[Anderson Cooper, Cnn:] Thanks for joining us in the second hour of "360". On the table tonight, day eight of the White House cover-up of the Rob Porter scandal. The White House changes its story and tries to blame a new office. Russia threat ignored. The country's intelligence chiefs agree Russia is targeting this year's elections as well. Is the White House turning a blind eye? The President said he hires the best people, so why one out of three of them left in the first year? A lot to get to in the hour ahead. We begin at the White House with CNN's Jim Acosta. So, Jim, explain what Sarah Sanders said today about what the White House knew and when about Rob Porter.
[Jim Acosta, Cnn Chief White House Correspondent:] Well, there have been shifting explanations as you know, Anderson, for the past week and today was a new one. We had not heard the words White House personnel security office before today, but we heard it in the White House briefing. The White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked about some of these conflicting stories. Why the FBI director was up on Capitol Hill testifying that his agents had completed their investigation last July when we were told by Raj Shah, the Deputy White House Spokesman and Sarah Sanders that that process was on going and her explanation was, well, the office of personnel security had this matter and that they were still looking at it and that process had not been completed. And so, Anderson, by my count, that is the fourth or fifth different explanation officially that we've heard from the White House as to why this information about Rob Porter's past was not being shared publicly.
[Cooper:] You know, it's interesting because it's just yesterday, she was pointing, saying it, it was law enforcement intelligence communities who hadn't finished the review process, which is I mean after Chris Wray said what he said, it was very clear the FBI had completed the background check.
[Acosta:] That's right. And one of the things that we're hearing, Anderson, is that there are some growing frustration behind the scenes among White House officials as to what two of the principals who have been involved in all this have been doing and what they've been saying. The White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, as we've been reporting over the last week, has been called to the carpet a number of times by White House officials to ask privately saying, you know, what is John Kelly talking about in terms of his handling of all of this. And then this evening, Anderson, I talked to a White House official who is raising questions about the White House counsel Don McGahn, who we understand was pretty aware of the situation last year, heard about these allegations on the background check last July. And according to this White House official, was not sharing enough of that information behind the scenes with White House officials. Now, you talk to other White House officials who say, no, no, no, both Kelly and McGahn have been doing everything possible. But, Anderson, I think the one thing that is constant in all of this is what we heard today from the FBI director, who really without being prompted had this answer ready to go to say, listen, we completed this investigation last July. Anderson, that just does not explain does not fully explain what the White House has been telling us over the last week. Apparently this information went to the White House office of personnel security, as Sarah Sanders said, but we don't have an explanation as to what they did with that information after that. And of course the ongoing problem in all of this is that the President, time and again, is asked about all of this and the only thing he really has said publicly is that Rob Porter says he's innocent and that we wish him well. But the President has had multiple opportunities to correct that statement and he hasn't taken hat opportunity. Anderson?
[Cooper:] Yes. Jim Acosta, appreciate that from the White House. Thanks. Very few Americans have ever heard of the White House personnel security office, but it does exist. For some guidance, we're turning to Chris Lu, who in 2008, ran the presidential transition for Barack Obama and worked as a White House Cabinet Secretary and is familiar with that office. Chris, how does this White House personnel security office actually work? I mean do they conduct investigations into staffers and issue recommendations to the White House on clearances?
[Chris Lu, Former Obama White House Cabinet Secretary:] This is an important office. It provides an administrative function in helping to facilitate those investigations. But to be clear, they're not conducting the background investigations nor are they the final decision makers. They're the conduit of information from the FBI to the West Wing and back. And so what Sarah Sanders here has tried to lay out really doesn't make sense and is not consistent with the function of the office when we were there in the Obama administration.
[Cooper:] So they wouldn't get the finished background investigation from the FBI and then sit on it for months and months and conduct their own investigation, you're saying?
[Lu:] You know, look, it's conceivable that there's additional paperwork that needs to be done. But what's important to understand is that Rob Porter wasn't just the typical White House staffer. He was one of no more than 25 assistants to the President. He was the gatekeeper of all paperwork that went to the President. So whatever they got from the FBI should have been moved along very, very quickly. And let's be clear, there also this is not an issue that needed much analysis. You know, there were abuse allegations against him from two ex-wives. I'm frankly not sure what additional analysis would have needed to be done in this case.
[Cooper:] Sarah Sanders also said they, "Had not finished their process." If this office is mainly sending information from the FBI to the White House, what process exactly would they be finishing over the course of several months?
