minute now. this is the first briefing in 19 days. that means sarah sanders hasn't been at the white house podium since excerpts leaked from "fear." it hit shelves tomorrow. a book which appears to have gotten under the president's skin. he spent the morning seething on twitter quote, the woodward book is a joke. just another assault against me in a barrage of asusaults. many have come forward to say the quotes are fiction. dems can't stand losing. i'll write the real book. woodward responded today. >> the president is up and tweeting about you this morning. i guess maybe that's a success in some sense. you got his attention. >> there's a war on truth by

him. he says these are unnamed sources but these are not unnamed incidents. specific people on specific dates. >> we'll get to the specifics but you've been around a long time. you've covered eight or nine presidents. were you shocked by what you uncovered in the book? >> i've never seen an instance when the president is so detached from the reality of what's going on. >> there's not been a white house briefing since that anonymous op ed was published in the new york times. it sent the west wing scrambling to uncover its author. it painted a picture of dangerous and unqualified president if need of reining in. the finger pointing continued with nikki hap lley writing an op-ed of her own lambasting the

original. while omarosa floated a theory of her own. >> who do you think wrote it? >> i think it's somebody out of mick pence's office and i believe it mike be mike ares. >> you don't believer the vice president? >> the style reminds me of memos and documents that came out of vice president office. >> vice president pence went to extreme length to declare his own innocence. he pledged to take a lie detector test to prove he didn't write it. now with a perfect storm swirling around the president, the leak s have flamed trump's paranoia about a deep state working to undermine him which brings to today's big question. is the white house completely distracted by chaos? joining me white house reporter from the washington post, ashley parker and kristen welker live from the briefing room.

this is the first briefing in 19 days that got the op-ed. the woodward book. a whole host of other things. what do you expect to hear from sarah sanders? >> we all have a long list of questions. i think she's going to be on defense. i think you'll hear her echo a lot of what we saw in the president's tweets as it relates to bob woodward's book. the administration trying to discredit it and discredit that anonymous author who wrote that scathing op-ed in the new york times. i think that's going to be the messaging here from the podium. we know top officials have been urging h e ining him to move on issues have gotten under his skin. the president initially responded with volcanic anger in the wake of reading that op-ed.

president trump out on the trail taking aim directly at bob woodward. i think that's part of the messaging you'll hear because there's so many broader issues at stake. the big one for this president, for this administration has to do with the mid terms. there's real concern this will make it even more difficult for republicans as they fight to hold on to the house. >> let's talk about how this white house is prepared for change in the party. everything going on is donald trump's first, last and always. trump has demonstrated his mastery of winning the news every day. clearly the president inserts himself into everything that happens.

the presds is forced to fact check a claim that is not true. the economy is one of them that's happening lately.presds check a claim that is not true. the economy is one of them that's happening lately.rpresds check a claim that is not true. the economy is one of them that's happening lately.epresds check a claim that is not true. the economy is one of them that's happening lately.spresdst check a claim that is not true. the economy is one of them that's happening lately.spresds fact check a claim that is not true. the economy is one of them that's happening lately.check a. the economy is one of them that's happening lately. we have the woodward book, the op-ed. you tell me. what are they doing to prepare for that? are they preparing? >> every one is focused now on the woodward book. on the anonymous op-ed. if you talk to people in the president's orbit, one of the things they are most concerned about is they view the woodward book as a trial. they were caught flat fooded. that's made them very concerned about something they believe may be come is democratic take over

and all that comes with it. the investigation, the hearings. there's a real concern there's no infrastructure in place. there's no war room in place. there's anxiety about the ut te lack of anxiety. that's something long term. we know this white house isn't great at focusing on the long term because they are dealing with daily crisis. there's real concern that's a huge thing they are ill prepared for. this is white house dr . >> is this white house distracted by chaos? is that fair? >> it is fair. you talk to some people and they have gotten more used to it than they were at the beginning of the administration. they are almost always operating against the backdrop of chaos. that's given some of them the piece of mind to whether these crisis with an attitude of this too shall pass. for instance, the woodward book

