issa training review

mr. earnest: goodafternoon, everybody. happy halloween. hope you had an opportunityover the weekend to spend a little time celebratingor marking the occasion, however you choose to do so. i do not have anyannouncements at the top, so we can go directlyto your questions. josh, do you want to start? the press: sure.

thanks, josh. let's start with the uproarover fbi director comey's decision to notify congress,and therefore the public, about the new -- look atsome of these emails. it seems like there'sbeen really a bipartisan combination ofthat decision. the justice department ispretty openly saying they advised him that thatwas not appropriate. eric holder says that wasthe wrong decision, and the

attorney generalsof both parties. without getting intothe content of the investigation, which i knowyou can't discuss, does the president feel it wasappropriate for comey to make that public justdays before the election? mr. earnest: well, josh, ianticipated this is where you wanted to start. i appreciate you noting thatover the nearly two years now that i've been answeringquestions about secretary

clinton's email system, thati have made clear that the white house is going to bescrupulous about avoiding even the appearance ofpolitical interference in prosecutorial orinvestigative decisions. and that is a posture thati won't change and is a posture that speaks tothe kind of institutional responsibilities that arevested here in the white house, which is preservingthe independence and integrity of independentinvestigations conducted by

the department of justice. now, you've raised aquestion about some of the decisions that have beenmade to communicate information about thoseinvestigations to the public. and what's true, josh,is that i don't have any independent knowledge of howthose decisions were made. i don't know what factorswere considered, dating all the way back to july, whendirector comey announced the results of the investigationand spoke at length to the

public about his decisionnot to prosecute secretary clinton. included in that newsconference were some rather harsh condemnations of theway that secretary clinton handled that situation. director comey alsotestified before congress at some length, on camera,under oath, about the investigation. and some of that testimonyprovided fodder to secretary

clinton's critics. over the course of the fall,we've seen the fbi move forward in providing otherinvestigative information -- 302 forms and otherdocuments -- to congress. and the fact is, my lack ofindependent knowledge about that decision-makingprevents me from weighing in. so i anticipate that this isnot the only question i'm going to get asked aboutthis today, but i'll neither defend nor criticize whatdirector comey has decided

to communicate to the publicabout this investigation. what i will say is that thedepartment of justice and our democracy has giventhe expansive authority to conduct investigations. the department of justicehas given subpoena power. they're allowed to compelwitnesses to testify. they are able to collectevidence that's not readily available necessarily. they're even allowed toimpanel a grand jury.

those are substantialauthorities. it's important, in the mindof the president, that those authorities are tempered byan adherence to longstanding tradition and practice andnorms that limit public discussion of facts that arecollected in the context of those investigations. and there are a varietyof good reasons for that. and the president believesthat it's important for those norms and traditionsand guidelines to be followed.

the press: werethey, in this case? mr. earnest: well, again,i think you'd have to -- i know that there's been a lotof discussion about this -- and by discussion, i meana lot of public reporting based on a multitude ofanonymous sources at the department of justice. the president believesthat there are a set of significant institutionalresponsibilities that officials at the departmentof justice and the fbi

must fulfill. the good news is, thepresident believes that director comey is a man ofintegrity, he's a man of principle, and he's aman of good character. that, presumably, is thereason that president bush chose him to serve in asenior position at the bush administration'sdepartment of justice. these same character traitsare what led a strong majority of democratic andrepublican senators to

confirm him to this job. these are the traits thatled the president to select him to be thedirector of the fbi. and these aretough questions. and so it's a good thingthat he's a man of integrity and characterto take them on. the press: you'll concede,i'm sure, that in the absence of any additionalinformation about this, voters are left toessentially speculate about

what might be involved inthis, what the fbi might be looking at or not looking atjust before the election. so would the president, inthe interest of people being able to not rely onanonymous sources and the like, see the fbi releasemore information than comey did in that very briefletter prior to election day about what's going on? mr. earnest: josh, in thesame way that i'll neither criticize nor defenddirector comey's decisions

about what to make publicin the context of this investigation -- that'sbecause i just don't have independent knowledge of thedecisions that are made to release this information. and there are other peoplethat have the luxury of being able to opine --writing op-eds or serving as anonymous sources forreporters to weigh in with their own view -- butwhen i'm standing here representing the institutionof the presidency, i don't

have that luxury. and so in the same way thati'll neither defend nor criticize director comey'sdecisions with regard to what to make publicin the context of this investigation, i don't haveany recommendations to make to him either with regard towhat information should be communicated to the public. the press: in the past,including after the fbi announced that it wasnot proceeding with the

recommendation to bringcharges in this case, the white house did defendcomey, and you've defended him a number of times. so is that a substantiveshift from the language you're using today, isthat you won't defend or criticize him? the fact that you're notdefending him, is that some signal to us that there isreason for the white house to maintain someadditional distance here?

mr. earnest: well, i think,josh, what i have observed in the past is that directorcomey is a man of integrity. he's a man of principle. he's a man who is wellregarded by senior officials in both parties. he's somebody who's servedin a senior position in the bush administration. and he's somebody who gotstrong bipartisan support when his nomination to bethe director of the fbi was

considered by theunited states senate. so all thosethings are true. they speak to hisgood character. and the president'sassessment of his integrity and his characterhas not changed. for example, the presidentdoesn't believe that director comey isintentionally trying to influence the outcomeof an election. the president doesn'tbelieve that he's secretly

strategizing to benefit onecandidate or one political party. he's in a tough spot, andhe's the one who will be in a position to defend hisactions in the face of significant criticism froma variety of legal experts, including individuals whoserved in senior department of justice positions inadministrations that were led by presidentsin both parties. but that kind of -- but i'mjust not going to be in a

position to, frankly, eitherdefend or criticize the decisions that he's madewith what regard -- with regard to what tocommunicate in public. that is separate, josh, fromthe kind of prosecutorial and investigative decisionsthat are made by the fbi and that is their institutionalresponsibility -- to make those decisions aboutinvestigations and prosecutions independentof any sort of political interference, and i willdefend their right to do that.

in fact, it's theirresponsibility. the press: this decisionaside, is it concerning at all to the white housethat you have the justice department and the fbibasically griping at each other in some form of publicor semi-public fashion? i mean, they obviouslyhave to work very closely together to keepthe country safe. is there an issue there thatneeds to be resolved so that the justice department isn'taccusing the fbi of not

following proper procedures? mr. earnest: well, josh,you've heard me discuss the president's view of directorcomey's integrity and character. let me just tell you thatthe president has got a lot of confidence in theattorney general of the united states, lorettalynch, to run that department. and she is somebody whospent decades as a career prosecutor. she's not newto any of this.

