Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

White House Daily Briefing; White House "Can't Speculate" on What Bannon Might Say to Mueller Team; Trump's "Excellent" Health: Heart Disease, Nearly Obese. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired January 17, 2018 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[13:30:00] QUESTION: Thank you. I'm hoping you can explain some of your logic here a little further, because you talked about the immigration system and reforming the immigration system to protect Americans in the United States, but a lot of the crimes that you're using as examples to justify changing the immigration system are crimes that were -- you know, attempted crimes, or would've taken place outside the United States -- people wanting to travel outside the United States to fight, providing support to fighters outside the United States.

And I understand there's a nexus there with U.S. forces in those regions, but the -- if the point is to reform the immigration system to protect Americans, can you provide more information, more statistics that show doing so would have prevented people from coming in who committed war crimes inside the United States? Do you have, maybe, better examples that fit what you're trying to say?

O'CALLAGHAN: So, there -- a few points to that.

One is this is the first iteration of this report in response to the executive order's directives. And we, in working together with DHS, certainly expect to have more statistics and address some of the issues we weren't able to address in this initial report in future iterations of this report.

In -- in terms of the cases that are reported, I mean, if you do look at the cases, some of which are included in the Section 11 report, there are certainly cases that relate to conduct that has been committed in the United States, conduct that is in support of, for instance, Al Qaida or ISIS.

So there are plenty of examples of conduct that was actually committed in the United States, which would, in a way that we define it, qualify as an international terrorism investigation, because it relates to a foreign terrorist organization or terrorism conduct.

So, secondly -- I mean, thirdly, I would say, of course we're trying to prevent through any way we can. The administration, of course, supports us. We're trying to prevent terrorist attacks.

And so the most successful prosecution that I've ever been involved with are ones where we actually are able to stop it at a conspiratorial stage, so that there are individuals who clearly, through their conduct and their activity and what they're saying, are agreeing to commit a terrorist act in furtherance of the goals of a foreign terrorist organization.

But we, in conjunction with our law enforcement partners, are able to prevent it, convict them, and then they'll be included in our international terrorism defense (inaudible).

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Sir, I'm just trying to figure out -- and maybe I'm not understanding this -- how preventing people from coming in who were conspiring, for instance, to go fight in Syria would have protected people in the United States.

These are international terrorism crimes, and they weren't all -- they weren't all, you know, planning attacks in the United States. They were planning things overseas. And you want to reform the immigration system, and it seems like the focus there should be on things that people did in the United States, to people in the United States.

O'CALLAGHAN: OK. So the administration immigration reforms focus on getting more information: enhanced screening, enhanced vetting, more information, more agents, more officers asking more questions, more prosecutors prosecuting more cases.

All of that, in conjunction with all the other national security efforts by the administration, will lead to a safer -- a safer United States. I firmly believe that.

And I know that the fact that there are individuals here in the United States that are willing to, in support of -- in support of ISIS- related philosophies, engage in and talk about engaging in committing acts here in the United States that we're able to prevent -- I think that that makes the American people safer, and I know the Trump administration does.

QUESTION: Sir --

QUESTION: Sir --

QUESTION: Sir --

QUESTION: Thank you (ph).

Given that the discussion today is focused on national security, which is your area, I'd like to ask about national security as it relates to the arrest, recently, of that ex-CIA agent, Mr. Lee.

Can you talk about the significance of that arrest and why action was not taken against him sooner?

O'CALLAGHAN: So that -- I will say that that is a very important arrest. As demonstrated in the complaint that was unsealed related to that case, that former CIA officer retained classified information.

As that case proceeds through the courts, I would expect to have more information about the conduct that underlies those charges, and the complaint will come out. But as of now, I've just -- that case was investigated before I came to the National Security Division.

It's an important case. It goes to illegal retention of classified information, and so he's going to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: We'll take one last question --

QUESTION: Can you take one more on the report?

O'CALLAGHAN: Sure.

QUESTION: One last question?

Yesterday, when the -- when the report was released, the White House put out a fact sheet that said they found that approximately three out of four individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges, in the time period studied, are foreign-born individuals who entered the United States through our immigration system.

