welcome to the state where cutting taxes for business... is our business. welcome to the new buffalo. welcome to the new buffalo. welcome to the new buffalo. new york state is throwing out the old rule book to give your business a new edge, the edge you can only get in new york state. to grow our start your business, visit thenewny.com with one extraordinary purpose... to get "man of steel" advanced screening tickets. [ movie announcer voice ] at walmart. see "man of steel" at your local theater before anyone else. get in line 8 a.m. may 18th at walmart. rated pg-13. this is cnn newsroom. i'm wolf blitzer reporting from washington. we're following several major stories today. russian security forces detained

a u.s. embassy worker in moscow whom they claim actually works for the cia and tried recruiting a member of russia's special services. a live report just minutes from now. then, prince harry toured superstorm sandy damaged areas in new jersey. we'll have the latest on the storm-ravaged area. and angelina jolie says she has had a double mastectomy. we're also watching two live events this hour. the attorney general of the united states, eric holder, he's talking about medicare fraud, but he's expected to take questions from reporters. these questions almost certainly will include the ap phone records, the irs scandal that's unfolding, more questions on benghazi. we're also waiting for the white house press breiefing. it was supposed to start a half hour ago. jay carney will be going into the briefing room. we have live coverage of the attorney general and jay carney

this hour. meanwhile, the oscar winning actress, angie lea -- anja lena jolie reveals to the world of her double mastectomy. she revealed her breast reconstruction in a "new york times" op-ed article out today. she did it as a preventive measure after learning she carries a gene mutation that made it extremely likely she would develop breast cancer. her mother died of ovarian cancer at the age of 56. angelina jolie wrote this, life comes with many challenges. the ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of. joining us now dr. susan love, the director of the revlon ucla breast cancer breast center and the president of the dr. susan love research foundation. dr. love, thanks very much for joining us. what was your reaction when you heard about angelina jolie's

op-said, what she disclosed there and what can you disclose about the gene mutation that angelina jolie has. >> i was sorry to hear that angelina jolie had to go through this and unfortunately that's all we have to offer women who have the gene for breast cancer right now. we don't have good prevention. this gene predicts for ovarian and breast cancer. likely her mother had the gene as well and that's why she got ovarian cancer, then angelina decided to get tested to see if she had it. and it's a reasonable thing to do in that situation, although the gene is not that common, actually, in women in general. >> should -- let's get a little perspective. should all women be tested for this gene? angelina jolie says the test costs about $3,000, which is obviously pretty expensive. >> all women should not be

tested for this gene. it is not that common. and the people who should consider being tested are ones who have a lot of breast or ovarian cancer in their families. if possible it's always better to have someone who has cancer be tested rather than someone who doesn't have cancer. because then you can see if there really is a gene in the family. it's very expensive. you can only get the test done in this country by merigenetics. and we'll find out soon what the supreme court thinks about that. >> how far along are we in finding the cure for breast cancer? >> well, we're better than we were. we have a lot of treatments, but they all have significant collateral damage. the chemotherapy causes heart disease, can cause leukemias, the radiation can cause problems, the surgery certainly causes problems.

and it would be much better if we can find a prevention of the cause of breast cancer and prevent it. in my professional career, we figured out that cancer of the cervix is caused by a virus and we have a vaccine, and we should be able to do that for breast cancer. and that's what we work towards at the dr. susan love research foundation. >> the reconstructive breast surgery that angelina jolie had, tell us about that. the options she faced as she went ahead with this major decision. >> well, she had two set options or three. she could have her ovaries out, which would both reduce the risk of ovarian cancer and breast cancer but plunge her into immediate menopause. she could have her breast res moved, which would remove the risk of breast cancer. what they do is leave the skin but take the breast tissue out, then put an implant in in its place, so that you look pretty normal afterwards. >> susan love, dr. susan love,

thanks very much for that perspective. we appreciate you joining us. >> thank you. >> in moscow today, echoes of the cold war tensions rising between the u.s. and russia after russian security forces detained an american diplomat accusing him of working for the cia. they say they caught him red handed trying to recruit a member of russia's special services. the intelligence agency there. brian todd is following this story for us. brian, the american detained has been released. what exactly was he accused of? where is he now? >> reporter: wolf, the russian counterintelligence agency fsb says he was trying to recruit a staff member of one of the russian special services. this man who they identified as cia officer ryan fogel, the russians say was detained briefly by them and then handed over to the u.s. embassy in moscow. but the embassy so far has not commented. u.s. waed too russia michael mcfall is not commenting. we just reached the cia, which is also not commenting.