was explosive. it was a day and a half, two day story because then the anonymous op-ed came. now we're back to the woodward book. there's is sense they can handle one crisis because it will be is up supplanted by another. >> that is true.s up supplanted by another. >> that is true. up supplanted by another. >> that is true.up supplanted by another. >> that is true.p supplanted by another. >> that is true. supplanted by another. >> that is true.supplanted by a. >> that is true.upplanted by an. >> that is true.supplanted by a. >> that is true. >> it's good to get on the record to say anonymous sources are not anonymous to the reporter. they are not calling up and saying here is what i think about what's going on. it's an unnamed person. the reporter knows the identity of the person. they are going to suddenly come out and say yes, i said everything that's in the book. it should be expected those same people would come out and deny

everything they said. how much credence are those denials being given at the white house? >> reporter: i think you heard bob woodward get pressed vigorously on that. he said of course they are denying these stories because they are trying to save their jobs. one of the thuroubling things allies to the president and those on capitol hill is that what is in the woodward book echoes so much of the reporting that's come out of this administration. the fact that you have top officials of the former secretary of state, for example, rex tillerson referring to the president as a quote, unquote moron. john kelly, reports he called the president an idiot. all of that is echoed and expanded upon in the woodward book. >> thank you very much.

joining me now is chairman of the american conservative union. good to have you here. >> good to be back. >> i want to ask you a very simple question. there's been three tell all books, critical tell all books, anonymous op-ed. a number of convictions and guilty pleas of close allies in the mueller investigation. there's reports the president is concerned about what could happen legally to his own son, don junior and there are prediction offense a blue wave that's coming to hit congress. that's a lot for any presidency. how does the white house function amid all of this? >> well, you've covered the trump campaign, trump presidency, every day, every week of this presidency has been r riddled with coverage of cay yo -- chaos and staff confusion. this is how the press has characterized the white house in

the beginning. this book or the op-ed, they are simply adding more fuel to the fire of a narrative that the white house is out of control. i koords nate with this white house. they are a fair bit. i do think this is a very unique presidency. the idea thoey running around i chaos is not properly sorted. >> do you think they are working to drum something up that's not true? >> it's not true. there's days and moments of chaos. the white house seems to be the place where every big issue goes. i think it's wrong when your

reporter said in the previous interaction they're not doing any long term planning. that's wrong. >> what's the long term planning for something like the democrats taking over the house? >> believe me they are talking about that. that's an option. when you're in the middle of an election siebcycle, you don't d lot of public commentary. you're trying to talk up your team. every political insider i know believes it's a jump ball as to who will have the majority in the house of representatives. we had a lot of republicans retire because they panicked ant the change in our politics and yes the republicans have some tough sledding and districts that hillary clinton won. on the senate side, which is confirming all these judges and brett kavanaugh, i believe we'll pick up seats.

>> you're saying that the story of what's happening in the white house is being misreported. maybe you don't want to believe what is coming out in the press. >> i read all of it. >> it's not just reporters saying this. it's members of your own party. ben sass said this about the especial op-ed. it's what we hear from senior people around the white house, you e know, three times a week. bob corker, the biggest issue is figuring out who would not have written a letter like that. what do you say to them? >> i think it's ironic to have senators trying to criticize the white house because they think it's dysfunctional when we have the most dysfunctional congress and ben sass says that on a reg basis. i don't think any of those gentlemen, i have a high regard

for ben sass, but i don't think they know what's going on inside the west wing. both have been critics of president and his policies. it's important to separate those two things. there's a lot of chaos that's accurately described. there's a lot of republicans uncomfortable with the amount of change and sometimes unorthodox positions on issues that donald trump has brought to the city. to convert that into a white house team that isn't functioning on getting that agenda wrong even though they do it better some days, that's misreporting. >> you have people telling bob woodward that the president is almost getting us into world war iii. >> who are those people? >> he has to be pulled back from the brink. >> he has to slow walk --

>> this is the problem. >> he wants to assassinate assad. he wants to pull the family members of troops in south korea out of south korea which would probably provoke north korea. those are very serious things. on the other hand -- >> i think it's simple too. >> the president is not as if he's tries to change policy. the president is lying on a daily basis. he's not telling the truth. >> i don't think that's right. >> it's true. when you look at sglsh it is true. >> it's not. >> it is. >> it's not true. washington post -- >> it's 100% true. >> the washington post is not getting the 4,000 plus things wrong in the last 500 days. >> i'd like the chance to talk now. what you're saying is overly

simplist simplistic. you have a president that communicates more to the whole globe. if you want know what he thinks, just turn to his twitter feed. the idea there's a secretive aspect of his opinions is ridiculous. the problem with bob woodward, i've ahead about half of the his books. i hope to read this book. i have a lot of respect for him. it's easy to take a lot of details and come up with the wrong conclusion as to what's happening in a white house. if his conclusion is that the president is somehow unward from reality and is a danger, i would say that's a gross mischaracterization of this president and as far as the lying is concerned, every single one of these supposedly independent out justice of the peace fits that a-- outfits are funded by left wing funders.