QUESTION: My understanding was that this -- that those numbers that you cited to us included people who had been extradited here to face trial, which is to say they didn't enter through our immigration system.

So my question is, is that correct? And, if so, how many of the three- quarters were actually immigrants?

O'CALLAGHAN: So, the -- the data that is included focuses on foreign- born individuals who were -- well, it's all the international terrorism offenses.

And just so you're clear (ph), the international terrorism offenses (ph) is something that is categorized by the National Security Division, based on specific provisions of the United States Attorney's Manual. (inaudible) too many details, but there are two categories of offenses: Category 1 offenses that list code -- sections of the -- of the federal criminal code that are -- that -- in and of themselves labeled international terrorism offenses; then there are Category 2 offenses that are not -- that do not qualify as Category 1 offenses, but those offenses are committed and individuals are convicted of those offenses, like false statements or obstruction of justice, that are committed in a course of an international terrorism investigation.

And so, those are the ones that are reported in the 549, some of which include foreign-born, some of which include foreign-born but naturalized U.S. citizens, and some that include U.S. citizens.

There is undoubtedly, because I've been involved in a lot of the cases, a certain number of those foreign-born individuals who have been brought into the United States, by extradition or otherwise, to face charges. But the underlying important fact about those cases is that we were able to prove that those individuals committed terrorism offenses against the United States, and are now serving either life sentences or very long sentences that will neutralize their threat to the United States going forward, because we were able to convict them under an international terrorism statute here in the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

O'CALLAGHAN: Thank you all.

SANDERS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Callaghan.

We'll save time and we'll jump straight into questions today.

Sager (ph), go ahead.

QUESTION: Great.

Sarah, there have been some suggestions in the media today that the president does, in fact, suffer from heart disease and his weight is larger than was indicated yesterday.

Does the White House stand by Dr. Jackson's report?

SANDERS: Absolutely.

Dr. Jackson has been a White House physician for the last 12 years, trusted by Presidents Bush, President Obama and now President Trump.

He is the only doctor that has weighed in on this matter that has actually examined the president. And so I think a doctor that has spent the amount of time with the president -- as Dr. Jackson has is not only the most qualified, but the only credible source when it comes to diagnosing any health concerns. And we support what he said yesterday 100 percent: that the president is in excellent health.

And I think he exhausted just about every question that you guys have, and showed, probably, that he's in pretty good health, too, to stand up here for an hour and take questions.

(LAUGHTER)

John (ph)?

QUESTION: Not too long ago, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona took the Senate floor to, again, denounce the president, this time likening him to Stalin in his approach to the -- toward the media, saying that he's inspired dictators the world over. This is (inaudible) with a statement from Senator John McCain, saying that the president should stop attacking the press.

At some point today, you're supposed to give out fake news awards. What do you think of what Senators Flake and McCain have said? And what's up with the awards? SANDERS: In response to Senator Flake specifically, I found it quite interesting that he is coming out to attack this president, considering he's one that was recently defending an actually oppressive regime. He went to Cuba a few weeks ago and served as a mouthpiece for the oppressive Cuban government.

He's not criticizing the president because he's against oppression. He's criticizing the president because he has terrible poll numbers and he is, I think, looking for some attention. I think it's unfortunate.

And, certainly, I think our position here at the White House is that we welcome access to the media every day. I'm standing right here, taking questions. The president does so regularly. And to act as if we're anything but open to that back-and-forth exchange is utterly ridiculous.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: -- comment (ph) on what Senator McCain said, and then the awards (OFF-MIKE).

SANDERS: I haven't had a chance to read all of what Senator McCain said.

QUESTION: And the awards?

SANDERS: We'll keep you guys posted. It'll be something later today.

Margaret (ph)?

QUESTION: We'll be looking for that. Sarah --

SANDERS: I know you're all waiting to see if you are big winners, I'm sure.

QUESTION: Indeed.

There's been frustration from both Republicans and Democrats who were in the room yesterday with Steve Bannon when he was being asked about some of the claims that he's made about this administration and the president's family. But, specifically, some of the criticism has been aimed at the White House, because of guidance that has supposedly been given as to what can and cannot be said, specific topics that are off- limit and the scope of executive privilege.