what's very curious here is that the russians released video of this man wearing this almost comical-looking wig. they released images of what the fsb says are his belongings including wig, a knife, dark glasses, a taxicab map of moscow. so stereotypical of the spy craft and eric o'neil, former counterintelligence official who took down spy robert hanson thinks this is staged by the russian, they placed this material on him. why would a cia officer who is actually doing some recruiting be running around moscow with really bad wigs and all that other stuff. o'neil believes this was manufactured for political purposes from the russians to develop some kind of anti-american sentiment. i ran that by an official at the russian embassy here in washington this morning. he refused to comment on that. >> he was detained, as you point out, by the fsb, the counterintelligence agency in russia. tell us a little more about this agency. >> reporter: well, it's the russian's main domestic security agency, the main successor to the legendary soviet state

security agency, the kgb. its main responsibilities are counterintelligence, internal security, counterterrorism. when the kgb was reorganized into the fsb in the late '90s one of its first directors vladimir putin who was a veteran kgb official in the '80s. he's now of course russia's president. eric o'neil says this stage craft in this detaining the of a spy is one of putin's trademarks. >> brian todd will have more in the "situation room" later today. let's go to the white house. jay carney, the press secretary, squlaus walked in and he's going to be answering some questions. >> benghazi talking points, irs reviews, political groups, justice department review of journalists' phone records. in every instance either the president our had placed the burden of responsibility someplace else, the benghazi talking points, the political motivations on the hill, on the

irs, it's been the bureaucrats at the irs and on the justice department issue yesterday in your statement you said those matters are handled independently by the justice department. but it is the president's administration. so i wonder doesn't responsibility for setting tone and setting direction ultimately rest with the president on these matters? >> well, the responsibility to set tone and to focus on the priorities of the american people is absolutely the responsibility of the president, and you see and hear him do that every day. as he fulfills his duties as president. i think you have to separate these issues, and i think if you look at the answers the president gave yesterday in response to questions on the one hand about the clear political circus that benghazi has become and his response to questions about the reports of activity by the irs, i think you see

something different. he made clear that if the reports about the activity of irs personnel proved to be true, he would find them outrageous and he would expect that appropriate action be taken and that people be held responsible. he has no tolerance for targeting of specific groups, conservative groups if the reporting is true on this. and he would expect action to be taken. but this is a matter, when it comes to the irs, that is under review by the independent inspector general. we have not seen that report. it is our understanding that its release is fairly imminent. and once we have that report we'll be able to assess next steps. so at this point, we have to wait for the action of an independent investigator, if you will, the inspector general, before we can jump to

conclusions about what happened, whether there was a deliberate targeting of groups inappropriately and if that's the case, what action should be taken. but you can be sure -- and i would point you to the president's response yesterday, what his feelings are about this kind of action if it in fact took place. on the issue of what is a department of justice investigation, as i understand it, the president is a strong defender of the first amendment. and a firm believer in the need for the press to be unfettered in its ability to conduct investigative reporting and to facilitate a free flow of information. he also, of course, recognizes the need for the justice department to investigate alleged criminal activity without undue influence. and as i said yesterday in my statement, other than press reports we have no knowledge of any attempt by the justice department to seek phone records

of the associated press. we are not involved with the white house in any decisions made in connection with ongoing criminal investigations as those matters are handled appropriately by the justice department independently, and i understand there are a lot of questions about the reports about doj's actions and from my background, i understand them well, but in this situation where the department appears to be conducting a criminal investigation, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to have answers to those questions. i don't have them. and i have to refer you to the department of justice. >> i can then go back to the irs issue. the president did use the word if, but there has been an acknowledgment on the part of the irs leadership that these things did indeed occur. so i wonder why the president did use that phrasing. >> those from the irs who have spoken about this obviously have much greater insight into what

