It's gonna be "they said/they said," because sure, why not?
“What proof does President Trump have when he says Congresswoman Wilson is not telling the truth?” a reporter asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders during her daily briefing. “Are there recordings of his phone call?”
“No, but there were several people in the room from the administration that were on the call, including the chief of staff, Gen. John Kelly,” Sanders replied.
Sanders later claimed “multiple people in the room believe that the President was completely respectful” and “very sympathetic.”
She did not specifically deny any points of Wilson’s account of Trump’s phrasing, and insisted that she was speaking “specifically to the sentiment” that he offered.
“I didn’t get into the details of a personal call because I don’t find that to be that appropriate,” Sanders said.
So, several people whose job depends on agreeing with whatever damn fool story the President wants to put out (including John Kelly, whom one would think had already reconsidered his career options after Trump shamelessly used him as a prop in Trump's ongoing narcissistic war with the world), v. the mother of a slain soldier and a Democratic representative no one had ever heard of before, and by implication a grieving widow who just wants to mourn her loss and wonder what she does now, with three kids and no husband.
Yeah, let's continue to have this discussion. Because God forbid Trump should have his feelings hurt. I actually don't disagree with Sanders on this topic; but heavens above, how can she work for a man so unfit to be among human beings? How can any of those 'multiple people in the room'? More to the point, how can she not specifically deny the stories and still say "the sentiment" was appropriate? The defense is not what he said, but how he said it? Is this one of those "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of distinctions?
It is a puzzlement.