Without getting into the details of that, can you at least define for us what the White House is telling attorneys falls into the scope of executive privilege here?

SANDERS: Yeah, I can -- I can tell you that this White House is following the same practice that many White Houses before us have, that have gone back decades, that there is a process that you go through: Any time you have congressional inquiries touching upon White House, the Congress should consult with the White House prior to obtaining confidential material. This is part of a judicial-recognized process. We want to follow through that.

We've been fully cooperative with the ongoing investigations, and we're going to continue to do so. And we encourage the committees to work with us to find the appropriate accommodation in order to ensure Congress obtains all the information that they're looking for. But there's a process that this works through.

And it's not just isolated to this incident. Executive privilege is something that goes back decades, because it's something that needs to be protected, whether it's during this administration or one 20 years from now. We want to make sure we follow the process and the precedent, and that's all that's taking place here.

QUESTION: But the allegation's that the scope of that executive privilege -- not just the time in the administration, but time after it and time in (ph) transition, is broader than it has been in past administrations. Is that accurate?

SANDERS: I can't speak to the details of that. I can simply talk about the process, and that we're following the same process and past practice of previous administrations.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) categories the White House --

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: Again, I can't get into the details. I can only discuss the process.

Ashley (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you.

Following on that question, there is a news report out today that Steve Bannon's attorney was relaying the questions he was asked by the Senate Intel Committee in real time to the White House.

And so my questions are: Who was he relaying the questions to? Is that something the White House specifically asked his attorney to do? And if so, why did the White House think that was a necessary step in handling Bannon's testimony?

SANDERS: That's the same process that is typically followed. Sometimes, they actually have a White House attorney present in the room. This time, it was something that was relayed via phone and, again, was following standard procedure for an instance like this, and something that will likely happen again on any other number of occasions, not just within this administration, but future administrations.

Jordan (ph)?

QUESTION: Thanks, Sarah.

The House Republican leadership is proposing a funding bill that would provide the government funding for -- through February 16th and reauthorize CHIP for six years. Is that a proposal that the White House supports?

SANDERS: We do support the short-term C.R., however, it's not our first choice. We'd still like to see a clean funding bill, a two-year budget deal. But we do support the short-term C.R. But we're going to -- and continue moving forward in that process.

Jim (ph)?

QUESTION: Sarah, does the president think it's acceptable for Republicans or Democrats to allow a government shutdown at the end of the week? And there's obviously different options here, but does he think it's acceptable for a -- a shutdown to occur?

SANDERS: The president certainly doesn't want a shutdown. And if one happens, I think you only have one place to look, and that's to the Democrats, who are holding our military and our national security hostage by trying to push through other policies that have nothing to do with the budget.

We would like to, again, get a budget deal done, a two-year budget deal, a clean budget deal, and then focus on negotiations following that -- that deal with finding a permanent solution to DACA and responsible immigration reform. We've said that many times before. Our position has not changed.

QUESTION: Well, Republicans control Congress. They control the White House. (inaudible)

SANDERS: It takes 60 votes, and Republicans don't have 60 votes. So Democrats either need to decide that they're going to come here to do their jobs, and they're going to govern, and they're going to put our national security ahead of their own personal political agendas, or they're not.

It's really simple, and that's a decision you're going to have to ask the Democrats: What's more important, national security or political agendas? I can't answer that for you.

Cecilia?

QUESTION: You just said that the president certainly doesn't want a shutdown. Last year, he tweeted that a shutdown would be a good thing. So what caused his views to evolve?

SANDERS: He said it would be good politics.

QUESTION: (inaudible) a shutdown.

SANDERS: Well, look, that's never been a preference of this administration. It wasn't then; it isn't now.

And again, if that does happen, the blame, the fault will all lie at one place, because we would like to see a budget deal happen.

John?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah.

Even in the interview last Friday with, it was Max (ph) Television, the ambassador of Pakistan, Ambassador Chaudhry, commented on the president's decision to roll back most of the aid for security assistance to the Islamabad government. And he said Pakistan does not want aid (ph), but more importantly, and I quote, "Pakistan wants respect, and Pakistan wants recognition of our work and our contribution and our sacrifices."