took place than we do. we have not seen the report. we have not, you know, independently collected information about what transp e transpired. we need the independent inspector general's report to be released before we can make judgments. you know, one person's view of what actions were taken or what that individual did is not enough for us to say something concretely happened that was inappropriate. i think if you look at what's been said, you know, that the actions were inadvertent or not or constituted something that was specific and inappropriate or not. and i think that what we have to do responsibly is wait for the independent inspector general's report to be released before we assess next steps, but again, if you look at what the president said yesterday, he was very clear that if there was deliberate specific targeting of groups, that would be outrageous

and would require, in his view, action to be taken. >> and that action, would that be something that the white house could do? >> i think we have to wait to see what next steps are because obviously, there's a significant amount of independence of the irs as well as the nig. and we have to way for what the ig assesses before steps can be taken. >> jay, it's not clear that senior tax officials knew about this extra scrutiny of groups since 2011, which means also during the election and that this was withheld until after the election. should the white house have been -- earlier? >> my understanding is that when there is a review, as there was and is by an inspector general, that when the end of that

process is nearing and a report is about to be released, a notification is appropriate and routine. and that happenedev weeks ago. prior to that there was no knowledge here at the white house. now, before i make judgments about or anyone else makes judgment about whether the white house should have known more or others in the white house should have known more, we need to find out when that exactly happened. that's why it's important for us to wait for the release of the inspector general's report, which we hope will be fairly imminent. >> based on the reporting, do you have any concerns that this was withheld -- >> we have serious concerns about what's been reported. you saw that reflected in what the president said. again, it's been reported and we have to make sure that the independent review of this by an inspector general is revealed and we can assess that and assess what actually happened, what motivation there were

behind whatever actions were taken and then decide what action is and who should take it. >> when did the president find out about the department of justice subpoenas for the associated press? >> yesterday. let me just be clear. we don't have any independent knowledge of that. he found out about the news reports yesterday on the road. >> what was his reaction to that? does he believe this was an overreach? >> all i can tell you is thattic n -- that i cannot and he cannot comment specifically on an ongoing investigation or actions that the investigators at the department of justice may or may not have taken. it would be wholly inappropriate. if we did comment or if we did have insight into it, you would appropriately ask why and is that correct procedure because it would not be. so i can't comment on the specifics of that, but i can tell you that the president feels strongly that we need the press to be able to be

unfettered in its pursuit of investigative journalism. and you saw when he was a senator, the president co-sponsor legislation that would have provided further protections for journalists in this regard, and he is also mindful of the need for secret and classified information to remain secret and classified in order to protect our national security interests. so there's a careful balance here that must be attained, but i think it's important to look at the president's past here to understand where he comes from in this -- broadly speaking where he comes from in regard to issues like this, but we simply can't comment on the specific investigation. >> prb's esident obama's being compared to president nixon. how does he feel about that? >> again, i don't have a reaction from president obama. ic tell you that people who make those kind of comparisons need to check their history because, you know, what we have here with one issue in benghazi is so

clearly, as we're learning more and more, a political sideshow and a political effort to exploit a tragedy. the president feels strongly about that. you heard him address that yesterday. on these other issues, these are things that we are finding out about and we need to wait appropriately for independent action to be completed before he can in any way take action or comment specifically on it. you know, i think that it is a reflection of the, you know, sort of rapid politicization of everything that you have that kind of commentary. everything becomes, you know, a huge political issue when, if you look at the facts, and i think benghazi is instructive in this, the real issue is that four americans died and we need

to do everything we can as the president has committed himself to doing, to finding out who did it, finding out why and to taking the steps necessary to ensure that our diplomatic personnel is of dominance economically in the 21st centuryhat this country enjoyed in the 20th. and that is what he spends his time focusing on. that and the paramount interests of protecting the national security of the united states. jessica. >> you say check our history, rapid commentary, but you have to understand how it sounds like the administration might be hiding something. can we take these one at a time. on the irs on friday, they gave one version of the story that's changed several times since then. can you just say plainly, does the president believe they're being truthful? and does he think that the leadership there needs to change? >> well, i don't have that -- i don't understand how that tracks with your first sentence, assertion here.

