Trump Agrees with Flynn Request for Immunity; White House Press Briefing.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. Live pictures coming in from the White House briefing room. Any moment, Press Secretary Sean Spicer will take questions from the news media, likely to weigh in on several breaking developments including the formal National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's request for immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony, and the very latest in the House and Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. We're going to bring you live coverage of that momentarily. Today, the president said he agreed with Michael Flynn asking for protection. But listen to what both President Trump and Flynn have said in the past about immunity.</s>GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: The very last thing that John Podesta just said is no individual is too big to jail. That should include people like Hillary Clinton. I mean, five people around her have had -- have been given immunity, to include her former chief of staff. When you are given immunity, that means you've probably committed a crime.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Her aides took the Fifth Amendment and her ring leaders were given immunity.</s>TRUMP: And if you're not guilty of a crime, why do you need immunity for, right?</s>BLITZER: Different version then as opposed to now. Joining us now Gloria Borger, David Gregory, Laura Coates and Eugene Scott. Gloria, what a difference a few months make when it comes to immunity from prosecution.</s>GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. I think in Trump's tweet, he called it a witch hunt. I think people on the Intelligence Committees would probably disagree.</s>BLITZER: And the FBI.</s>BORGER: And the FBI. That you had James Comey saying there is a counter intelligence -- you know, there is an investigation. This is -- you have the Intelligence Committees making it very clear, particularly in the Senate, that this is an investigation into Russian hacking into an American election. We're going to take this investigation wherever it leads us. So it's not a witch hunt against Flynn. It is a question about what the Russians tried to do with our election and then of course you have to ask the question why did Flynn decide that he needs immunity.</s>BLITZER: Yeah. David Gregory?</s>DAVID GREGORY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's just so hard to understand what the president is thinking and what he's doing. He seems to think this is all and joke and it's supposed to be dismissed, and yet, he's fired two people, including his national security advisor, because of this very investigation, because of the manipulation of -- and the hacking of our election. So he's listening. He's paying attention. The FBI is investigating. And yet, they have no control over there at the White House. The chief of staff doesn't. The White House counsel doesn't. The national security adviser doesn't. When you have people who are handing over collected intelligence to the head of the intelligence community in a highly inappropriate way, it just shows you that they're not taking any of this investigation seriously. And yet, now, they've got somebody in a very high position who has a story to tell and who would like immunity. May not get it. What is the story he's got to tell? Maybe he doesn't like how he was treated in the White House. Maybe he wants to tell more about his connection to Russian television or to the Israeli ambassador -- excuse me, to the Russian ambassador. Communications at a time when there were big sanctions put in place as a result of manipulating the election by the previous administration.</s>BLITZER: David, let's not forget what James Comey, the FBI director, said a little bit more than a week ago. He said, "As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." This is a criminal investigation that's been going on since July.</s>GREGORY: A criminal investigation that's been going on. A very serious matter that's bigger than this president or this election. It's about the integrity of our elections and about the U.S. presidency. What also appears to be at work here is that the White House appears to be investigating its own intelligence agencies with regard to why certain information has been leaked, why it has been made public. We know the president's upset about that. Has reason to be upset about it. But is that part of what's at work here? Are they investigating the FBI and the information that's being collected?</s>BLITZER: It's interesting, and tell me your analysis. Flynn now wants immunity, but the other names that have come up, we haven't heard their lawyers say they're demanding immunity. How do you explain that?</s>LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALAYST: He is the only one really that has kind of an actual criminal allegation that may be pending. That Logan Act, remember everyone was talking about a couple month ago. A private citizen was trying to usurp the role of a president or executive. That's never been used before, that law, so it's really kind of the tissue. But remember the biggest thing about immunity is you have to have something that's actually worthwhile to the government. And it has to be truthful. Right now, I don't know that he has information. Is it personal vindication, is it professional vindication, or is it literally a story that leads to understanding an actual criminal act? That's going to be the key here. Remember the person who can give immunity is the attorney general and the Department of Justice. He's recused himself from the Russian investigation. Without a deputy attorney general firmly in place, who may or may not oversee this actual investigation, this has monumental implications about how long it will even take.