Regarding the president's comment that Pakistan has responded to the aid with, quote, "lies and deceit," he simply said, "We won't dwell on that part because it's not beneficial to either party."

Your response to Ambassador Chaudhry?

SANDERS: Look, our -- our position is firm: that we believe that withdrawing that aid is important. And I would refer you to the State Department on anything beyond that.

QUESTION: Do you stand by the lies and deceit comment that the president made?

SANDERS: Yes.

QUESTION: Two questions.

First I want to follow up on a couple of (inaudible). But on the first one, about Steve Bannon, under the (inaudible) about process (inaudible), just broadly, is the White House afraid of what Steve Bannon might say in these interviews?

SANDERS: Not that I'm aware of.

I think we've been pretty clear what our position is in regards to this entire process: that there was absolutely no collusion.

But in terms of, you know, what he might say, I -- I can't answer that. I can't speculate on that.

I can simply tell you that we're following the procedure, whether it was in this committee or any other committee down the road. This is a process that's important to protect, and that's what we're doing.

QUESTION: And on the (inaudible), the president's talked about wanting to find a bipartisan solution. You said you want Democrats to come to the table.

If there is a government shutdown in -- what? -- three days from now, does the buck stop at President Trump?

SANDERS: I'm not sure how it would.

The president's laid out what he wants. He wants a budget deal. He wants to have Republicans and Democrats agree on a budget. And we're happy to talk about other things, but the budget should not be tied to a political agenda that the Democrats are driving. Those are two very separate things.

Mike (ph)?

QUESTION: (inaudible). Legal experts are suggesting that the subpoena for Bannon shows this investigation becoming more -- more aggressive instead of winding down.

Just a couple questions. Is the president prepared for this investigation to last into the months to come? And following up on Hallie, are you -- would you encourage Bannon to tell all, like he -- like his camp is saying he will, to Mueller?

SANDERS: Look, as we've said, regardless of who it is, we're going to be fully cooperative with the special counsel and encourage everybody involved in the process to be fully cooperative.

The first part of your question is, are we prepared? I think we've been dealing with this hoax for the better part of a year. If we have to endure the ridiculousness for another month, we can certainly handle it.

Do the American people deserve that? No, I don't think they do.

Steven (ph)?

QUESTION: In the interest of clarity, you've spoken of how the White House counsel has often -- has been involved in this process on the Hill. Has the White House, to this point, actually asserted executive privilege? Or are you talking about the potential?

SANDERS: I'm talking about the process. I can't go any further than that.

QUESTION: One question on the C.R. You speak of how the president would like to see a short-term C.R. passed.

Is he going to lean on the fellow Republicans who are in the House Freedom Caucus to see to it that they vote for it?

SANDERS: Like I just said, we support the short-term C.R. Our preference is the longer two-year budget deal, but we support the short-term.

QUESTION: So the answer would be yes, that he will encourage the House Freedom Caucus to vote for it?

SANDERS: Yes. Like I said, we -- we support the short term and think it is certainly better than not having that and having a government shutdown as the alternative. But again, our preference would be a longer-term deal.

Blake?

QUESTION: Sarah, when you look at the calendar then, January 17th, the budget deal potentially that goes to February 16th. The DACA expiration is up March 5th. Does the president want to see a DACA deal get struck before the next C.R. would end? Or is he willing to potentially take this up to the deadline in early March?

SANDERS: Look, I -- I think what we'd like to see happen is, let's make a budget deal by Friday and then let's come back to work aggressively on Monday and make a deal on DACA and responsible immigration reform.

We'd like to do all of those things, and be happy to do them quickly if Democrats are willing to work with us and get onboard.

QUESTION: You also are rolling out an infrastructure plan this month. So if the DACA -- if the C.R. gets passed this week, is priority number one next week DACA or -- or trying to get support together for infrastructure?

SANDERS: Look, we very much want to get a deal done on DACA. That's a big priority for us right now. But we can certainly manage more than one thing at a time, as we're used to doing around here. And if -- if infrastructure gets rolled out by the end of the month or the first part of next month, we'll certainly be working on that as well.