we've seen the reports, as the president said, and if the reports are true, he would consider them -- >> even the irs has acknowledged that some of this happened. so the president and this administration could agree -- >> and i think you heard the president say yesterday that if it turns out to be the case. and again there's a lot of reporting. not all of it -- >> but jay, he said there was irs personnel, which sounded like it was isolated. we've now learned that it was -- >> how could irs personnel be isolated? that could be the entire agency. >> it touched the washington, d.c. office. is he concerned that this is a broader problem? >> he's concerned by every report he sees on this. you can believe he's concerned. he looks forward to finding out what the ig report says and then deciding what steps need to be taken and who needs to take them. instead of rushing to conclusions or, you know, perpetrating consequences before

we even know specifically what happened and the whole story would be inappropriate for a president to do. and so, again, he made clear what his view of this action, if there was specific, deliberate targeting of conservative groups or any groupinappropriately, he would be outraged. and he finds the suggestions of that to be outrageous. but we cannot and should not prejudge the outcome of an investigation. >> what is the consequence of his outrage? >> we'll see. how could he possibly say what the consequence will be before we know what the facts are? shouldn't we let the facts be revealed by this independent inspector general report before we make some conclusive judgments about what actions need to be taken. >> on the irs doj story, we understand that you can't get involved in an investigation that could touch the white house and that's a legal violation if

that happened, but this involved multiple months, multiple locations, many phones, is the president at all concerned about the breadth of the investigation, about the breadth and depth that the doj is using to pursue leaks in general which become a priority for this president he's prosecuted in this administration more people for leaks than any other president put together. >> jessica, what i can tell you is that this president believes strongly in the first amendment and is a strong defender of the first amendment. he believes strongly in the press to be unfettered in its pursuit of journalism. he also believes strongly as a citizen and as president the need to ensure that classified information is not leaked because it can endanger our national security interests, it can endanger american men and women around the world. but i cannot and he cannot appropriately comment on the specifics of an ongoing criminal investigation for the reasons

that you yourself just raised. >> talk about the specifics in this investigation. >> you listed the specifics of the investigation. >> is he concerned at all about the president and that this is the legacy of his attorney general? >> this i think refers to this investigation, so i cannot comment on that. what i can tell you is that the id his arrival in this office when he was a senator and co-sponsor of legislation that would enhance protections for the media and the principles that are behind that effort are ones that he holds to this day, but i can't -- i can't then take to a specific case that's been reported in the press, again that we learn about in the press appropriately. because if we learned it any other way, it would be inappropriate. >> you comment on it after the case is decided. >> thank you. >> jay, can you say categorically that nobody at the white house and nobody on the president's political team had any knowledge or was involved in

any way in the targeting of tea party groups by the irs? >> yes. >> absolutely not. >> we found out about this -- or notified about this potential - activity very broadly just a few weeks ago. and beyond that, you know, we learn about everything we know about this from what we see in your reports. so that's why we have to wait for the inspector general's report before we can assess, based on that and what it tells us, what we know about what happened and what didn't, and what action should be taken. and then decide on what next steps should be taken. >> is he going to be fired over this? >> again, we'll have to see what the report concludes and what else needs to be done to find out, if necet is true that there were -- there was a knowing effort to target specific organizations as

reported conservative organizations, that would be outrageous in the president's view and there should be consequences. >> while you clearly can't comment on the justice department investigation, as a principle, does the president approve of the idea of prosecutors going through the personal phone records and work phone records of journalists and their editors? >> i appreciate the effort to generalize the question, but obviously that goes right to the heart of some of the reporting on this specific case. i can tell you that the president believes that the press as a rule needs to be -- to have unfettered ability to pursue investigative journalism. >> you're worried about having your phone records? >> i can't respond to this in a specific. you know, i am very understanding of the questions on this issue and appreciate the nature of the questions, and i think they go to important

issues and they go to the fundamental issue of finding the balance between when it comes to leaks of classified information of our nation's secrets, if you will, between the need to protect that information because of the national security implications of not protecting them on the one hand and the need to allow for an unfettered press. and in its pursuit of investigative journalism. this is a balance that the president believes is important that we have to find and how he views these issues can be seen in the actions and poll sis he's made in the past. but when it comes to this specific case, i cannot get into the details of our view or his view of it. >> the last question. is all of this, all this swirl of controversy and stories affecting the president's ability to pursue his agenda? >> the president is focused on