a lot of that work was donewhen she was the head of the eastern district ofnew york, the u.s. attorney for the easterndistrict of new york. that is a position wherethese kinds of decisions are closely scrutinized by themedia that's based in the largest city in our country. so she's used to thiskind of pressure. and the president has gotcomplete confidence in her ability to handle thissituation responsibly and

consistent withthe institutional responsibilities that arevested with the the press: and one otherquestion on a topic that i know is difficult to talkabout for another reason. the president'shalf-brother, malik obama, has published an op-ed,i suppose, in a new york newspaper, essentiallyairing a list of grievances against the president,saying he wasn't -- he hasn't sufficientlysupported his family in

kenya, didn't sendcondolences after his half-brother's sons --or children passed away. and he ends by saying, "iwill not be humiliated anymore." does the president have anythoughts about that op-ed or about the fact that thisfamily issue is playing out so publicly? mr. earnest: josh, i have toadmit that i have not seen the op-ed thatyou're referring to. if we have an officialreaction to it, i can follow

up with you. i spoke to the president theseries of questions that you started the briefing with,but i had not read the op-ed, so i did notask him about this one. but we'll followup with you. ayesha. the press: thanks. going back to the fbi. you said that you don't haveenough -- or the white house

does not have enoughindependent information to either criticize or to comeout with a position on comey's letter. but then i guess what do yousay to the american people? if the white house doesn'thave enough information to decide whether the letterwas appropriate or not, seemingly the americanpeople are then left with questions aboutwhat to believe. there are lots of criticismright now from both sides,

or lots of calls from bothsides of the aisle asking director comey to releasemore information. do you feel that theamerican people don't have a right to more informationabout this probe? i mean, they are going tothe voting booths right now and next tuesday. mr. earnest: well, look,ayesha, this is an entirely legitimate question for youto ask, and i think these are the kinds of questionsthat are being carefully

considered at the departmentof justice right now. and given the institutionalresponsibilities that are vested here at the whitehouse, i just don't have a recommendation to make. it's important for themto make these decisions consistent with their -- letme be more precise here. it's important for officialsat the department of justice and the fbi to make thesedecisions consistent with their institutionalresponsibilities.

and as i made reference toearlier, those officials at the department of justiceand the fbi are given expansive authority andexpansive powers to intrude on the privacy ofprivate citizens. and that authority istempered by longstanding traditions and norms andguidelines that largely avoid extensive public discussion of those investigations. let me give you an examplethat i think will resonate

with all of you, basedon your day-to-day responsibilitieshere at white house. it is not uncommon for you,when you call the department of justice asking them toeven confirm that there's an investigation ongoing, forthem to decline to do that. typically, when you reportabout the fact that there's an ongoing investigation,that's not based on official confirmation you've receivedfrom an official at the department of justice; it'sbased on confirmation you've

received from an anonymousofficial at the department of justice who's not willingto speak publicly about the case because it would beimproper for them to do so. that, i think, in a way thatwe all -- in a way that reflects the reality of theworld that we all work in on a day-to-day basis, ithink that underscores the sensitivity of discussingthis information. now, the other thing i thinkthat's important to consider here is there is a tendencyto say -- with regard to

this letter that was writtenon friday -- to say, well, congress is independentand they have their own independent oversightresponsibilities to exercise over the departmentof justice. well, let me say a coupleof things about that. the first is, the kinds ofnorms and traditions that limit the public disclosureof investigations don't supersede the oversightresponsibilities or requests that are submitted bymembers of congress.

and the reason forthat is simple. congress is, indeed,independent of the executive branch, but they'refar from impartial. congress is made up of 535politicians, democrats and republicans. and we've already seen justin the last 72 hours the kind of risk that'sassociated with communicating to themsensitive information. there's one seniorrepublican official who's

already indicated -- whohad previously endorsed the republican nominee forpresident, who let it slip that his party wasconsidering impeaching president clinton evenbefore she's been elected, if she's elected. that, i think, is a prettyclear indication that congress is notat all impartial. and that's why many of thesenorms, longstanding norms -- that apply even when we'renot talking about someone

famous, and even whenwe're not talking about an election being a week anda half away -- that should apply. and the president believesthat these norms are important andworth upholding. the press: so the presidentbelieves these norms are worth upholding, but itseems like in this case, comey -- these letters --that's what people are saying, is that thesenorms weren't upheld.

we're talking about anongoing investigation because a letter was sent. so i guess i'm trying toparse out, so where does the white house stand on that,just as a general issue, having an ongoinginvestigation that is now being discussed? mr. earnest: and look,this goes to the fact that because we have worked toshield this investigation, given the politicallysensitive nature of it.

well, frankly, even itweren't politically sensitive, we would go togreat lengths, we would be scrupulous about insulatingthat independent investigation from even theappearance of political interference. so i don't have anyindependent knowledge of the investigation or the kindsof decisions that led director comey to takethe steps that he did to communicate some of thisinvestigation -- or some of

the material relevant tothis investigation to the congress and to the public. so, again, i'm not in aposition to either defend or criticize that decision. that's something thatofficials at the department of justice and thefbi have to do. the press: so senator reidsaid that the fbi has some explosive informationregarding trump and russian ties.

and basically he is accusingthe fbi of having a double standard and not releasinginformation like that. and he and other democraticlawmakers have called for the fbi to releasethat information. does the white house haveany position on that? are you concerned that nowyou have more, kind of, accusations going aroundabout fbi probes? mr. earnest: look, as imentioned before, the white house has not been briefedon the investigation that

the department of justiceand the fbi were conducting into secretaryclinton's email system. the white house has notbeen briefed on even the existence of anyinvestigation into the activities or habits ofthe republican nominee. these are all questions thatshould be directed to the department of justiceand to the fbi. toluse. the press: thanks, josh.

going back to senator reid'sletter, he basically accused the fbi director ofpotentially violating the hatch act. and you said that youbelieve that director comey is a man of integrity. in the letter that senatorreid sent, he said that he once believed that directorcomey was a principled servant, and he now nolonger believes that. so what is your reactionto that letter, and do you

agree with senatorreid on this? mr. earnest: well, questionsabout the application of the hatch act should be directedto the office of special counsel. this is an independentagency that is filled with attorneys and investigatorswho, among their responsibilities, areinvestigating potential violations of the hatch act. but, again, you'll have totalk to them to even confirm

the existence of aninvestigation, let alone learn more about whatthey have concluded. with regard to directorcomey, as i said at the top, the president believes thathe's a man of integrity, he's a man of character,he's a man of principle, and he's got a verydifficult job. and those character traitsthat i just described will serve him well as he worksthrough the difficult challenges that he facesover the course of his job.