Kristen?

QUESTION: Sarah, thank you.

This weekend, President Trump's planning to go to Florida and apparently some celebrations for one-year anniversary of his inauguration. Is that appropriate if there is in fact a government shutdown? Or would he consider changing his plans?

SANDERS: Again, we hope that Republicans and Democrats will come together and that we'll have a budget deal. We still are focused on that being our top priority.

If that doesn't happen and there's a schedule change, we'll certainly let you guys know.

QUESTION: How does he see his role, Sarah, in getting the ball over the finish line?

I know you're pointing the finger at Democrats, but bottom line, he's the president. So how does he plan to make sure this government stays open?

SANDERS: Look, we're doing everything we can to encourage members from both sides to make sure that we get a deal.

The president has made very clear that his number one priority is our national security and fully funding our military. And that would be, obviously, something of utmost importance. And I would think that Democrats should share that same passion and priority as the president, and hopefully we don't have to, you know, go through this process come Friday.

QUESTION: Sarah, one more quick follow-up --

(CROSSTALK) SANDERS: I'll take one last question.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: -- go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah.

North Korea and South Korea have agreed to march together during the Winter Olympics in the opening ceremony under a unified Korean flag. Does the president and the White House support both North Korea and South Korea marching together and coming more closely together during the Olympics?

SANDERS: Look (ph), we see this as an opportunity for the regime to see the value of ending its international isolation via denuclearization. We still are very much focused and hope that that happens.

This isn't the first time that the two countries have marched together. And we hope that this experience gives North Korea and its athletes a small taste of freedom, and that rubs off and is something that spreads and impacts in these negotiations and in these conversations.

Thanks, guys.

[13:52:25] WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, there she is, the White House Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders, wrapping up a briefing in which she said, yes, the president is ready to keep the government operating after midnight on Friday by supporting a short-term spending bill that would allow the government to continue at least until February 16th. Although, the preference of the president is to get a two-year deal. That seems very unlikely at this point.

As far as the DREAMers are concerned, she said the president wants a deal. It's not necessarily going to be part of this short-term spending deal, but it would be separate. She keeps talking about what she calls responsible immigration reform down the road.

Sara Murray, you've covered this president for a long time, as a candidate. A lot of people suggest, yes, he's open to a comprehensive immigration reform deal, although, when he hears from conservatives and others who say this is amnesty, you can't do it, he backs off.

SARA MURRAY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: This is a constant problem with the president, that he's been so swayed by the last person he talks to. And right now, he's still staffed in the White House by a lot of people who think the deal that Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham brought together was too liberal, went too far. And so that's what they're up against. Yes, this is a president who wants to get big things done and wants to be a deal maker, but he's surrounded by people with a lot of sort of hardline immigration tendencies and those are continuing to collide.

BLITZER: How did you see it? DAVID GREGORY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think that's right.

And I think that what you see the administration doing now is relying on a misleading report, misleading data. The one example there of saying three out of four international terrorists were foreign born and blaming that on immigration laxity when, in fact, as was pointed out in the briefing there with the principal assistant deputy general, these were people, a number of people who were extradited to the United States, who were not trying to immigrate into the country.

That's just an example of how misleading the argument is, to look at a minority of people who might try to exploit the freedoms of America to do harm. This is the same line of thinking from Jeff Sessions and others who said, after 9/11, oh, watch out, we can't have immigration reform because the terrorists are coming through the Mexican border and they're going to get us from there. It didn't happen. It was a scare tactic then. It was demagoguery then. And it's the same thing now. I think they've reverted. They're backed up on immigration. And the best thing they can do is to try to put the pressure on Democrats to get the short-term deal.

BLITZER: As far as Steve Bannon is concerned, he appeared before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday, but he refused to answer a bunch of questions because the White House told him not to answer those questions. He then was subpoenaed. And now there are new developments unfolding.

What she said, Sara Murray, is that what they were simply doing is following, in her words, the same practices and processes that earlier White Houses have followed.