what he believes the american people expect from him and from their leaders in washington. and you have seen that and you will continue to see that in the days and weeks and months ahead. overwhelmingly americans are concerned about continuing the recovery out of the worst recession since the great depression. building on the job creation that we've seen, continuing to expand and make more secure the middle class, taking the necessary steps to invest in our future so that our economy can grow later. and that means bipartisan cooperation on things like investing in infrastructure or in innovation in the kind of investment, in the innovation hubs that the president talked about in austin last week. these are the issues that he's focused on, they include comprehensive immigration reform which he's constantly discussing

with leaders and members of congress, a bipartisan effort that he believes can and should produce a law that he can sign that reflects the principles he laid out a long time ago. so there's a lot of work to be done and he's focused on that work. >> good to see you. welcome back. >> i appreciate that. >> as you know, numerous moefbs congress over a period of a couple of years wrote the irs and asked if conservative groups were being targeted. those officials did not respond. if it turns out that most officials did know at the time that conservative groups were being or had been targeted, should those officials be punished? >> that goes into the -- the "if" phrasing is appropriate. if what we're seeing in some of these reports about specific targ

targeting and actions taken by personnel in the irs turns out to be true, then people should be held accountable, and what that mean ps in concrete action, we'll have to see based on the information and the facts that are gathered principally by the inspector general. so you heard from the president yesterday. you heard the outrage that he conveyed at the reports of this kind of activity. >> potential outrage. you say they're only going to be outraged if. >> you wouldn't want a president who is outraged on something if it turns out to not be true. >> don't we know that part of it is fact? it's ot of the if range. now. it is fact. >> you see that in the tone and the comments from the president. but in the broader aspect getting the facts is that we let

the independent inspector general complete that report, that we assess it when we see it because we haven't seen it. there's been suggestions in the reports that some of it has leaked out, but we haven't seen it. we don't have access to it. when we do, we'll be able to assess it more completely than now. >> following up on jim's question about what he calls the confluence of issues, benghazi, doj. if you read the articles on this it sounds like there's a siege going on. is there a siege mentality back there in the west wing right now? >> absolutely not. we are focused on the things that we can do to help the middle class, the things that we can do to move our economy forward, to help our kids get educated, to work with congress to achieve what will hopefully be a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill that this president can sign into law, working with congress, as you've seen over the last weeks and months, to see if we can find

common ground on reducing our deficit in a balanced way that will help the economy grow, help it create more jobs. you know, we are focused on these fundamental issues that the american people sent this president to this office twice now to focus on, and, you know, i understand the effort -- i mean, the understanding -- i understand the natural inclination to try to bunch some of these things together, but there really is a distinction here. i think you heard from the president that the ongoing obsession -- and i'm quoting now somebody describing the speaker of the house -- the ongoing obsession with talking points on benghazi and the attempts to politicize that constitute a side show that's driven purely by or largely by political interests and not the interests of finding out exactly what happened and who was responsible and taking the steps that we

need to take to ensure that our diplomats and our facilities are secure. that's what the president's been focused on. that's what you've seen in the report from the arb, the accountability review board, that was overseen by admiral mullen and ambassador pickering. it's what you've seen in the president's insistence that the investigation led by the fbi into finding out who was responsible for the deaths of four americans reach a point where we can bring those responsible to justice. >> on the ap poll records, what prevents the president from picking up the phone and calling eric holder and asking him what happened? >> a great deal prevents the president for doing that. it would be wholly unethical for the president to question what

involves leaks from the administration. imagine the story on fox if that were to happen. so that's why. and you know, this is -- we have seen from the press reports the information about attempts to seek phone records from the associated press. and we're not involved in those decisions, and we can't comment on and ongoing criminal investigation for reasons that i think -- maybe the question was rhetorical, but i think are pretty apparent to everyone who has covered these things over the years. >> is it your understanding that no one could have ordered this but the attorney general? >> that is -- well, it's my understanding that this is something that the department of justice does and that the investigators in the department of justice handle. there is, i believe, when it comes to these kinds of things, a decisionmaking process, but i would refer you to the department of justice who