the press: you said youspoke to the president earlier today. can you describe his mood,how he's taking the general news? obviously, there's apolitical side to this, and we saw secretary clinton andher campaign reacting very strongly to this. did the president havethat same level of sort of visceral reaction to howthis is impacting the election?

mr. earnest: well, toluse,with regard to the impact on the election, i thinkthere's a lot of speculation out there in terms of whatpotential impact this could have. based on the public evidencethat i have seen from polls and other analysis, therehasn't been a significant change in the race. there are probably someanalysts who disagree with that; maybe they're right.

i think what those of youwho have been covering the president for a while nowknow that the president is somebody who ispretty even-keeled. he doesn't get toohigh or too low. and he has a tendencyto focus on the responsibilities thathe has in front of him. and the president feelsstrongly -- as you've heard him say -- about supportingsecretary clinton's campaign. and over the course of thenext week, the president has

put together a ratheraggressive travel schedule to make the case to theamerican public in support of the candidatethat he's endorsed. that's what the president isfocused on, and that's -- i would not anticipate asignificant change to the public pitch that presidentobama will be making in support of secretaryclinton's campaign. the press: you alsomentioned longstanding guidelines that the fbi hasabout discussing

ongoing investigations. there are also longstandingguidelines about taking actions that could be seenas influencing an election so close to an election. is that something that thepresident is concerned about? is that something that thepresident believes, as many democrats do, wasundermined in this case? mr. earnest: well, thosekinds of guidelines are important.

i'd refer you to thedepartment of justice and the fbi for how thoseguidelines are observed and enforced. but i think the president isevery bit as concerned about the broader principle, whichis the department of justice is entrusted with expansiveresponsibilities, and those responsibilities aretempered with guidelines and traditions that limit thepublic discussion of the investigations.

and the president believesthat that principle, those guidelines, are applicable,even when there's not an election around the corner,even when one individual who was affected by theinvestigation is not a global figure. and the president believesit's important for everybody to be mindful ofthose guidelines. ron. the press: so if he'sinsisted the president --

that these norms -- thatpublic discussion should be limited, even when there'snot an election around, he certainly believes thatpublic discussion of an investigation should belimited when there is an election nearby. is that a fairconclusion to draw? mr. earnest: well, look, letme just restate it to make sure that i understandyour question. the press: the question is,essentially, are you saying

the president believes thatthere should be very limited discussion of investigationsnear an election? mr. earnest: the presidentbelieves that our democracy has been very well servedfor more than two centuries by officials at thedepartment of justice and the fbi observinglongstanding traditions that limit public discussion ofinvestigations whether an election is aroundthe corner or not. the press: so how can heagree or not criticize what

director comey has done? it seems like a clear --it's a public discussion of an investigation. i mean, you point out how wecan't even get confirmation that an investigationis happening. mr. earnest: yeah. the press: this seems like avery clear-cut -- based on what you're saying about thepresident's concerns about the broader principles, itseems that it would be very

clear that he would becritical of what director comey has done. mr. earnest: well, it isclear what director comey has done. what's not clear is whatled to that decision. and nobody at the whitehouse has insight into the decision that director comeymade -- the press: right, but -- so you're saying there could be some

mitigating factor that wedon't know about that would essentially allow somebodyto breach this broad principle of limitedpublic discussion of the investigation? mr. earnest: i'm notbeing that prescriptive. i am basically suggestingi'm not aware of any of the factors that went intodirector comey's decision to send this letter tocongress on friday. i'm not aware of the factorsthat went into his decision

to give a long publicstatement on july 5th, when he announced that he wasnot going to recommend the prosecution ofsecretary clinton. to testify before congressfor several hours, under oath, in discussinghis investigation. and i'm not aware of whatkind of factors influence his decision to release thesummaries of investigative interviews that wereconducted by fbi officials in the context ofthis investigation.

the press: but, josh, atsome point, you just kind of break this all downto just common sense. i mean, people all over thecountry -- friends, family are talking about all this. i mean, how in any way canthis be good for the country at this point in time? mr. earnest: well, listen,what is important is that people across the countryand former administration officials have more of aluxury to be able to step

back and weigh in from thesidelines, to offer up their own opinion based on theirown experience, based on their own training, based ontheir own observation about the impact that this has onthe our political process. there's nothingwrong with that. that is part of the kind ofdebate that is critical to the success of ourdemocracy, as well. but what's important forthe person that's standing behind the podium with thewhite house seal behind me

is to make sure that i'mobserving the institutional responsibilities that i haveand that everybody who works here has, including thepresident of the united states, which is thatwe're not going to be in a position of defending orcriticizing the decisions that were made by thedirector of the fbi with regard to communicatinginformation from the investigations. the press: i see that.

but you're saying so muchthat could be interpreted as critical of what he's done. are you aware of that? mr. earnest: well, i'mcertainly giving voice to longstanding guidelines thathave served our democracy well, that the presidentbelieves are really important. and i recognize that thoseguidelines have been the basis for other people tooffer up their criticism of director comey.

it's a free country; they'recertainly allowed to do that. but from here, i'm not goingto be in a position of criticizing director comeyabout those decisions, in part because i don't haveany independent knowledge of how those decisionswere made. that's also the reason, bythe way, i'm not going to defend him either. the press: did the presidentread the eric holder op-ed letter?

mr. earnest: there have beena lot of opinions that have been shared in public overthe last 48 hours or so. the press: eric holder -- this is a -- mr. earnest: well, look, my point is that i know the president is aware of this issue andhe's read about many of the opinions that have beenexpressed in the last 72 hours. but i don't know whether ornot he saw that particular op-ed.

the press: and lastly, whenyou were talking about loretta lynch, you saidsomething about how the president has confidence inher, and so on and so forth. but when you were talkingabout director comey, you talked about how he's a manof integrity, character, principle thatwill serve him. are you saying theresomething different? does the president not have-- does the president still have confidencein director comey?

mr. earnest: i'm not tryingto send a signal here. the president is somebodywho, three years ago, nominated director comeybecause he's a man of character, he's a man ofintegrity, he's a man of principle. he is somebody who's had adistinguished legal career that's been rooted in makingsure that his own political views don't interfere withhis responsibilities as an attorney or as a lawenforcement officer.