[Lu:] I'll be honest, I don't get it either. There's not additional process. Look, I can understand if, you know, this was a case where a staffer had a lot of foreign contacts, foreign relatives. You might have to dig through that a little bit to make some sense. This is pretty cut and dried abuse allegations. And so if you're going to have a zero tolerance policy about this, as General Kelly said, that should have been a pretty easy determination after they got this information from the
[Fbi. Cooper:] The White House now says that they have about 100 to 200 people working in this office. Does that make any sense to you?
[Lu:] That makes no sense at all. My understanding is both during the Clinton administration and the Obama administration, there were probably no more than a half dozen people that worked in this office. So I don't really know where they're getting that. There are only total in the whole White House complex several hundred people, maybe 500, 600 people. It's inconceivable that there would be this many people in one office.
[Cooper:] I read that this is an office that basically hands out badges, is that right?
[Lu:] Well, they have many functions. Yes, they're in charge of the badging system at the White House. They're ensure they're in charge of ensuring that when a White House official is traveling, that we understand what security procedures we're supposed to be taking. So they do provide an important function. There are, as I understand it, former law enforcement people that are there. But they're not in the business of doing background investigations. The FBI does that.
[Cooper:] Chris Lu, appreciate your expertise. Thanks so much.
[Lu:] Thank you.
[Cooper:] Let's talk about with the panel. Joining me now is Ryan Lizza, Jason Miller, Maria Cardona, Mike Shields, Asha Rangappa, and Paul Begala. Ryan, you heard what Mr. Lu said. I mean, certainly seems like the White House's argument has shifted yet again from yesterday, pointing the finger at the FBI and intelligence agencies as not completing their background check. Now, it's this relatively obscure office which doesn't actually do investigations.
[Ryan Lizza, Political Commentator:] And what changed is the FBI came out and said, hey, we investigated this. We sent it to the White House. It was their ball from there, their responsibility to do what they should have done with this information. One of the things this points to is perhaps as president you don't want to be at war with your own FBI. In a normal administration, you might have some coordination with the FBI about how to handle the sort of public relations on something like this. But handing off the responsibility to an obscure bureaucratic office at the White House, which does not have nearly the responsibility from all the experts that have talked about this today that the White House is claiming they have, seems like just passing the buck.
[Cooper:] Yes. I mean, Paul you worked at the White House, how does the process work within the White House personnel security office as you understand it?
[Paul Begala, Democratic Strategist:] Yes. Back in my day, my recollection is like two to four people. And they are the were fine people that they gave you your pass, the FBI, so this person clears, you go over there and on your last day is the next time you see them when you turn in your gun and your badge and you head out, you know. It's inconceivable they would be doing investigations. We have the FBI, the world's greatest investigative agency. And here's the problem with this, shifting the blame and passing the buck. There was a national security risk every minute that Rob Porter was handling classified information. He may be fully innocent, but he was susceptible to blackmail. And if the Daily Mail or Mirror or whatever they are of England could find the ex-wives and girlfriends he allegedly beat and the temporary emergency protective order from the city of Arlington, Virginia, which might be a public document, the North Koreans could have found it, but maybe they didn't but the Chinese or the Iranians or the Russians. And that's the problem here. If you can possibly set aside the alleged manifestly evil conduct and criminal conduct if true, you still have this national security risk. And that's why the notion that it would languish in Room 86 at the basement of the Eisenhower Executive Office building is nuts. It's unimaginable.
[Cooper:] Well, Asha, I mean, it is also interesting, according to reporting, that is there are dozens of people in the White House who do not have or, you know, have not passed their background checks?
[Asha Rangappa, Former Fbi Special Agent:] It's astonishing. So it's been over a year now, and the whole point of conducting these background checks is to determine whether the people who have access to the most sensitive information are trustworthy, have good judgment, have good moral character. You go through training as an FBI agent on how to ask the right questions to suss these things out. This is clearly something that would have come to the surface in a background check. But, Anderson, remember that this is an administration that hasn't been hypervigilant about security issues. They kept on Michael Flynn for two weeks after Sally Yates came and told them he was a national security risk. They've been cavalier about filling out their SF 86. They don't seem to think that it's a big problem to omit things. So I think that they believe that this process is an annoyance and not something that's actually there to protect the country.
[Cooper:] Jason, just from a communication standpoint, I mean we are now in week two of this story. Had they handled this directly in forthrightly early on? I don't know that we that we would still be here talking about this. And Chris Wray coming forward and basically saying actually, no, what they've been saying, this is what happened.