actually made the decision has been reported base our information only comes from press reports on this. >> if that turns out to be the attorney general or whoever it turns out to be, will the president have confidence in that person? >> the president has confidence in the attorney general. he has confidence in his team over at the department of justice. i think that, again, i'm not going to comment on specifics of the investigation here. i think that it is important to note that, as i said earlier, that there is a balance here that has to be struck between our national security interests and the need to prevent classified information from leaking, classified information that can endanger americans and harm our national security on the one hand and the president's firm commitment to the need for reporters to be able to, in an unfettered way, pursue investigative journalism. >> you think it's fair to pursue that balance and the subpoena -- >> i can't comment on the specific reports that you cite. i can say that the president does believe that that balance

should be sought and can be found, but it is a balance and, therefore, something that, you know, we need to constantly work at. and you've seen from the past that the measures that the president supported as a senator, that he believed action should be taken to alter the balance, but i cannot comment on this specific investigation for all the obvious reasons. >> we know it happened just like the irs admitted what it had done in terms of the tea party and other groups. the ap knows its phone records were subpoenaed because the justice department told the ap. the president -- i find any way that that might fit in the balance? >> again, it would be inappropriate to comment on the specific investigation and the methods that have been reported. i can tell you that it is important to protect our national security classified information. it is also in the president's view essential to allow journalists to be able to pursue

in an unfettered way, investigative journalism. >> jay, you keep talking about the then-senator obama supported a certain piece of legislation, that is a fact that as president he killed that piece of legislation in october of 2009 made it so the protections he supported, having judicial review on this -- >> the president -- >> then there was an opportunity for this bill to be passed. chuck schumer was supportive of it. and he said it was the white house that killed it. >> i think, first of all, we're talking about separate pieces of legislation and a legislative history that bears a little more looking into. the president's position on this is what it was as a senator. but the fact is i cannot then appropriately apply his support for that measure -- >> this piece of legislation, we wouldn't be having this conversation today because he supported a judicial review when it came to some of this -- >> and what happened in 2007?

>> i'm asking you what happened in 2009 when he was president of the united states? >> the legislative history here is a little more complicated than you present. >> you had -- who cares about 2007, we know what he said on the campaign trail in 2008 in front of the associated press when it came to this issue. why did he change his position? >> he didn't change his position. >> the administration said that essentially the president changed his position because of certain things on national security. can you explain -- >> broadly speaking, the president does support the ability of journalists in an unfettered way to pursue investigative journalism. he believes that we have to find a balance between that goal and -- >> he believed in '08 he didn't believe once he was president. >> he has address ask him the next time he has a press conference to ask him about this, but the fact is as

president, as president, he obviously has responsibilities as commander in chief to ensure that classified information that the nation's secrets that his highly sensitive information is not leaked because the leaking of that information can endanger individuals as well as our overall national security interests. >> a third party shouldn't have to make that decision. i mean, that's fine, as a candidate he believed, he said that the point of the press to sometimes be a watchdog of the watchdog a little bit and that the judiciary branch is probably the appropriate place for them to make that determination. look, you guys will claim classified, you know, any administration claims everything is somehow national security that can fall under the rubric of that. but making the policy is it truly going to endanger lives and is it truly going to do this and you make your case in front of a third party. does the president support that kind of protection for media

sources? >> i don't have an answer to that specific scenario that you laid out. i can tell you that the president does support -- >> did he support it in 2008? >> then he does support protections for the media, he believes we need to take measures to ensure that the media can pursue investigative journalism in an unfettered way and we have to balance that goal with the very real national security interests that we have as a nation. and understandably there is great concern when classified information is leaked that can jeopardize our national security interests or endanger individuals. >> i want to follow up. i still don't quite understand the timeline. we had members of congress complaining about this for two years. did it just never reach you guys here at the white house that there were these complaints that conservative groups felt they were being singled out and targeted? >> i'm not sure -- i'm sure people were aware of and new some of the stories that had