so, look, the presidentthinks very highly of and, yes, you can assertthat he continues to have confidence in hisability to do his job. kevin. given the president's mantrafor no drama and don't do stupid stuff, i just have towonder where he is on this email -- mr. earnest: thank you for editing yourself, by the way. (laughter)

this is a familyprogram here, kevin. the press: you'reabsolutely right. it goes on and on and on. and i'm just wondering,given what you said earlier about wanting toscrupulously avoid any appearance of impropriety,do you believe, or would the president believe now isthe time for a special prosecutor in thiscircumstance? mr. earnest: well, again,no, the president hasn't

reached thatconclusion at all. as i mentioned earlier,the investigation that was conducted by the departmentof justice and the fbi was a thorough one and one thatdirector comey, for better or worse, hasthoroughly explained. and i don't think that afterconsidering what director comey has put forward thatanybody would conclude that he somehow gave short shriftto answering the questions that were posed inthe context of

the investigation. again, that's all basedon his public statements. the white house nor i, noranybody here, has been briefed on thoseinvestigations. but based on his publicstatements, i think it's quite clear that a thoroughinvestigation has been conducted. and that investigation wasconducted free of any sort of political interferencefrom the white house.

there are another set ofdecisions that were made with regard to communicatinginformation from that investigation to the public. and as i mentioned earlier,i'll neither criticize nor defend the decisions to makethat information public or to communicateit to congress. the press: you want to becareful not to criticize, but i'm curious, do you seeit as partisan in any way? mr. earnest: no.

as i mentioned earlier, thepresident has got confidence that director comey -- the press: because that's how some people are shading it. early on, especially back injuly, there were a number of, maybe, on the right whowere suggesting that, you know what, he didn't listento his staff, he should have proceeded withan indictment. and now, here, over the last72 hours, many on the left are suggesting he did thisright before the election,

it was completelyout of bounds. there is this narrativethat some people feel like somehow the director,rightly or wrongly, has been partisan. does the presidentacknowledge? mr. earnest: the presidentis completely confident that director comey has nottaken any steps to try to intentionally influence theoutcome of the election or to advantage one candidateor one political party.

the press: let me askyou about the emails. and i know you and i can'ttalk about some of the specifics, but i'm justcurious about the huma abedin shared email accountwith anthony weiner, former congressman. is there any reason that thewhite house has any concern that the president's emailsmay have ended up on that computer in any way? mr. earnest: i think ashas been -- if the public

reports are true, nobodyknows what's on that computer. and i'm not going tospeculate about what may or may not be there. the press: can you answerthis question, then: is there reason the presidentwould use an alias or a pseudonym when emailing backand forth with members of congress in particular,or even with the former secretary of state? is that true?

and if so, why? mr. earnest: i don't knowthat the president emails with members of congress. what i can tell you is thatthe president's email system has a lot of built-insecurity measures, including an alias. and as we've discussed inhere before, it would be foolish to givethe president the bobama@whitehouse.govemail address.

the press: so it'snot barack.obama? not that i haven'ttried that one. let me lastly ask you aboutsomething that, again, i know your usual pivot isthese are private emails that were obtained illegallyor surreptitiously, but i do think it bears the questionabout the suggestion that donna brazile, the actingdnc leader, taking over for the now-deposed debbiewasserman schultz, may have been aiding the clintoncampaign with more questions

leading up to town hallevents and other sort of -- giving her an inside scoop. what do you say to thosebernie sanders backers who feel like the fix was infrom the very outset? and should donna brazile, inyour opinion, if this turns out to be true, step downfrom her position at the dnc? the president believesthat she's done a fine job stepping in in a verydifficult situation to lead the democratic party.

those of us who have knowndonna a long time know that she is a person of integrityand a person of high character. she's a true professionalwho is a tenacious and effective advocatefor democrats. and she uses that skillregularly on television. she has been using thatskill regularly as a party official. and i, for one, am prettyexcited about the fact that we've got her on our team.

the press: last question. i just want to make sure idrill down on your answer. if it turns out that she didtip the scales or put her hand on the scale forsecretary clinton, and didn't handle it evenly as amember of the leadership of the dnc, that'sokay with you? mr. earnest: well, i don'tthink she was a leader of the -- on the dnc leadershipat the time of the debates. i think during the -- myunderstanding is -- and you

should check with the dnc onthis -- but that during the primary, she was notaffiliated with the dnc. margaret. the press: josh, has thepresident spoken with attorney general lynch aboutthis issue and her apparent disagreement withthe fbi director? mr. earnest: he has not. the press: and when exactlydid the white house find out about the fbi letter?

mr. earnest: well, asmy colleague, eric, in answering this question lastweek told you all, the white house was not given advanceknowledge of the decision by the fbi director to submitthis letter to congress. so we learned about thisletter the same time all of you did. the press:through the media? mr. earnest: that's correct. the press: when you werespeaking earlier, you used

the language, saying thepresident did not believe that comey intentionallyis trying to influence the election. the former ag, eric holder,said that this is a serious error with potentiallysevere implications. whether or not this wasintentional, is there concern that this couldhave, indeed, potentially severe implications? mr. earnest: well, wecertainly have already seen

some of secretary clinton'sharshest critics capitalize on this letter, distortits contents to provoke controversy. i made a reference earlierto the chairman of the house judiciary committee whocommitted the classic washington gaffe of sayingsomething in public that everyone secretly knows istrue, which is that house republicans are alreadyplotting the impeachment of hillary clinton, even thoughshe hasn't even been elected

president yet. that was based on questionsthat he was receiving about the letter. in the same interview, hereferred to substantial information beingincluded in those emails. at the time that he gavethat statement, public reports indicated that thedirector of the fbi hadn't even had an opportunityto review those emails. i think that's exhibit a ofhow partisans in congress

have sought politicaladvantage through the disclosure ofthis information. that's why these kinds ofguidelines are so important. and that's why adherence tothese guidelines has served our country so wellfor a long time. the strength of ourdemocracy depends on it. the press: but the presidentpreviously has said he thought hillary clintondisplayed some carelessness here, but that her use ofprivate email system and

server didn't jeopardizenational security. he has weighed in on thisgenerally, as saying this is a little bit ofa distraction. does he still believe that? mr. earnest: the president'sviews of this situation have not changed. again, i think the focus ofso much of our discussion today has been on thedecision made by officials at the department of justiceand the fbi to talk about

this investigationin public. the press: but the premiseof the investigation itself he's somewhat beendismissive of by using that language, saying it didn'tjeopardize national security to begin with -- it wascareless, not criminal. so to be dismissingthe premise of the investigation, but then --i mean, is this all just procedural items that youthink this hubbub is about at this time?