</s>BLITZER: You heard Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Eugene, say, you know what, you only give immunity if that person can provide testimony or evidence to go to someone higher up. And in this particular case, he's the -- he was the national security adviser to the president. There's not that many higher ups. There's the president of the United States.</s>EUGENE SCOTT, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: There aren't that many higher ups, but there's certainly interest from some people on the committee in knowing if there was a role the president and the vice president may have played in this situation regarding Russia and the election. We don't have that information. There's been nothing out that says that they have. But certainly, there will be people wanting to know if Flynn can provide some insight into that.</s>BORGER: First of all, they're not at the place in the investigations where they even know whether they would be in a position to want to give him immunity. Because they're at the nascent stages of this.</s>BLITZER: You're talking about the House and Senate?</s>BORGER: About the House and Senate, yeah.</s>BLITZER: What about the FBI? We don't know how far along they are.</s>BORGER: We don't know where they are. We know about the Intelligence committees in the Congress. The other thing to consider here, and the president for this, is really Oliver North and the Iran-Contra committee because, if you'll recall, he was given immunity by Congress. But there was also an independent counsel looking at the same thing because Congress decided it was more important to get to the truth than a conviction. Well, that's not how the independent counsel felt. So Ollie North testified before the Congress, but in the end, Walsh had a conviction but it was overturned. And so --</s>BLITZER: That's what a lot of officials remember now.</s>BLITZER: Here's Sean Spicer.</s>SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Good afternoon. First off, I want to catch everyone up who wasn't able to make the briefing last night on the executive orders -- on the trade executive orders the president's going to be signing this afternoon. The first order directs the Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to examine every form of trade abuse and nonreciprocal practice that are currently contributing to United States' large and persistent trade deficit, which was the largest of any major nation in 2016 at $500 billion. Within 90 days, the Department of Commerce and the U.S. trade representative will submit a comprehensive report to the president on the causes of our unduly large trade deficit. It's the first time in modern history that an American president has called for such an investigation and it's -- our findings will allow us to make a -- make smarter decisions on behalf of the American people about our trade policy of our country going forward. That's why the AFL-CIO, the United Steelworkers International, the International Association of Machinists and the Aerospace Workers International all came out today to applaud the order. The second executive order addresses the current lack of enforcement of one of our strongest tools in fighting unfair trade practices, countervailing duties. Countervailing duties were put in place to address the problem of other countries dumping undervalued goods into American markets, making it impossible for American businesses to compete with artificially low prices. This is especially a problem in countries whose governments subsidize exports into our country. So to discourage this practice, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency has a mechanism for assessing these type of transactions and imposing financial penalties known as countervailing duties when it's determined that this kind of malicious dumping has occurred. Since 2001, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency has not collected over $2.8 billion in these duties. You think about it, we could do a lot by maximizing this enforcement power for our country. So we need to do a better job on behalf of the American worker. If a foreign company, often due to its being partly or entirely government-run or subsidized, is able to flood American markets with an artificially cheap steel, for example, they price American companies out of the system. Say you're the owner of a steel company in Ohio. You can't compete with some of these below-market prices, so you have to find other ways to meet your bottom line, like closing a factory or laying off workers, or might entirely have to close down entirely. By not properly using this enforcement mechanism, we're costing Americans who work in so many industries, not just steel, but in agriculture, chemical, machinery and other manufactured good in particular. President Trump was elected to do everything he can to support American workers and American manufacturers. Together, these two executive orders are a significant step in accomplishing the president's promise to end unfair trade practices once and for all. Also yesterday, we were pleased to see that Senators Manchin of West Virginia and Heitkamp announced their support for Judge Neil Gorsuch and Senator Claire McCaskill conceded at a private event that among the list of potential nominees that the president released during a (sic) campaign, Judge Gorsuch was according to her, quote -- quote, "one of the better ones." We hope that her praise leads to additional support and her support. It's hard to find any reason except for obstructionism to see why fellow Democrats in her caucus have not been able to join them. As I said yesterday, Judge Gorsuch is highly regarded, having received a rating of well-qualified from the American Bar Association, and has demonstrated an unparalleled and unprecedented level of transparency, including the release of over 75,000 pages of documents, fielding nearly 300 questions from Senate Democrats on the committee and 70 pages of written answers about his personal records, and has demonstrated a mainstream judicial record, with nearly all of his decisions being joined by Democrat-appointed judges. Without a clear justification, Senate Democrats have fudged the facts on recent history, tried to mislead American people about their unprecedented obstructionism, essentially claiming an non-existence 60-vote standard. And as I've said before, should Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer get his way, this would be the first successful filibuster of a nominee to join the Supreme Court. This would make history in a very bad way.