip to Russia (inaudible)."

How does that not constitute the campaign encouraging him to make contact with the Russians?

SANDERS: I'm not aware of that conversation, so I can't speak to that.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: At the end of the day, is there any concern at all from this administration, again, trying to drill down on what was asked earlier, that you -- that two people who worked for the president are now under indictment, one has pleaded guilty, and he promised to hire only the best people?

Is this an example of the best people to hire?

SANDERS: Look, again, this goes back to these were activities that took place outside of the scope of the campaign. I can't comment on anything they did (inaudible).

QUESTION: But were these the best people to hire?

SANDERS: Look, the president hired Paul Manafort to handle the delegate process, which he did. And he was dismissed not too long after that.

QUESTION: Sarah, last week the administration opposed a federal judge's decision that allowed an undocumented teen immigrant to have an abortion.

Now that that case is over, it's been decided, she's had that abortion, what is the White House reaction to that decision? And does it set a dangerous precedent going forward?

SANDERS: I can't comment on the specifics of that at this point.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) case at all? Did he comment on it?

SANDERS: I didn't speak directly with him about the case.

(inaudible)?

QUESTION: Sarah, thank you. I'd like to ask you about a different topic.

Just breaking before the briefing, a court banned the president from changing military policy on service by transgender people. What's reaction from the White House and the plan moving forward with reference to this?

SANDERS: Obviously, this is something just announced.

The Department of Justice has it. They're reviewing it. And I'd refer you to them for any specific questions.

(inaudible)?

QUESTION: Congressman Gowdy, this weekend suggested that there should be an investigation into the leaks of the grand jury investigation or Robert Mueller's investigation.

Do you think there should be an investigation? Are you all asking for an investigation?

SANDERS: We haven't asked for that investigation to take place.

QUESTION: Do you support an investigation? SANDERS: I think that any time there is leaking of sensitive information it should be looked into. But beyond that, we don't have any comment. Crystal (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, thanks.

Does the president in any way hold Jared Kushner responsible for hiring Paul Manafort? After all, he was (inaudible) supporter of bringing him on board (ph)?

SANDERS: Not that I'm aware of, no.

QUESTION: And Sarah, to just follow up on the point of hiring the best people, the top, top people, he had said, does this not, at the very least, raise questions about President Trump's vetting process and judgment when it comes to bringing on these people?

SANDERS: I don't believe so. I think I've answered that quite a few times today.

QUESTION: Sarah, two more questions.

Does the president -- you said back in July that the president believes that the investigation for the special counsel should stay within the confines of Russian election meddling.

Given what we've learned today, does the president believe Bob Mueller overstepped the boundaries of his investigation?

SANDERS: I haven't spoken with him specifically about that detail.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: OK, good.

And my second question, Sarah, would just be on the topic of -- regarding the plea agreement with George Papadopoulos. You've indicated the president did not remember that March 31st meeting with photographs, right?

SANDERS: No, I didn't say he didn't remember the meeting.

I said he didn't remember those comments from George Papadopoulos.

QUESTION: Did he remember anything about that meeting, his interaction with Papadopoulos, given that he's talked about his great memory?

SANDERS: I don't believe that he went into detail about the meeting itself. He remembers it taking place, but we didn't go into anything beyond that, or any specifics (inaudible).

QUESTION: And specifically did not remember the Russia comments? Did he remember Papadopoulos' presence? Did they have interaction?

SANDERS: I -- not that I'm aware of.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah.

Gallup just came out -- came out with a poll giving 33 percent approval, 62 percent disapproval of the president. What's your reaction? Is the president aware of this? Any plans of changing anything?

SANDERS: Look, we're focused aggressively on pushing forward on a very bold agenda specific to tax reform, tax cuts.

I think that the economy continuing to grow and strengthen is something that will certainly change those numbers. But at the same time, I think these are some of the same polls that also said this president would never be president, so I don't have a lot of confidence in them.

I'll take one last question.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: Blake (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, could you please clarify your answer to Mara? You said (ph) the stock market is moving downwards on this news that possibly the corporate rate could be phased-in over several years. I wasn't sure if you were trying to make the point that the president would be for a phase-in or against a phase-in.

SANDERS: No, I -- I said that the president laid out his principles and it doesn't include the phasing-in. So we're still committed to that, moving forward.

But -- and I don't have any reason to believe we have changes on that part (ph) at this point....

QUESTION: So the red line of -- so -- so the red line of -- of 20 percent corporate rate tax cut...

SANDERS: I'm not drawing a red line. I'm just saying those are the principles that we've laid out. And we haven't adjusted or changed our principles since this process started.

Thanks so much, guys. Have a good day.

BLITZER: So there she is, the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, insisting that George Papadopoulos was irrelevant, not a very significant player at all during the campaign.

He pleaded guilty today to perjury in connection with these charges; also playing down any impact that the Paul Manafort-Rick Gates indictment would have.

Gloria Borger, our team is here. Let's get your reaction to what we just heard.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's not surprising that we've heard that from the White House that George Papadopoulos was a non-event, a non-person who was a volunteer and had no influence in the campaign and that has entreaties, as we've heard previously from news reports, et cetera, that his entreaties was rejected and that, therefore, there was nothing.

But when you look at the court documents, you see that, on July 14, the FBI alleges that Papadopoulos writes that a proposed meeting has been approved from our side. And another e-mail suggests in August that perhaps they should go ahead with the meeting.

What we don't have in these documents is the e-mail responses, except one from an official, who says we need someone to communicate that D.T. is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.

And that's a little ambiguous.

Any signal of what?

So we -- you know, there are lots of questions raised here that we still don't have the answers to.

BLITZER: In the affidavit, Michael Zeldin, you're a former prosecutor. It said that Papadopoulos was working with an unnamed professor, who had substantial connections to Russian government officials and was ready to provide, quote, "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And he had thousands of e-mails, which is essentially the same offer that was made to Donald Trump Jr. in the now-famous June 9th meeting.

So you can't really separate these things. And it appears as if either the campaign is in communication with the Russians about this information that might be disadvantageous to Secretary Clinton or the Russians are just pushing this on the campaign and the campaign is trying to resist.

That's sort of the heart of what has to be resolved by Mueller.

BLITZER: What did you think of the White House defense today in the face of these really significant developments?

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I got the impression I was watching "The Wizard of Oz," when he says, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

That's all we're looking at because the directive that Mueller has is to probe whether or not there were ties between the campaign and any foreign entity. You have a campaign member here.

The directive was not a certain level official, a certain level campaign person. And to try to parse it out in this way almost -- it belies all logic to me legally.

You have a lot of allegations right now that are supported by this affidavit, that has somebody's already pled guilty to. It's not a hypothetical that this person was involved. And it really does land a lot of credibility to the allegations that there was a campaign person, who was knowledgeable about what the campaign wanted and then carried it out through the foreign entity being Russia.

And so I think that the defense is one you would expect, as Gloria pointed out. But it's one that's not going to hold a lot of legal water, now that you have a guilty plea.

BLITZER: Evan Perez is over at the federal courthouse here in Washington.

You've got some breaking news, evan. Update --