mr. earnest: even whenmaking those comments, the president specified in thesame interview, in response to the same question, thatthe department of justice had at the time andcontinues to have a responsibility to followthe facts where they lead. this is why we ask careerprosecutors to set aside their own political viewsand their political interests to pursue thesekinds of investigations. this is what the nature ofan independent investigation

is, which is that eventhough -- so this is the best way i think to describethe situation -- it's no secret that president obamais a strong and enthusiastic supporter ofsecretary clinton. but he also expects thedepartment of justice, including some of theofficials that he appointed, like the attorney generaland the fbi, to fulfill their basic responsibilities-- even if that means investigating a candidatefor president that

he's endorsed. that's the president'scommitment to his institutionalresponsibilities as president of the unitedstates -- to set aside his own political viewsfrom his institutional responsibilities. and his institutionalresponsibility is, don't interfere with adoj investigation. and that's something that wehave scrupulously followed.

the press: so does that meanthat the president will avoid mentioning this issuein any and all campaign events for thenext few weeks? mr. earnest: well, again,fortunately, there's only another week or so to go. i think i speak foreverybody in here when i say that. but yes, i would anticipatethat the president will speak publicly quite a bitover the course of this week.

i would not expect adramatic change to the president's speech that youall have heard him deliver, indicating his very strongsupport for secretary clinton in his view that theoutcome of this election is critically important tothe future of the country. the press: but will he makea pointed decision to avoid commenting on this becauseof all the concerns about -- mr. earnest: again, thepresident, prior to friday's letter, was not spending alot of time dwelling on this

topic, and i wouldn'tanticipate a significant change to his stump speech. the press: and lastly, ijust want to come back to the harry reid questionabout what he was implying about donald trump andthe russian government. since the dni has said thatthere was a russian effort from the top down toinfluence the election, when you said that you haven'tbeen briefed on whether there is an actualconnection to the

republican nominee. if there were informationalong these lines, is this the kind of thing thatshould be disclosed prior to the election? mr. earnest: well, again,i think this sort of falls into the category of adecision that has to be made the fbi. they can speak to whether ornot there's an investigation that's ongoing.

if there is, they can speakto what that investigation has uncovered. and ultimately it willbe up to them to decide, consistent with theguidelines that i've laid out, how much of thatinvestigation to make public, if any. the press: but you don'tthink hear they're withholding information asis being implied here by harry reid?

mr. earnest: again, it'sjust hard for me to say that because i don't knowwhether there's actually an investigation even ongoing. kenneth. so just to confirm andclarify, everything the white house has learned todate about the latest probe by the fbi on hillaryclinton's -- these newly discovered emails has beenthrough media reports? there hasn't been a letter?

there hasn't beenany type of call? this has all beenthrough media reports? mr. earnest: so, kenneth,let me just be as precise as i possibly can here. the white house was notgiven advance notice of the fact that the department ofjustice was sending a letter to capitol hill. the white house became awareof that letter through media reports when individuals incongress presumably made the

decision to makethat letter public. and since then, thedepartment of justice has not provided any sort ofbriefing or consultation -- or sought any consultationwith the white house about this matter moving forward. the press: josh, youmentioned there are a lot of people on the sidelines --former officials who have the luxury, you said,to comment about this. but some of these folksare not on the sidelines;

they're activein government. you mentioned harry reid,who said that he deeply regrets fightingto confirm comey. obviously, you're sayingthat the white house is standing behind -- standingwith comey on this. so what's your response topeople who are, even in your own party, top leaders, whosay they regret fighting to confirm comey tobe fbi director? mr. earnest: well, just toreal precise about this,

with regard to directorcomey's decision to send this letter to congress,i'll neither defend nor i recognize that there area lot of other people who have, and they certainlyare entitled to do that. but based on theinstitutional constraints that i have, standing hereat this podium in front of the white house logo, idon't have that luxury. so i'll let otherpeople weigh in. the president's view is thatdirector comey is a man of

integrity, he's aman of character. he is not attempting toinfluence the election to benefit or advantage onepolitical party or one candidate for office. he's got a tough job, andhopefully he'll draw on that character and integrityas he does it. the press: so there's a lotof talk about comey after this. obviously, his termcontinues well into the next president.

so what is thisadministration's advice to hillary clinton if she winson working with a man who has now investigated her,seemingly, at least twice in the public? mr. earnest: well, listen,i'm not going to speculate about the outcomeat this point. the president is focused on-- over the course of this week, he'll be focusedon making a case for her because he feels stronglyabout her candidacy, and the

stakes that are -- thestakes in this election for the future of the country. but i'm not going tospeculate about what sort of advice the president would have for president-elect clinton. we'll cross that bridgewhen we come to it. the press: and finally forme, does the president have a costume to wear today? mr. earnest: well, you allwill have an opportunity to

see him when he's passingout candy on the south lawn later today, so stay tuned. i'll just say in the past,the president has not worn a costume when he'spassing out candy. but i did not ask him todayif he was going to change that practice, thatlongstanding guideline and norm. michelle. the press: i mean, we hearyou defending both comey and the attorney general, whichis interesting because they

could not be more opposedon the release of this information andthe timing of it. and so to hear the attorneygeneral -- i mean, sources within the department sayingthat the release of this and the timing runs contrary toprocedures, to hear eric holder saying that thisis a "stunning breach of protocol," "violateslongstanding policies." i know you don't want totake sides here, you're not going to do that, butdoesn't that chasm between

the views here of the fbiand the justice department at the very leastraise a concern here? mr. earnest: well, listen,there has been a multitude of anonymous voices in themedia over the last 48 to 72 hours sharing their ownperspective and opinion about this situation. some of those are anonymousvoices who are identified as people who currentlywork in the united states government.

the sharing of theiranonymous opinion is not particularly helpful. and i think there was --again, based on the letter that director comey sent toemployees at the fbi, his letter was intended toclarify actions that the fbi was taking. but based on the fact thatdirector comey felt like he had to send that letter toagency employees i think is an indication that theletter had the opposite of

the intended effect. and the void has been filledby a lot of anonymous voices that haven't served thepublic interest either. so again, it's stilla free country. and particularly people who,based on their previous experience in government orbased on their own legal expertise, have an opinionand a view, and it's clear in a modern mediaenvironment, they have a variety of ways to share it.