</s>SPICER: They've also forgotten their own words. I've cited previously this week the rhetoric of Senator Schumer, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, the regrets of invoking the filibuster by senator -- President Obama, then-Senator Obama, and the words that many other Senate Democrats like Senator McCaskill on why blocking a vote for a judge having gone through the process has no precedent and is irresponsible. Let me cite one more argument that many Democrats have recently made. Current members of the Senate seem to also reject the notion of a Supreme Court operating with eight, not nine, justices. These include Senator Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bernie Sanders, Diane Feinstein, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, Ben Cardin and Martin Heinrich. Each of these Senate Democrats and the rest of their fellow caucus members need not listen to me or the president, but their own words as recently as last year. The president told the American people in his weekly address that was launched earlier today why it is. And again, we call on Senate Democrats to end this unnecessary obstruction and confirm an eminently qualified jurist for the bench. Also last night, the Department of Justice filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit to Hawaii's federal judge preliminary injunction against the president's lawful and necessary executive order dealing with protecting this country. Moving on to some of the events of today, this morning the president met with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. They had an opportunity to talk about regional threats, current foreign affairs hotspots, our attempt to defeat ISIS, and many more areas. It's -- it was a great meeting, where they discussed many of the challenges face -- facing our country. And the president sought the former secretary of state and national security adviser's advice and opinions on a variety of subjects. He also signed House Joint Resolution 42, allowing states to drug-test unemployment insurance claims; and H.R. 1362, naming a V.A. outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa. Also this morning, the president joined Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and some its member CEOs -- unveiled the association's annual manufacturers outlook survey. An incredible 93 percent of manufacturers surveyed by the National Association of Manufacturers now have a positive outlook for the future. That's a 20-year record high that's more than 35 points higher than that same rating was last year. To quote from the survey itself, quote, "the rising confidence stems from the belief that the new administration in Washington, D.C., will bring much-needed regulatory relief as well as reforms to the tax code and a significant infrastructure package." The optimism is evident across the spectrum of indicators. The Dow Jones industrial average is up over 12 percent since Election Day. The National Association of Homebuilders Confidence Index is at its highest level in 12 years. The Gallup Small Business Index shows that small-business owners are the most optimistic they've been since 2007. It's not surprising that American industry is reacting in this way. The president has taken immediate steps to make it easier to do business in this country, and we just are at the beginning of this process. On top of these significant steps taken in the executive orders this morning, he's also withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, cleared the way for Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, began a much-needed government-wide reform of our regulatory and permitting processes, and signed legislation preventing the burdensome streamline -- Stream Protection Rule from causing further harm to America's coal industry. The president was glad to see this report add to the list of measurements reflecting the incredible optimism and positivity that his pro-growth policies have created. Back to this afternoon, the president will meet with the director of the National Institutes of Health before signing the aforementioned executive orders on trade at 3:30. And he will meet with Director of the Office of Management and Budget -- excuse me -- Mick Mulvaney. In Cabinet news today, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, is in Brussels attending the NATO foreign ministers meeting. There, he reaffirmed the Trump administration's steadfast commitment to NATO. Secretary Tillerson also stressed the need for all member countries to meet their defense spending commitments, as well as the need for NATO to take a larger role in the fight against terrorism and ISIS. The president looks forward to meeting with his NATO counterparts in Brussels this May, to reafform -- reaffirm the United States' commitment to NATO and to discuss ways to strengthen the alliance in order to cope with challenges in national and international security. This morning, the Office of the United States Trade Representative released the 2017 national trade estimate. The annual report, which is required by law, surveys the significant barriers faced by American exporters. Its findings reinforce the need for the president's America-first trade agenda, which prioritizes the enforcement of the trade laws to protect American workers and job creators. The president looks forward to having Ambassador Lighthizer in place as the USTR, so that he can begin his important work in earnest and fulfill the mission of this report.