'Why should this president have any credibility?': Sarah Huckabee Sanders goes back-and-forth with reporter 16 times over what Trump meant when he said 'No'
- The White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and reporters sparred during the White House press briefing on Wednesday.
- Earlier in the day, President Donald Trump said "no" after a reporter asked him whether the US is still a target of Russian-led cyberattacks and meddling into US elections.
- That directly contradicts what the director of national intelligence has said.
- According to Sanders, Trump was saying "no" to answering more questions.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and reporters sparred during the White House press briefing on Wednesday over what President Donald Trump meant when he said "no" earlier in the day.
While taking questions from reporters at a cabinet meeting, Trump said "thank you very much, no" after ABC News White House correspondent Cecilia Vega asked whether the US is still a target of Russian-led cyberattacks and meddling into US elections - directly contradicting what director of national intelligence Dan Coats has said on the matter.
During the press briefing, Sanders said Trump was saying "no" to taking more questions, not answering Vega. Sanders also said the White House believes the Russian threat to target American elections "still exists."
NBC News White House correspondent Hallie Jackson, along with other reporters, went back and forth with Sanders several times over what the president meant by his comment.
When asking for further clarification, Jackson said Trump had never before ushered reporters out by saying "no." Sanders repeated that Trump was not answering the question posed in the Cabinet meeting earlier, and said Vega didn't understand his response because she asked a follow-up question.
Jackson continued by pointing out that this was the second time in three days that Trump or the White House has reversed what the president has said.
Sanders, who was in the room when the question was posed, said she interpreted it differently and was not reversing Trump's position. (Vega said on Twitter she thinks the president was responding to her question, not ushering them out of the room.)
"Why should this president have any credibility to Americans in what he says if in fact 24 hours later - or in this case 3 hours later - the White House comes out and says 'just kidding'?", Jackson asked.
Sanders denied that was what the White House was doing. "We never said just kidding. ... You can take the fact that the president has credibility because he saw that he had misspoken and he wanted to clarify that yesterday, which he did," she said. "So when he sees that he has misspoken, he comes out and he says that."
Then Sanders tried to move on to another reporter, The Hill's White House correspondent Jordan Fabian, but he threw it back to Jackson so she could ask her next question over Sanders' protestations.
Jackson asked when Trump has publicly called out Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"I think by stating the fact that Russia interfered with our election, that's a pretty bold call-out of another world leader," Sanders said.
Earlier this week, Trump sent shockwaves throughout the world during a joint press conference with Putin when he directly brushed aside Coats' and the entire US intelligence community's findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 US presidential election.
"My people came to me - Dan Coats came to me, some others - they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be," Trump said.
That same day, Coats issued a statement strongly rebuking the president: "We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective evidence in support of our national security."
On Tuesday, Trump attempted to walk back his comments at the summit by claiming he meant to say he didn't see any reason why it wouldn't, instead of would, be Russia.