>> let me put something on the screen for you. let's talk about a tweet the president sent out today. he says the gdp rate is higher than the unemployment rate for the first time in over 100 years. there's an apples to oranges there. it's not for the first time in over 100 years. that's factually incorrect. >> when was the last time that was true? >> that happened during george w. bush, 2006. it happened multiple times before that. that's factually not true. is he just not aware of how those numbers work or is he putting it out there knowing it's false? what's happening there? >> all i would say is this. the apples and oranges when it comes to economic analysis matters. what kind of data are you looking at? >> don't go to apples and oranges. he says it's the first time in over 100 years. that's not true. >> the part i don't know how much years it is but what's the

point of the tweet. the point of the tweet is that for all americans, liberals and conservative, democrats and republicans, no matter the color of your skin, there's greater economic opportunity today -- >> but why not say something that is true that doesn't force everybody to fact check him. is the point he enjoys it when the press fact checks him then he can make it look like we're his foil? is that intentional or does he not understand the numbers and not care about being correct when he's talking to the american people? >> or when the press gets it wrong, are they lying? that's my problem. >> when we get i wrong we say we got it wrong and we apologize and correct it. >> all i would say is you are making a moral determination when you say a politician lies. there are times when politicians get it right and politicians get it wrong. on that tweet, i don't know how many years it's been. i know this for americans it's historic to have the

unemployment rate be below the gdp rate. that's a good thing for all of us. you try to find the one little way in which that's a flaw. >> he could say something that's true and that would be the end of it. we would report that's true. >> he did say something true. is it true that the unemployment rate is historically low and the economic growth -- >> it's not true that it's the first time in 100 years. 2006 was not 100 years ago. >> the economy is doing well and you should cover that. >> i would like to cover that but i'm forced to fact check the president on the smallest things. >> it's going both ways. there are plenty of things i watch on your network that i don't find to be accurate. when the president is wrong on the facts, call him.

don't take the next step by saying he's immoral and a liar. >> i've been following the president for a long time. the president said a long of things in the campaign trial that we corrected him over. gave him a long leash on in terms of whether or not he was for the war in iraq or against the war. he continues to say these things over and over again knowing that they were not true. that's one example. there are examples of crime stats. when he he says them over and over again you have nothing to -- then the only conclusion is he knows he's lying and doing it on purpose. >> the country is split and if you look at poll after poll -- >> 30% -- >> we're polarized politically. if you want to be yviewed when you take the extra steps to say the president is liar, do you

understand why people who have a conservative or republican point of view and see the facts and come to a different moral conclusion, they have trouble understanding why you have to make the moral step. why do you have to say he's done something immoral. you could have an disagreement on what the truth is. i think that's what's happening. i think donald trump was against the war in iraq. i watched all that coverage. yes there was some confusion but there was no confusion watching him and listening to him in his lead up to run for president. i worked for the president who is the one that executed that war. it's painful to hear those criticisms but they did come from donald trump frequently. >> i'm going to leave it here. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> 32% of the country finds him honest. just 32%. >> what about the nuews media.

you're at the secellar. >> the opinion of the media is on the rise. >> on the rise. congratulations. >> thank you very much for joining us. we appreciate it. we're continuing to wait on the white house briefing. when those questions begin, we'll bring them to you. stay with us. come here, babe.