but for somebody that'sgot institutional responsibilities like thepresident, or somebody who's got institutionalresponsibilities like me, who speaks for thepresident, i don't have the luxury of weighingin, in the same way. the press: eric holderobviously is not an anonymous voice, and someonewho was so recently in that office, using such stronglanguage about this -- not based on solely hispolitical leanings and

beliefs, but based onprocedure and guidance that was in effect while he wasthere -- doesn't that worry the president? mr. earnest: well, thepresident believes strongly in those kinds ofguidelines too. i can't recite mr. holder'sop-ed from memory, and i don't have it in frontof me, but the kinds of guidelines and norms andtraditions that he was giving voice to in his op-edare the kinds of traditions

and norms that the presidenthas in mind when talking about the responsibilitythat everybody at the department of justice andthe fbi has to live up to them. and those norms areimportant because they protect the rights of peoplewho are being investigated. and that's important even insituations where somebody who is affected by aninvestigation is not famous, and even when there's not anelection around the corner. so at the end of the day,officials at the department

of justice and the fbi havea responsibility to live up to those traditionsand to follow them. and the president'sexpectation is that they will do that. the press: okay, so giventhat you do see this stark difference -- even if you'renot listening to anonymous voices, even if you're justlistening to eric holder, who said that was a hardop-ed for him to write because he also respectscomey -- and you hear top

democrats calling for therelease of more information, to put out the full facts,including the candidate calling for that -- isn'tthat something that the white house would welcome? there's so much controversysurrounding this, and it's not good for who thepresident wants to be elected. so would not the whitehouse say, let's put more information out there then? mr. earnest: well, listen,michelle, i think that -- as

i mentioned earlier, i thinkthat was the hope that director comey had. that was his stated hope ofsending the letter in the first place. the press: but clearlyit's not enough. mr. earnest: well, clearly,it had the opposite of the intended effect. i think we canall agree on that. and again, i can't -- otherthan what he has -- other

than what director comey haswritten in his letter to agency employees oremployees of the bureau, i can't speak to what factorshe considered in making the decision to send thatletter in the first place. and i just can't be in aposition of speculating about what may have ledhim to make that decision. the press: given what hashappened, given the effect that you talked about thatwas likely the opposite of the intended effect,wouldn't you then welcome

more information to throwsome more clarity on that? mr. earnest: i think, as isevident from the last 72 hours of media coverage,director comey is getting advice from a varietyof perspectives. i don't have anyadvice to share. i'm not even sure that he'dbe that interested in it, even if i did. the press: okay. and i have a lot ofquestions, sorry.

mr. earnest: that's fine. the press: when we heard thepresident in a call talk to supporters of hillaryclinton and tell them to avoid all the noise anddistraction that's out there, doesn't he think thatwhat's happening now with the fbi reopening aninvestigation, isn't that more than noiseand distraction? and if he thinks it is noiseand distraction, isn't he then weighing in essentiallyon what he thinks this is

all about or what he thinksis at the core of this? mr. earnest: well, again, ithink the president's intent of using that admonitionin the call that he did yesterday with secretaryclinton's supporters is to remind people why they gotinvolved in her election in the first place; to remindthem of why he got involved in support of her electionin the first place. he cares deeply about thefuture of the country. he cares deeply about makingsure that his successor is

somebody who shares thevalues and the vision that he's been fighting for,for the last eight years. somebody who is committed togrowing our economy from the middle out, who is committedto making sure that america is a place that's fairand just for everyone. making sure that we're beingsmart and judicious about what's necessary to advanceour interests around the world; about confronting thereality of climate change; about making sure expandingaccess to health care for

every american. these are the kinds ofprinciples and values that president obamahas championed. those are the things thatdrew the president to public service in the first place. those are the thingsthat drew him to support secretary clintonin the first place. and presumably, those arethe kinds of things that actually motivated people tosign up and get involved and

volunteer for secretaryclinton's campaign. and that's what thepresident is encouraging those people to focus on. the press: so is what'shappening now with the fbi and everything that's beingsaid out there, is it noise and distraction only? mr. earnest: well, again, idon't want to be perceived as dismissing this,primarily because i also don't want to be in aposition of being perceived

as either criticizingdirector comey for the decision to release thisinformation, but i also don't want to be in aposition of leading people to think that i'm defendinghis decision to release this information. this was a decision for himto make, and the president believes that those kinds ofdecisions should be made in consultation with otherofficials at the department of justice and with dueconsideration given to

longstanding norms andprinciples and traditions that have servedour country well. and this is thelast one, i promise. you talked about thepresident -- his pitch, his public pitch not changing ashe goes out on the trail for the last week this week. but what we heard from himas recently as friday is not the making the crowd laughlike it's a comedy routine, not making funof donald trump.

he sounded deadly serious,first of all, which sounded like a difference -- inmy opinion, at least. and also, instead of himtalking about -- like he did in the beginning of thecampaign -- that america is not so divided as people sayit is, he was talking about a polarized america. so isn't that a change inkind of how he's seeing things at thispoint in the race? mr. earnest: well, michelle,i can assure you that the

president's speech that hegave on friday in florida was not changed in lightof the news that director comey's letter madeearlier that afternoon. look, i think all of thearguments that the president made in friday's speech areat least consistent with the arguments that he's beenmaking on the campaign trail for a couple of months now. yes, on some occasions thepresident has spent more time dwelling on the reasonsthat he has not endorsed the

but in this case, he spentmore time dwelling on the reasons that he's stronglysupportive of the democratic nominee and illustrating thestakes of this election, which are -- in his view-- as high as they've ever been. the press: has this electionmade him rethink that america is not so dividedas people say it is? mr. earnest: well, again,earlier this year, the president gave a state ofthe union address in which he acknowledged that ourcountry has not made as much

progress as he would haveliked to have seen over the course of his presidencyin bridging some of the political divides. i think when it comes to ourvalues and our notion of what it means to beamerican, a commitment to a set of values that -- or thefoundation of the forming of this country, i thinkthere's a broad consensus about the importanceof those values. and sometimes that consensusis overshadowed by more

narrow politicaldisagreements. that's not to minimizethe significance of those political disagreements,because the president believes that it's reallyimportant that the candidate that he's endorsedprevail in this election. and he'll be makingthat case accordingly. but this is not the firsttime the president has made the observation that thecountry is a little bit more divided and our debate is alittle more polarized than

he would prefer. april. the press: josh, acouple of questions. one, you talk about theintegrity of comey and others, but i want to askyou right now with this current election cycle andthese current revelations over the last couple ofdays, is there still integrity in thiselection process? mr. earnest: april, there'sno reason -- as we've

discussed before in avariety of contexts -- there's no reason foranybody to call into question the ability of ourdemocracy to count the vote of every eligible voter thatexercises that right on election day or before. this is a -- our system ofconducting elections and our democracy has persisted andprevailed through a civil war, through two worldwars, through a cold war. and we've got a vigorouselection that's underway now

and a vigorous politicaldebate that, in some cases, has trended towardthe divisive. but the president hasconfidence in the ability of our system of government tosucceed in ensuring that the outcome of the electionreflects the will of the people who show up to vote. the press: but what i'mspecifically speaking about is the break in tradition-- 11 days out, or how many days it was -- to have thisrevelation, this letter to

the congress. and the fbi director, whohad already investigated and found that he was notgoing to charge her. is there still integrity,do you believe, in this process? as people are early voting-- mr. earnest: when you say "this process," tellme what process you mean. the press: the earlyvoting process. this election process. mr. earnest: yes, it'snot been affected.