</s>SPICER: And Transportation Secretary Chao, who yesterday celebrated the 50th birthday of the Department of Transportation, today directed the Federal Highway Administration officials to award $10 million in emergency relief funds to help begin repairs on Atlanta's collapsed I- 85 overpass. Releasing these funds will quickly help to ensure that the bridge is repaired safely and in a timely manner. The White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs has already talked with Georgia governors -- the Georgia governor's team and Secretary Chao has spoken with the governor. Looking forward, as promised today, we're releasing the USOGE Form 378 financial reports as filed by commissioned officers here in the White House. Right after I'm done here, we're going to have a background briefing with senior White House compliance and ethics officers to work -- walk you through how that process is going to go and the public release of that information which will occur later this evening. We'll be sure to update you if there's anything further to add. This weekend, the president will be here in the White House holding meetings. We'll be sure to update you if there's anything further to add. And on Sunday, the White House will honor World Autism Awareness Day by lighting the White House in blue to join with autism awareness communities. Further research into the causes and treatments for autism spectrum disorders is one of the president's priorities. As we light it blue on Sunday, the White House will be celebrating all of the individuals whose -- and families whose lives are impacted by autism. I would note that it's a really interesting story how this came to be. The head of Autism Speaks, an organization that has done tremendous work with this, Bob Wright, is one of the co-founders, is a longtime friend of the president's. His wife, Suzanne, was struggling with Parkinson's -- excuse me, pancreatic cancer last year, and the president made a pledge to her. He said "If I'm elected president, in support of this cause that you care so deeply about, I will light the White House blue." So it is in Suzanne and Bob Wright's honor that this -- this will occur for this great cause. And -- and I hope Bob knows that Suzanne is looking down proudly to see that that pledge has been fulfilled. With that, be glad to take your questions. John Roberts?</s>QUESTION: Sean, couple of questions, if I could, about Chairman Nunes' visit to the White House. Fox News has been told by intelligence officials that Chairman Nunes is aware of who did the unmasking of certain individuals in the transition and may be aware of who ordered the unmasking of those individuals. Is the White House aware of that information?</s>SPICER: I -- I don't know what he knows, in -- in the sense that that's -- that's -- and again, I've tried to make it a comment (sic) not to -- to get into the specifics of that report. I will not -- I think it's -- it's not in our interest to talk about the process. What occurred between Chairman Nunes in coming here was both routine and proper. Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff, who I understand is expected here later today, both possess the appropriate credentials and clearances. We've invited Democrats here and I've been told that material they will see will shed light on the investigation. I know a lot of folks want to talk about the process and not the surveillance and the underlying issue. The substance, the unmasking and the leaks, is what we should all be concerned about. It affects all Americans, our liberties, our freedom, our civil liberties. So let's -- let's talk about some of the substance. And I know that's not -- but on March 2, day before the president's tweet, comments by a senior administration official foreign policy expert, Dr. Evelyn Farkas, together with previous reports that have been out, raised serious concerns on whether or not there was an organized and widespread effort by the Obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence information for political purposes. She admitted this on television by saying, "I was urging my former colleagues, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill. I was telling people on the Hill, 'Get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can.' I had a fear that they were essentially watching the Trump staff and he was worried about the Trump administration." That's what's out there. And I know NBC News has just reported something very similar about information that was used by the Obama White House to spread this information and -- this politically sensitive information. Dr. Farkas' admissions alone are devastating. On March 4th, the president, as you all know, raised serious questions about surveillance practices by the Obama administration, including whether or not the president-elect or the transition team members were being improperly monitored for political purposes under the Obama administration. Later in March, in the ordinary course of their work, NSC -- National Security Council staff discovered information that may support the questions raised by the president and Dr. Farkas' claim. These are serious issues. They raise serious concerns. And if true, the issues would be devastating. We're committed to working with the House and Senate committees, as we've said multiple times, to get to the bottom of what happened here, why it happened, and who was involved. For this reason, we're in the process of ensuring that the reports that the NSC staff discovered in the normal course of business are made available to those committees investigating, to ensure that all of the facts come to light. And if everyone was treating the president and the administration fairly, you'd ask a series of much different questions about the substance and the materials.