ok. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. ♪ oh, what a relief it is! this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments

in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. all the recent talk of a blue wave this november has given democrats real hope to take back the house. republicans are still favored to hold the senate. or are they? one republican operative says every mettic leads you to one conclusion.rtic leads you to on conclusion.ic leads you to one conclusion. the depth of losses could be much greater than anticipated

and the senate majority might be in greater peril than anticipated. quote, republicans have spent the primary season anxiously watching suburban voters, particularly women, peel away because of their disdain for trump. the shift seems likely to cost the party in several key congressional races and despite a strong economy, republicans must also contend with the president's sagging approval rating and the constant swirl of controversy hanging over the white house. joining me, steve kornacki and rick tyler, a republican strategist. both are nbc analysts. is the senate up for grabs? >> that's the amazing things. six months, a year ago you would have said even in a good year democrats don't have numbers in the senate. we have three new nbc marist

polls. missouri, claire mchaskell running for re-election. we have her dead even with the republican there. in indiana, another state trump won by 20 points. joe incumbent up by six. in tennessee, republican held seat, bob corker is retiring. we got him up by two points. you see start seeing results like that in the senate and you say maybe that map is changing a bit. this is subject to some change but the battleground kind of looks like this. the red states are republican seats. democrats maybe have a shot at flipping. these blue seats are democratic seats where democrats are on defense. the bottom line is democrats need a net gain of two seats. you have two get a net gain of two seats. not losing anything up here.

not losing anymore in these blue seats. let's say, missouri. we have mchaskell tied there. let's say tennessee, that flips. if all three go to the democrats, you're kind of looking at a battleground with the democrats needing five. that's still a tall order to get five seats here. maybe they can get arizona. tester looked oklahoma in montana. even when you start doing that, democrats still need two more. you see the totality of this is the margin for error for democrats is very slim. if you lose in north dakota, if bill nelson loses in florida and ted cruz hangs on and republicans still hold the

senate. what you are seeing for democrats when they start talking about this possibility of wave is you're seeing a path on the senate side that could start to exist here. >> let's talk about texas because it's been getting a lot of attention. rick tyler, you're the person to ask about this. the president's budget director said cruz isn't likable enough. they are concerned he might ludlud lose. what's going on? >> i think you have a candidate that's been a very interesting candidate and is run a tremendous campaign and he's raised a ton of money. he's sort of electrified the left. i think ted cruz is likable enough and he should win. the probably is this is a close race. this is anywhere between 0%age

points. it shoun ld be a 10, 12, 15 poi race. when you have club for growth and americans for prosperity and the koch brothers all diverting resources from races they want to pick up, on the democratic side, moving that money and resources to texas, that keeps the republican party from competing in other states. tennessee looks like it could be a pick up. he could win tennessee. that presents another problem for the gop. instead of trying to preserve that seat or pick up another seat like north dakota or missouri, they're going to be defending texas. that's a big problem for the republican party. >> how much should we be relying

on the polls now. a lot of people probably thinking every one is wrong in 2016. what's so great about these polls in 2018? >> my head is still spinning from that interview defending morality of trump which i think is the part of the problem republicans are facing uphill battle with republican women voters now. i think our narrative was wrong in 2016. polling wasn't necessarily wrong in 2016. in all the head to head -- in the four way races, hillary clinton never got 51% support in any of those polls. it's a close race. it was our narrative was more

wrong than the polling was. polling is not supposed to nail a horse race completely. it's supposed to give you a trend of what's happening. a snapshot of the landscape. we put too much weight on polling, getting the horse race exactly right. i will tell you over the years, the polling has been doing better about getting the horse race exactly right. what is the electorate going to be? >> i want to get one other question before we have to go to the briefing. how much are you focusing on women voters and is there other voters than the likely voters that could come out? >> that's the point i was about to make. i think we're going to have a different looking electorate. part of the problem is us figuring what it's going to look like. i think you'll have women who don't usually vote will turn out. i think you'll have minorities who don't vote will turn out. i think you'll have young people who don't usually vote turn out.

