REPORTER: Sean, what constitutes conclusive evidence to the president, when you say there’s more to come forward? You’ve got the FBI director saying nothing backed up the president’s tweets about wiretapping, former head of the DNI, House Intelligence Committee saying it, you’ve had a series of officials. So when does this end for the president? Is it March 28?

SPICER: It’s not a question of a day, it’s a question of where we get answers. You look at someone like Michael Flynn, and you ask the question, how does an American citizen, who should be protected by law from having their identity unmasked, how does that happen? Because you’ve gotta think about it like this: The FBI and all of the relevant intelligence agencies have access to this document. They can figure out who it was.

REPORTER: Who it was? The wiretapping of the president. That’s the claim.

SPICER: I understand that. What I’m getting at is that there’s a lot of information that we have come to learn about what happened in terms of surveillance throughout the 2016 election and the transition. And when you look at somebody like Michael Flynn, and you realize that, while they might have been looking at somebody else at that time, how does somebody’s name that’s protected by law from being disclosed get put out in public? Why was it put out in the public? Because the people in the intelligence community would have had access to that information. They could have found out who it was. But yet, you’ve got to question, why was a name that should have been protected by law from being put out into the public domain, put out there? What were the motives behind that? What else do we need to know? Who was behind that kind of unmasking?