all right. now, when it comes to thepresident, was there ever any conversation about thepossibility of not allowing the president to go with therevelation of this letter going to congress -- goingout on the road for her the next couple of days? mr. earnest: i'm sorry, idon't think i understand your question. can you -- the press: wasthere ever any consideration

of not letting the presidentgo out on the road to campaign for hillary clintonafter this latest comey letter came out? mr. earnest: no, not at all. there's no schedule changecontemplated at all. the press: and now with himgoing out again -- as you said, no schedule change-- do you believe that the president feels that,because he is a constitutional attorney andunderstands the law from his

(inaudible) -- do youbelieve that the president feels that, like in july,that hillary clinton will be found not to have i guessmade a national security breach, or notcharged or indicted? does he believe that, ashe's getting ready to embark on a road trip for herfor her presidency? mr. earnest: the presidentcontinues to be completely confident. i'm not going to comment onan ongoing fbi or department

of justice process. but what i will reiterate isthe president's confidence in secretary clinton, in hervalues, in her leadership qualities. the president's assessmentthat she would be an excellent candidate, thatshe would be an excellent president and that she isthe right person to succeed him in the oval officehas not changed. and you've heard him talkabout that quite extensively

over the last couple ofmonths, and you're going to hear him talk about it quitea bit over the course of the next week. richard. the press: thank you, josh. so if the president'sopinion hasn't changed, just a clarificationagain for me. did the president feel that,as director comey said, that secretary clinton showedrecklessness with her

private emails? did he use that term -- iscarelessness a part of and include recklessness? mr. earnest: the presidenthas had an occasion to talk about this previously. i don't have anything to addto what the president has previously said. i think the president,as i have on a number of occasions, has noted thatsecretary clinton has

acknowledged thatit was a mistake. she's acknowledged -- she'sapologized for making that mistake, and she'sacknowledged that if she had an opportunity to do it overagain, she'd do it a lot differently. but with regard to thepresident's opinion of secretary clinton and hisfirm belief that she will be an excellent president, thatassessment has not changed. the press: this campaign --the clinton campaign has

come out with a new ad wherethey depict the daisy girl image. you've been with the whitehouse for eight years. you do think one man beingthe president can, by himself, starta nuclear war? mr. earnest: well, there isenormous authority that's invested in thecommander-in-chief. and choosing acommander-in-chief with the right temperament has beenthe subject of presidential

campaigns for -- let me sayit this way -- this is not the first time that therehas been an extensive debate on the campaign trail aboutwhether or not one of the candidates has theright temperament to be commander-in-chief. so i'll let the clintoncampaign make whatever case they choose to make. you've heard the presidenttalk in his own words in these speeches about howimportant it is to have the

right temperament when doingthis job, and he says that based on his own personalexperience of sitting in that office every day forthe last eight years. so the president's viewsabout how important the consideration of temperamentis in choosing the next commander-in-chief issomething that he's talked about extensively. and it sounds like theclinton campaign wants to talk about that, too.

but you should talk tothem about that strategy. the press: you've seen thepresident discuss issues, going to war in iraq or inafghanistan, the surge and putting soldierson the ground. mr. earnest: yes. these are life anddeath decisions. they don't just -- can one man just, withouteven talking to anybody around -- can thepresident of the u.s.

start, himself, awar -- a nuclear war? mr. earnest: well, i don'tknow that i can walk through the procedures that areinvolved for making that kind of decision -- the press: my question is, is that exaggerated intrying to portray this? mr. earnest: i don't thinkit's exaggerated, because the person who is thecommander-in-chief is somebody who'scalling the shots.

and there's a longstandingtradition in this country -- a different tradition, but alongstanding tradition -- of civilian leadershipof the military. and for the person whois entrusted with that responsibility by theamerican people, that's the person that's makingdecisions that members of the military -- they'regiving orders that members of the military vow touphold and vow to carry out. so, again, i can't speak tothe procedures for the kind

of operation thatyou're alluding to. but i think the point ofthis debate is helping the american people understandthat it's enormously important who the nextpresident of the united states is. and that is a -- lives areat stake in making that decision because thepresident frequently has to make life-and-deathdecisions. and typically, when thosedecisions are being weighed,

they're not even oneperson's life and death. we're talking about the lifeand death of, for example, thousands of americanservicemembers who signed up to serve this countryin the military. those servicemembers areentrusting their lives to the commander-in-chief. and the president feels thatresponsibility, and it's a weighty one. dave.

i wanted to go back ontoluse's question about the mood, the reaction tocomey's announcement on friday. i mean, you're talkingabout, obviously, the candidate that the presidentwants very deeply to succeed him and carry out alot of his agenda. a lot of -- some white house-- top white house people have gone to work forhillary clinton's campaign in the last year or so. and so obviously, a lot ofpeople here at the white

house, it's no surprise,are rooting for her to win. then you got this major,negative news story out of the blue, as you said, 10days before the election. what was the reaction hereamong senior-level people? were you concerned? were you shocked? mr. earnest: well, as imentioned, the white house was not notified of thedecision to send this letter to congress before theletter was made public.

so i guess it's fair to saythat since we didn't know about it in advance, that wewere surprised, particularly when you consider the kindof longstanding tradition that's been observedby investigators and prosecutors in ourdemocracy for a long time. but, look, i think thebroader analysis of the impact of this story on therace i think is much more complicated than justdescribing it as a bad story. i think there are a varietyof opinions about what

potential impact this couldhave on the electorate -- who's motivated,who's discouraged. the press: but for example,there was a poll yesterday, i think it was abc, thatsaid up to one-third of voters are now, because ofthis story, considered less likely to vote forhillary clinton. doesn't thatconcern you guys? mr. earnest: well, listen,i think there's a lot of analysis and a lot of dataout there to sift through,

and i'm sure there arepeople in the trump campaign headquarters and inthe clinton campaign headquarters sifting throughthat data right now to search for apolitical advantage. that's what they'resupposed to do. but i'll leave the analysisto them and to others who are talking to journalists. i'll let otherscarry that analysis. the press: one othermatter, about the va.