it will throw off some of the models. there's a wave election, you have to have a different electorate that the democrats have. >> every one, thank you very much. >> thanks. >> former trump adviser george papadopoulos said the campaign was fully aware he was trying to broker a meeting between donald trump and vladimir putin. >> after that meeting on march 31st, i sought to leverage my contacts with the professor to host this meeting. the campaign was fully a ware of what i was doing. >> he said he first proposed the summit during a march 2016 meeting with donald trump and then senator jeff sessions and other foreign policy advisers. jeff sessions was quote enthu enthusiastic about the idea. >> kennedy trump at the time nodded at me. i don't think he was committed either way. he was open to the idea and he

deferred to senior senator jeff sessions who i remember being quite enthusiastic about hosting. >> attorney general says he pushed back. is he telling the truth? >> this is a meeting from about two years ago. my recollection differs from jeff sessions. >> he did not push back? >> all i can say is my recollection differs if his. >> that's not what jeff sessions told congress under oath last year. >> there are reports that you shut george down when he proposed that meeting with putin. is this correct, yes or no? >> i pushed back. i'll say it that way. >> yes. your answer is yes. >> papadopoulos who trump allies have tried to dismiss as a coffee boy was sentenced friday to 14 days in prison for lying to the fbi about his contacts with russians during the 2016 campaign. joining me, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenburg who is also an msnbc

contributor. as a federal prosecutor when you have someone like papadopoulos who has pleaded guilty, saying something as inflam fomatory as that that his recollection differs from jeff sessions and he was enthusiastic about the idea and you have the man who now attorney general saying he shot down that idea, what do you do? >> it is inflammatory but it's not all that compelling. it seems mr. papadopoulos does not have a recollection of the truth. they had a hard time with him getting to the truth. the fact he has a different recollection than the attorney general, at least from a perjury standpoint doesn't strike me as a righteous case.

>> let's talk about sessions credibility. he hasn't been truthful about his own contacts with russians. he said he had no contacts and he had met with the russian ambassador at the time which is part of the reason why he ended up having to recuse himself from the russia investigation. if the moth what do they think of sessions? >> you're right. it doesn't seem that mr. session has a close, professional relationship with truth on certain occasions too. if the question is whether or not papadopoulos remembers is sufficient to bring a surgery case against the attorney general, i don't think it is. remember, that picture you just put up shows a whole bun ch of people around that table. prosecutors will speak to a whole bun ch of people. they're not just going to speak

to mr. papadopoulos. if every one else remembers it the way papadopoulos does, so be it. just on what we know public lip sitting here right now, it doesn't strike me as a good purge perjury case. >> very good point.doesn't stri perjury case. >> very good point.sitting here doesn't strike me as a good perjury case. >> very good point. whether trump will sit down with mueller or not, at what point does mueller run out of patience and realize this is just a stalling tactic, if he thinks it is, and ends up subpoenaing is president? what would you be doing? >> i think the mueller team has long ago, many, many months ago realized you can't rely on what mr. rudy giuliani says and it's a stalling tactic. does the mueller team absolutely

have to talk to the president? they'd like to. it would be nice, but they don't have to. often in federal criminal cases we don't get to talk to the target. maybe he's overseas or maybe she just doesn't want to talk to us. that happens. the question is can you conclude the investigation without talking to the the president and the answer is absolutely. my guess is they would like to talk to him and they will do that if that i cey can. >> thank you very much. let's go to the white house with the chairman of economic advisers. he's taking questions right now. >> the opportunity or father and mother -- families with children.

they have decreased the deficits. i'll go to row 2. sorry i don't know your name. >> there's another chart not included. that's the chart about the spike in consumers prices. that's the cost of goods. it's inflation. >> i know. i wrote that. >> americans are paying more for their goods now than they did in recent years. can you explain to what extent americans should be concerned that the price of goods are increasing at a high rate. >> neamericans should be concerd that prices are going up. over the most recent years it's a bit short of 3% and i know that's something that affects americans when they go to grocegroe the grocery store, the gas station. the best increase is in wages. the cea put out a report this week that documented that correctly measured real after

tax wages are growing about 1.4%. the wage growth that president trump has rhelped create with overpowering the inflation numbers right now. row 3 and back. >> what credit does former president obama deserve for the state of the economy? >> i think that attributie inin blame or credit requires the identified policies and then talk about what affected this policy or that policy have. i prefer to give blame or credit to policies than individuals. president obama on the partisan trail gets criticized with numbers that are clearly incorrect because people blame him for the great recession that was there when he started and it's not fair. if i look at president obama's policies, there's a bunch of policies that were negative for growth. the affordable care act lifted marginal tax rates. so much so the cbe said it would have a negative affect on