[13:55:16] MURRAY: That's right. Steve Bannon did a particularly good job of infuriating both Republicans and Democrats who were involved in that -

BLITZER: It's not easy.

MURRAY: -- in that committee, which certainly isn't easy because of the scope of the way he talked about privilege. Yes, she was saying it's not unusual for the White House to be talking to these witnesses, to be going back and forth to protect privilege. One, they didn't admit the White House has actually invoked executive privilege. But, two, Steve Bannon didn't only refuse to talk about things that happened once he was in the White House, he refused to talk about things that happened during the presidential transition before Donald Trump was the president of the United States.

And I think that's one of the key questions the White House hasn't answered, is how far are you pressing these witnesses to be tightlipped? It seems like the transition is part of that. And what is the legal grounds for that? Why can you tell people not to discuss even conversations that occur during the transition before Trump was president?

GREGORY: He obviously talked about these things publicly to Michael Wolff, at least some of these things, in an incendiary way.

BLITZER: That's why he was presumably called --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: He said that meeting in Trump Tower was treasonous, unpatriotic. He said, at the heart of all of this is money laundering. So --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: -- Special Counsel Robert Mueller can assume he knows something. And certainly, the House Intelligence Committee called him because they assumed he knew something as well.

GREGORY: Exactly. Look, what's important with the special counsel does, what Mueller does, and whether he has direct information about this or can confirm certain details. Again, we don't know the full scope of what the special counsel has and how Bannon, as a witness, could feed into that, could corroborate certain facts. But I think she's right in the point about executive privilege, but, as Sara said, we don't know the full extent of what the parameters are of what they're trying to protect.

BLITZER: I want to bring in our chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who was listening very carefully.

Sanjay, you were there at the briefing yesterday with Dr. Ronny Jackson, who said the president is in excellent physical shape, even though he's overweight. And you just heard Sarah Sanders say they support 100 percent his assessment of how excellent the president is doing physically.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, I mean, it's a tough one. When you talk about health, as a general rule, people define this in different ways, but as a general rule, it means there's absence of disease. Someone sort of optimal in terms of their health. He has been taking medication for high cholesterol. He has evidence of heart disease, based on an exam that is an exam that many people taking around the country, a calcium C.T. scan. And he is borderline obesity. So I don't know these things can necessarily be consistent with excellent health.

Now, I think what Dr. Jackson was saying -- and, obviously, Dr. Jackson spent a lot of time with President Trump -- when you do what are called functional tests of the heart, looking at the function of the heart, including an ultrasound of the heart and a stress test of the heart to see how the heart performs under stress, those tests were normal, according to Dr. Jackson.

But, Wolf, you know, a lot of people know you can still have plaque in the blood vessels that lead to the heart. That plaque can be concerning if it becomes too much plaque and it cause blockages. That has to be addressed. It's something that can be addressed through medications and lifestyle. That's something Dr. Jackson talked about. But I think excellent health may not be the best way to describe this but, certainly, addressable health concerns. And, Wolf, very typical for someone of his age. He's 71 years old. Heart disease is a very common issue in many people his age, and it's something that can be addressed.

BLITZER: That calcium score, we heard Dr. Jackson saying a few years ago, when it was around 60, and then up to 90, and now in the 130s. And you say that 130 number underlines heart disease. It's indicative of heart disease? Explain that. What is a number that really underscores heart disease?

GUPTA: In this case, there's different ranges of numbers but, basically, once you get 100 and beyond, it's considered heart disease. Even below 100, it's considered mild heart disease. What we're talking about here is a CAT scan that looks specifically for plaque within the blood vessels that contain calcium, sort of a hard plaque. If you see that, that can be scored, given a certain score depending how much plaque there is, how extensive it is. If you get above 100 -- and this is in the literature -- it shows above 100 is considered heart disease, and it's moderate heart disease, considered to give someone a moderate risk of having some sort of heart problem down the line.

Again, for a 71-year-old man, very typical. He falls right in the mid range of the risk factors for this. So it's not at all atypical. But it's clearly heart disease. He has heart disease based on that test. That's the reason you order the test to try to figure out if, in fact, he could discharge his duties as president.