</s>SPICER: As we've said before, I mean, when you talk about Russia in particular, everyone who's been briefed on this subject, from Republican to Democrat to CIA -- former Obama administration's Clapper, Brennan, you name it, all of the people come back with the same conclusion. And I think that is important that there's been no evidence of the president's campaign and Russian officials. In fact, as you've heard me state before, it was Hillary Clinton, who was the architect of the last administration's failed reset policy -- she told Russian state TV that it was designed to strengthen Russia. That was their goal: to strengthen Russia. She used her office to make concession after concession, selling off one-fifth of our country's uranium, paid speeches, paid deals, getting personal calls from Vladimir Putin. I think if there's -- really want to talk about a Russian connection and the substance, that's where we should be looking. That, not there.</s>QUESTION: I wasn't expecting to tap quite such a deep well with that question.</s>SPICER: It's Friday.</s>QUESTION: Intelligence officials also tell us that Chairman Nunes knew about the documents that he viewed at the White House back in January, but ended up looking at them at the NSC SCIF only because he could not get access to those same documents through some of the other intelligence agencies. Basically it was a last resort to come here to the White House to view them. Do you know if that is the case?</s>SPICER: I don't. But I do think that it tracks everything that's been -- you know, there -- I saw a couple tweets the other day that I mentioned where people were saying that the NSA was trying to get documents, and -- I mean, from a narrative of what's been out there -- and again we have been -- tried to very careful about this and tried to be consistent about how we want this handled. But everything that he has said -- I mean, when he came out initially and talked to the media, he made it very clear that he had been looking into this, he had stated this much earlier than the president ever had raised this issue about surveillance and the unmasking of individuals for -- for areas that had nothing to do Russia and nothing to do with substantive policy -- intelligence or surveillance. So I think that as we continue to down this path (sic), if you begin to focus really on the substance, I think we see more and more a very, very troubling and devastating path.</s>QUESTION: And just one more thing...</s>SPICER: Yeah.</s>QUESTION: ... to clear up on process, if I could. We're also being told by intelligence officials that the two individuals who were identified yesterday, Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Michael Ellis, were not the source for the information for the Intelligence chairman. They -- they did play an ancillary role, in terms of finding some extra evidence here at the White House and helping to sign him in so that he could view the intelligence.</s>SPICER: Yeah.</s>QUESTION: Do you know if that...</s>SPICER: I -- again, John, I'm not -- if I start commenting on every one of these stories, that's -- I can't -- that's not our practice. I mean, again, part of it is that if we confirm some things and not others, we're going to go down a very slippery slope. I can say that -- that we continue to say that this is -- I think the substance of this matter and what continues to come to light in terms of Obama officials admitting, either off the record or, frankly, on the record, consistent with what Dr. Farkas says, that there was clearly an attempt to do something politically motivated with the intelligence out there. And the question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom? But I think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day, on March 5th. Jonathan?</s>QUESTION: Sean, we heard from the president this morning saying that Mike Flynn should ask for immunity. We also -- the president has long-standing views on what immunity means. I mean, back in September he said, "If you are guilty of a crime (sic), what do you need immunity for?" So does the president think that Mike Flynn is guilty of a crime?</s>SPICER: I think Mike -- he believes that -- that Mike Flynn should go testify. He thinks that he should go up there and do what he has to do to get the story out.</s>QUESTION: With or without immunity?</s>SPICER: Well, I mean, that's up to him and his lawyer to decide. I'm not going to give Mike -- Mike Flynn or anyone else legal advice from the podium. But I will tell you that the president's view is, he should go up there, he should testify.</s>QUESTION: But the president gave legal advice from his Twitter account. He said...</s>SPICER: I -- I know...</s>QUESTION: (Inaudible)</s>SPICER: But the interesting (ph) -- right. And I -- I understand...</s>QUESTION: He has said in the past that the only reason you ask for immunity is if you committed a crime.</s>SPICER: Right, but I think that the underlying point that you're missing, Jonathan, respectfully, is that what he's asking is, "Go testify. Go get it out there. Do what you have to do to get there, and tell Congress and tell everyone exactly what we've been saying for a long time." So, I mean, again -- again, I get your point. But I -- I think that the interesting (sic) is if you actually stop for a second and realize what the president's doing, it's that he's saying, "Do whatever you have to do to go up, to make it clear what happened, take whatever precaution you want or however your legal counsel advises you." But again, the -- the -- you know, I -- I've heard in some legal circles that the president could've exerted legal authority with him and Sally Yates and others. It's quite the opposite. And again, I think that that, compared to the narrative that you hear from a lot of folks in this room all the time, is a little bit opposite. Here you have a president who is telling Mike Flynn and others to go up there, make sure --