growth. he increased growth on small businesses. i can look at a lot of policies and we can talk about them one by one and say did that help or hurt growth. he advocated policies that would help growth that clearly did not and i kind of wonder abtd whab was going on in the heads of the economists that said they would going on in the heads of the economists that said they woulds going on in the heads of the economists that said they would was going on in the heads of the economists that said they would was going on in the heads of the economists that said they would was going on in the heads of the economists that said they wouldb was going on in the heads of the economists that said they would whab was going on in the heads of the economists that said they would.h whab was going on in the heads of the economists that said they would.at whab was going on in the heads of the economists that said they would.hatwhab was going on in t heads of the economists that said they would.what was going on in the heads of the economists that said they would. >> i have two questions. >> go separately. i'll forget the first one. >> you're talking about the economic numbers. it seems like it might be time to president obama speeches on friday and saturday in which he talked about the economy and some of these issues. is that why you're here today? >> thank you for having. i've been pushing sarah to let me show those slides for quite a

while. we updated them for recent data. i don't know about the three week lag. i think it had nothing to do with fashion that sensible people take a break in august and there's some vacation taking at the time. we were prepared to do this briefing a few weeks ago. there's not a timing related to president obama's friday remarks. >> you talked about -- >> the next person will ask for three. i shouldn't have done. >> under president trump, is president also curious and your views has told private companies, apple, amazon, nfl, how to run your business. do you believe that's appropriate for a president to do? does that stimulate economic growth for a president to dictate how they run their stuff? >> the president has strong opinions about everything. if wouldn't have the policy success if he hnadn't been a strong advocate. i think his strong opinions sometimes stretch into areas that are outside the places that

the cea has any purview and i don't counsel him on that. at a previous presser i once said i don't run the counsel and made that true for all of my state. the blue shirt in the back. i skipped a row. >> the president said the gdp rate is lhigher than the unemployment rate for the first time in 100 years. that's not true. >> yeah. i can tell you what is true and the -- let me say the history of thought of how errors happen is not something that i can engage in from the initial fact to what the president said. i don't know the whole chain of command. it's the highest in ten years and at some point someone

probably conveyed it to him. the numbers are grateful. when the press finds mistakes that we make, we don't like making mistakes because we want to correct them. you might have noticed i gave sarah a bad number a few weeks ago. >> you said president obama said president trump would need magic wand to get the 4% gdp. president suggested that was a direct quote. did president obama ever say that? >> i don't know. i'm not the chairman of the council of twitter advisers. >> on wage growth, the white house put out a number that uses a different way of calculated wage growth. it seems like that's up fortunate because you got apples and oranges comparison to

previous wage calculations. why is it important to do that? new calculation for things like vacation time and other benefits. why midstream and not base your analysis on the way it's been calculated in the past? >> thanks for the question. we have a whole report that came out last week. there's a lot of news stories i thought were well done and thoughtful about the piece. i think the question for american, what they really want to know is how are president trump's policies affecting their lives. it's not a reasonable statistic f for answering that question. it was not a criticism of the bureau of labor statistics. we love those people. we use their data to come up with a better measure but a better measure will affect for the fact that people get benefits. a better measure would account for people just had tax cuts. the competition of the labor force is changing because so

many people are coming in. the people who have been out for a while tend to be lower skilled so they can bring averages down. in our study we control for all that and showed as consistent with our 4.2% gdp growth we're seeing a massive amount of wage growth compared to proj proprotections when trump took office.proprtections when trump took office.tections when trump took office.tections when trump took office. >> to keep these trends going, how important is it for you to have a new north korean free trade agreement including canada? >> thank you for the question. the first thing before i turn to the trade part of the question is some people have said the economy is strong but that's a sugar high. it's not a sugar high at all. what's happened is the capital spending boom that we promised would happen if we pass the tax cuts is under way. the cool thing about capital spending is people build

factories and they do that in first half of the year. it's up 10% and then in the second half of the year the factories start producing o output. the idea the trend might not continue is just i consistent with t with the form the growth is taking.consistent with the form the growth is taking.nconsistent with the form the growth is taking. we continue to be hopeful they will sign on to the 21st deal with mexico which is a better deal for american workers and they should sign onto that. i'll come over here and go back to you. >> hi. i have a question about income ini quality. can you talk about why whether or not you see income inequality shrink and concerned that people who are poor that are living beyond the poverty line, below the poverty line, are they being improved by the economy? >> they are. all the new entrants go from