the good folks at usa todayhad a story today about bonuses that were awarded tova employees in fiscal 2015 -- some $177 million to vaemployees, about 189,000 employees, which was anincrease from the year before by about 24 percent. given the year that the vahas had, does the president feel like they were due foran increase in bonuses that were handed out? mr. earnest: dave, ihaven't seen the story.

let me look into the storyand we'll follow up with you with a response. scott. the press: josh, thepresident is going to make two separate trips tonorth carolina this week. he's going to florida forthe third time in three weeks. can you talk a little of thecalculation that the white house and the clintoncampaign put into where they allocate thepresident's time?

mr. earnest: well, this isa question that you should direct to theclinton campaign. they're making -- thepresident's directive to his team here is to figure outwhat he can do to be most helpful tosecretary clinton. and so those decisions aboutwhere the president will travel are being drivenby the strategists at the clinton campaign. the observation that i willmake is that it is not

uncommon in a nationalelection for the outcome to be -- for a couple ofstates, for a handful of states to be viewed aslikely to decide the outcome. and typically that meansthat the two competing candidates will often findthemselves in the same city as their opponent in thelast few days, which is a remarkable thing when youconsider how big the country is. so i haven't seen, or atleast not taken a detailed look at the schedule that'sbeing kept by mr. trump and

but, again, i think it iscommon in national elections for a handful of states atthe end to ultimately swing the outcome. and so it makes sense thatthe candidates and their strongest surrogates wouldbe spending most of their time in the days before anelection in those states and in those communities. francesca. the press: thank you.

on this same topic, withoutgiving too much away, is it possible that the presidentwill have additional events beyond the ones that havebeen advised through friday before the election? mr. earnest: itis possible, yes. the press: okay,it is possible. no idea where they're at? won't tell us? mr. earnest: stay tuned.

i do have a few questionson this topic, because it sounds like it's possiblethat this might be our last briefing then before theelection, if that's the case. mr. earnest: we're stillworking on the schedule. we'll keep youposted on that, too. the press: you've talkedabout this in a different context before, but headinginto the election, the president said that he'lltake it as a personal insult if black voters don't comeout and support hillary

clinton in this election. will he take it as apersonal insult generally if donald trump is elected,given the things that donald trump has said about him,some of them so very personal? mr. earnest: you know,francesca, i'm asked a lot about sort of how personallythe president takes his criticism. and when you've served inthe national spotlight for as long as he has, youdevelop a pretty thick skin.

and to the degree thatthe president takes this election personally, it'srooted in the personal investment he has made inthe progress and success of this country. he has poured his own blood,sweat and tears into an economic strategy thatprevented the united states from tipping over into asecond great depression and has led to the longeststreak of consecutive job growth in american history.

he has poured his heart intothe idea that we should coordinate with othercountries around the world to fight climate change, tostrengthen the economy, to fight terrorism, and toprevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. you surely, those of you whocovered it, know that he spent a lot of hours that hewould probably have rather spent doing something elsetalking to members of congress about how to gethealth care reform done.

so the outcome of thiselection is significant because you have onecandidate who is promising to tear all thoseaccomplishments down. the president is personallyinvested in those accomplishments. he's personally investedin the progress that our country has made. and to the extent that thepresident feels personally affected by this election,that's what it is.

he's not offended by theoutrageous things that his critics say about him. he just wants to make surethat all the work that he's done over the last eightyears to strengthen our economy and strengthen ournational security, and make our country more fair, tofight climate change and to advance our interests aroundthe world -- that that progress is somethingthat is not torn down but actually somethingthat we build on.

and that's how the presidenthas made a decision about who to support in thiselection, and it's why the president has been so vocalin support of the candidate that has endorsed. the press: for that reason,all the things that you just said, though -- if donaldtrump were elected, again, based on what you just said,that would be a rejection of some of those things thatpresident obama has done over the last eight years.

would he find thatpersonally insulting to the work that he didand to his legacy? mr. earnest: i think thepresident would be deeply disappointed if hissuccessor were to try to roll back and tear down theprogress we've spent so much of the last eight yearsworking to achieve. and that's why he's soinvested in this election. and that's why you see himmaking such a forceful case on the stump in supportof secretary clinton.

the press: and finally, doeshe still think that donald trump won't win? mr. earnest: i'm sorry? the press: does he stillthink that donald trump is not going to win? mr. earnest: the presidentcontinues to be optimistic about the trajectoryof the race. the president also is goingto be forceful in warning people against complacency.

the election is, of course,far from over and election day is still sevenor eight days away. john, i'll giveyou the last one. two brief questions. does the president believethat the fbi should release a report on the email beforethe election, just get the matter out of thepolitics thicket? mr. earnest: as i mentionedearlier to michelle, i'll neither defend, norcriticize director comey's

decision to communicate tothe public about the facts of this investigation. i'll do that because of theinstitutional role of the white house not to interferewith an ongoing fbi or doj investigation. i'll also do that because idon't have any independent knowledge of what leddirector comey to decide to release that information. so he'll ultimately have tomake that decision himself.

there appear to be plenty ofpeople who are willing to offer him advice about howto, or whether to do that, so he doesn't need anyadvice from me, and i don't think he's looking for it. the press: and just tofollow up -- the president is campaigning very hard,and i've noticed of late he has been campaigningfor house candidates. he issued a strongendorsement of christina bennett hartman inpennsylvania's 16th

district, which has been inrepublican hands for more than a century, sincethaddeus stevens had it, and he campaigned for colonelapplegate in california, with some strong words aboutthe incumbent -- mr. issa. does he really believe thatthe democrats have a chance to win the house ofrepresentatives given this stepped-up area? and does he have a list ofrepublicans he'd like to take out?

mr. earnest: i think thepresident is enthusiastic about the chances thatdemocrats have in the upcoming election, and he iseager to use his widespread popularity across thecountry to benefit them. and that's why you've seenthe president traveling all over the country. that's why you've seen thepresident taping television and radio advertisements. that's why you've seen thepresident taping robo-calls

or sending emails,encouraging people to actively support democraticcandidates for the house of representatives. and he's bullish aboutdemocratic prospects in the upcoming election,including for the thanks, everybody. the press: josh, noword on your costume? mr. earnest: you'relooking at it.