[Jason Miller, Former Senior Communications Advisor, Trump Campaign:] Well, the number one rule of crisis communications is when you're in a hole quit digging and don't go and give new variables for your opponents to go and chew up. I mean the messages are real simple here. Rob Porter is a bad guy. Domestic violence is a crime. We have zero tolerance. If there's even a hint of anything about this, then you're out of here. I completely agree with both what Paul and Asha were saying with regard to the fact that someone like this shouldn't have been this close to the president. This person shouldn't have been a chief of staff on Capitol Hill. They shouldn't have gotten into the transition office. They shouldn't have been a part of the administration at the very beginning here. And so what people want to see going forward, supporters of the president and I think most Americans, they want to know the vetting system has been fixed. They want to make sure that no one else who could be blackmailed or anything like that is anywhere near the president. And they want to see strong leadership from that side. But the other thing too is that if the administration is looking in the rearview mirror, if they're going back and talking about time lines and process and things like that, I mean that's just not going to be a winning message. I mean, people voted for President Trump because they believe in his agenda, and they want to see what he can go and do. Put the president out there going and doing that as opposed to having other people talking about time lines and things like that. That's just going to get him jammed up, and it's not going to get him out of this.
[Cooper:] But it doesn't help, Maria, when, you know, Sarah Sanders refuses, you know, the obvious question is point blank when did General Kelly know about this information, and she says, well, I'm not going to get into the details of this, but we all knew, you know, shortly after it was published, we being everyone in the White House, which is just avoiding the question. It just sort of drags it on.
[Maria Cardona, Democratic Strategist:] That's exactly right. And that's where I think what Jason laid out, while, yes, that would be the ideal, that would never happen in this White House. First of all, because in order for this to be really cleaned up, you have to have somebody that actually admit that there was something wrong and that there actually needs to be something cleaned up. Trump on down refuses to ever say that anything was wrong. John Kelly himself said, "The Wall Street Journal" asked him today or yesterday, do you think that this was handled, you know, in a wrong manner and would you do it again differently? He said one word answer. He said, no. That doesn't point to an administration who understands that there is something wrong here. And as much as they want to blame it on the vetting process, to me right here, the vetting process works. The FBI told them the information. The vetting process was not what was wrong here. The vetting process was not what failed. What failed was the moral character and the understanding that having a wife beater in the White House is not something that you should have in the White House, in the Oval Office, having to do with national security, but also because it's not the right thing to do.
[Cooper:] Mike, I mean, does it seem to you I guess there's one alternative explanation, which is they, you know, it was sort of held up in this White House, obscure White House personnel office just to string this along, just to kind of delay answering something which they either didn't know how to deal with or didn't want to deal with, which is neither, which is appropriate?
[Mike Shields, Former Rnc Chief Of Staff:] Right. I mean I agree with Jason and they're trying to figure out what happened. It seems to me that there's some people in there that don't actually know what happened. And so I think that both Sarah Sanders is sort of being hung out to dry because I don't know that she's getting the whole story. I don't believe the president knows the whole story. They're trying to figure it out. I think they are trying to get to the bottom of it. And eventually we are going to figure this out. This is going to be and we are talking about these things will be made public. We'll find out exactly when did somebody know about this and what should they have done about it. And so, you know, Rob Porter apparently, his former wife that came on with you said that he had contacted them saying, quit saying this. You're stopping me from getting my background check. So he knew that this was a problem for him. So that means that somebody sort of knew in the White House and they should have done something about this.
[Cooper:] Do you think the White House has been honest about all that went on?
[Shields:] Well, when you say the White House, I mean
[Cooper:] There's Sarah Sanders, the public
[Shields:] Yes. This is what there's multiple things to say when you say "the White House." I mean, I believe that the president is not being served by some of his staff here, and I believe that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is sort of having to go out and do something when she and she said today many times, this is the best information that I have.
[Cooper:] Right.
[Shields:] That sounds to me like people that are trying to get to the bottom of this and fix the problem. They're not going to come out and tell us that's what happening. Eventually something will be fixed and they'll come out and tell us when they the problem.
[Miller:] And that's Sarah's job. And that's in, you know, quite frankly anyone else even on the communications team. I mean, they have people in place that are supposed to be doing that and that's I completely agree with what Mike was saying, is that the President has been let down here. And that we cannot have people if there was anyone, and, again, we don't know exactly what piece of paper went in front of what staffer at what point, or if it ever did. But if it were to come out that someone knew in absolutely undeniable terms that this was a wife beater that was this close to the President, I think that's a real problem. I think they're probably
[Cooper:] You pull that thought, we're going to continue the discussion after a quick break. Also ahead, the FBI Chief says President Trump has not directed him to stop Russian meddling and the Russians are at it again, already targeting this year's midterm elections.