having zero wage to having a wage. those people are better off. there's a number of ways people are better off because to have the growth in the economy and policies that have given resources to families that are nee needy. we put out a different report over the summer on what's going on with poverty correctly measured. in the state tuned department, there's important data coming out this week which will help us look at how income inequality is changed not in this year but the previous year. my expectation is that data will start to turn and this year we'll see a decline in income inequality because blue kcollar wages are starting to grow. it's a really important point that you bring up. i want to emphasize it. the fact is we're at a historic moment because we're deep into a recovery. the unemployment rate is really low and we created capital spending boom. normally what happens is people start to bid up the wages for

folks but they're bidding them up because there's a shortage of labor. they are bidding inding up wag because people have better machines to work with. it's precisely at this moment if you look at past economic booms where income inequality were to resign. we look an enormous opportunity. i'll come right here. last question. do you like this guy? >> blame or credit to policies rather than individuals but you start with this election when he wasn't president. how do you decide when to start it because the policies weren't in place for months afterwards?

>> robert lucas got the nobel prize for answering your question back in the early '70s. the point is america's businesses is their activity is forward looking. if you want to model their investment today they're forming expectations about the next five, six, seven, eight, nine years. if you look at the moment president trump was elected is that people started to ratchet up their expectations for what would happen to the economy. everybody except for mrs. clinton supporters were starting to do that right after the election. the fact is those expectations turned out to be rational because the turn around was something that you just saw. let me hand it back to sarah and close by anyone who wants to follow up and talk about the data, you can tell i like to do that, feel free to reach out through the press office. thank you so much. >> thank you so much.

thank you, kevin. couple of announcements and updates and i'll take your questions. last week the senate judiciary committee conducted a thorough and transparent week of hearing allowing each senator ample time to thoroughly review the nomination of senator brett kavanaugh. unfortunately, protesters attempted to turn the hearing into a circus. nevertheless, brett kavanaugh exemplified exactly why president trump nominated him. he showed exemplary qualifications among protest. we look forward to the judiciary committee completing their review and advancing his nomination. another matter later today by phone and also tomorrow in person at the white house, president trump is scheduled to receive a briefing from dhs secretary nielsen and fema administrator long. the latest briefing is part of the president's monitoring of multiple storms that are

predicted to affect the u.s. in the coming days. the white house has been in contact with governors' offices and local authorities in guam, the northern marietta island, puerto rico, u.s. virgin islands, hawaii, florida, georgia, south carolina, north carolina, virginia, west virginia, maryland, delaware, pennsylvania, new jersey and new york just since saturday morning. lines of communication remain open and the federal government stands ready to assist. these tropical storms and hurricanes are very dangerous, and we encourage anyone in the path to heed state and local officials so they have the best opportunities to provide on-ground information. lastly, we extend deep condolences to agent johnson. agent johnson served his country honorably first as a marine, then in the secret service. many of you know him. he was a great friend, husband and member of the secret service. the men and women of the secret

service are the most honorable and dedicated to public service of anyone in the world, and he was the best of them. he was always there to help anyone who needed it. our hearts are broken and our prayers are with the entire family. with that i'll take your questions. >> in regard to the anonymous op-ed, the president said on friday he thought it would be a good idea for jeff sessions to look into this. is there anything about what was published by the "new york times" that would warrant an investigation by the department of justice? >> certainly if there is an individual, whether or not, since we don't know who they are, if that individual is in meetings where national security is being discussed or other important topics and they are attempting to undermine the executive branch, that would certainly be problematic and something the department of justice should look into. >> is that the suggestion of misuse of classified

information, or what realm would that fall in? >> once again, it's something the justice department should look into and it's up to them to make that determination. >> a follow-up, if i could. is the white house actively trying to find out who this person is, or do you not really care and you're moving on? >> we're certainly focused on things that actually matter, and the staff here that's here to do their job and not undermine the great work this president and this administration has done, and we're going to continue focusing on that. it's frankly, i think, sad and pathetic that a gutless, anonymous source could receive so much attention from the media, and i think that the american people would be much better served if we actually spent some time talking about some of the really important things that are facing our country and the things that this administration is doing to help fix them. justin? >> did the president receive a letter from the state department, and can you share any details about the content?

>> the president has received a letter from kim jong-un. it was a very warm, very positive letter. we won't release the full letter unless the north korean leader agrees that we should. the primary purpose of the letter was to request and look to schedule another meeting with the president, which we are open to and are already in the process of coordinating that. the recent parade in north korea for once was not about their nuclear arsenal. the president has achieved tremendous success with his policy so far, and this letter was further evidence of progress in that relationship. a number of things that have taken place, the remains have come back, the hostages have returned. there's been no testing of missiles or nuclear material, and of course the historic summit between the two leaders, and this letter is just a further indication of the progress we hope to continue to make.

>> there will be meetings here in washington? >> we'll let you know when we have more details, but it's something we want to take place and we're working on making that happen. >> following up on that, you mentioned the remains being returned of hostages, the lack of testing which were all happening when the president cited a lack of progress and canceled secretary pompeo's trip. so other than these really nice words from kim and the parade, what progress warranted this new optimism from president trump? >> again, certainly the most recent parade this weekend. one of the first times, i believe, they have had parades similar where they weren't highlighting their nuclear arsenal. we consider that a sign of good faith. and, again, the letter from kim jong-un to the president certainly showed a commitment to continuing conversations, continuing to work on the

progress that they have had since their meeting just a few months ago, and also continued commitment to focus on denuclearization of the peninsula. >> the president is calling bob woodward a liar and saying his book is completely fiction. is the president considering filing a lawsuit against woodward? >> i'll certainly keep you posted on that, but i think we've been extremely clear from the beginning. many of the book's sources have already spoken out to refute. a couple of them, mattis, john kelly, john dowd also pushing back to the things attributed to him, and a number of people have come out and said that woodward never reached out to corroborate statements that were attributed to them, which seems incredibly

reckless for a book to make such outrageous claims to not even take the time to get a $10 fact checker to call around and verify that some of these quotes happened. when no effort was made, it seems like a very careless and reckless way to write a book. john? >> the president said he was looking into whether or not to take action against the "new york times" for publishing the anonymous op-ed. does the president not think that op-ed is protected by the first amendment? does he really want to condemn the newspaper for publishing that article? >> i think it's less about that part of it rather than if someone was trying to undermine the executive branch of the government and a duly elected president of the united states. if they want to undermine that process, they shouldn't be here. >> it's been a while since we had a chance to talk to you, so this goes back a little while. he tweeted last week suggesting the justice department should

not be investigating, should not be prosecuting those two republican congressmen because it might hurt republican chances in november. is the president really trying to suggest or outright saying the justice department shouldn't be investigating or prosecuting allies of the president if it might hurt his party's political chances? >> surely the president thinks no one is above the law. what he would like to see is a fair playing field, that there also be -- there have been a number of concerns raised about individuals both in the fbi and the department of justice that have been ignored and we would like to see those looked at as well. steve? >> for those two prosecutions, he doesn't want to go forward because they're his allies? >> i can't weigh in right now on an active investigation, but i can tell you the president doesn't think anyone is above the law, and we're simply stating there should be cause for concern of a number of things that have happened both in the department of justice and the fbi, that we'd like to see

those looked at as well. >> how soon would you like to have the second meeting? >> i don't have any opinions as the second meeting is taking place now and when we have more details, we'll let you know. >> does he continue to have talks with the canadians? >> we continue to have talks with the canadians and i suspect i'll have news pretty soon. >> does the president suspect someone from within for the op-ed and will there be any lie detecting tests? >> they were looked on as a possibility. frankly the white house and staft hethe staff here are focused on doing our jobs and trying to show up and help the american people, not deal with cowards that

refuse to put their names in an anonymous letter. >> on friday after george papadopoulos was sentenced, he said 14 days for $20 million, $2 million a day, no collusion. what was he talking about, the $28 million? >> i would have to go back and check and look at that. i didn't see that. i'm sorry. >> the price tag of the russia investigation? if so, that's highly inflated. >> i would have to check on that. david? >> what is your plan for comments on this year's 9/11 anniversary? >> obviously the focus will be on remembering that horrific day and remembering the lives that were lost and certainly honoring the individuals who were not only lost that day but also put their lives on the line to help in that process. he'll be there and the vice president will be here in washington, d.c. at the pent