been reported about is the complaints, but we were not aware of any activity or of any review conducted by the inspector general until several weeks ago. >> should you have been made aware sooner? >> i was asked that before. >> i don't understand -- >> let's just say that -- >> why wouldn't you have wanted to know? >> first of all, for all the reasons why there should be distance between -- why the irs should not be politicized, you know, there has to be that distance, but on the specific question that you have, i want to wait and see what the report says and wait and see what we actually know happened and what the facts are before we comment beyond what the president said yesterday on this matter and before we make any decision or pronouncements about what actions should be taken. you heard what the president said about what he believes and what he feels should what's

reported about specific targeting be true. we have to wait for the specific case and what the scope of it is before we make decisions about how to proceed. >> do you have any update about when you're going to -- i know that republican senator bob corker of tennessee is saying he's waiting for an explanation on the hamid karzai claiming cash payments from the cia and that these cash payments are continuing and he's been confirming this and claiming it in afghanistan and the senator was hoping for an explanation from the president and he says he's sent two letters and haven't received an explanation. >> i'm not aware of the letters and i'll have to take the question of the specific story itself involves the cia and i have to refer you to them. with regards to letters i'll let you know if there's a response. >> jay. >> yes. >> you've used this formulation about the president's support for unfettered investigative reporting a number of times here. to what extent is the former

constitutional law professor in the oval office torn between that philosophy and the case for, you know, going after leaks? >> i think the appropriate way to skribt that the president believes there needs to be a balance because there is an interest in making sure that classified information that is sensitive is not leaked and because of the consequences to national security and to individuals, but there is also an interest in the president's view in ensuring the president can pursue investigative journalism and be unfettered in that pursuit. and you know, to the earlier point that chuck was making, even after he became president, the attorney general director of national intelligence after the president took office, his attorney general and his director of national intelligence saent letter to congress in november of 2009

expressing the administration's support for media shield legislation. so the position that the president held as a senator he continues to hold as president. but that balance is important, and you know, again, without commenting on specific reports about specific cases, you know, we have to be mindful of the fact that national security interests are significant and classified information needs to be protective. >> well, he has to know that a reporter can't be unfettered if a reporter is subjected to a fishing expedition personal phone records and office phone records? >> well, i -- broadly speaking, i think that the president understanding that a reporter needs to be shielded in the way that he is supported as a senator and supported as a president i cannot, because of the nature of your question,

express an opinion about reported developments in a criminal investigation currently under way at the department of justice. >> did you say categorically, no one from the white house or on the president's political team was involved, a pretty specific answer on your part but the bulk of this press conference is saying you don't have the facts. >> that's a fair point. >> what give us that confidence? >> i can tell you that, as i think i said yesterday, the white house counsel was alerted about this ig review and the general topic of it just a few weeks ago. and prior -- and i didn't find out about -- >> how can you go from being categorically certain that no one on the president's political team -- >> i have no reason to believe. >> on good faith or this is your assumption? >> i can tell you that i am not aware of anyone here knowing about it. >> that's your direct knowledge of being aware of anyone here?

>> you can ask me if somebody that works on the -- >> you've asserted something categorically. >> i'm certainly not aware of and am confident that no one here was involved in this. we found out about it just a few weeks ago. when i say we, i didn't, the president didn't, but the president's white house counsel only found about the review being conducted and coming to the conclusion by the inspector general. >> what gives you the confidence? >> i think i can say i feel confident in that. >> but you don't have the facts. >> you're asking me to prove a negative, hans. >> you've made the assertion that you're confident, you actually put it up there. >> you heard the president express his views. and we're going to wait and see what the facts are based on the independent inspector general review and then we'll make judgments about those facts and what next steps might be taken and by whom and with what actions might be taken, but i'm

just not going to get into any more details about it because it would be inappropriate to do so. >> the question that jessica asked nothing involving a specific investigation. this administration has prosecuted twice as many leakers as any previous administration combine pd. how does that reflect balance? >> i would say that the president is committed to the press' ability to pursue informati information, to defending the first amendment, he is also as a citizen and as commander in chief committed to the proposition that we cannot allow classified information to be -- that can do harm to our national security interests or to endanger individuals to be leaked. that's a balance that has to be struck. >> but the record of the last four years does not suggest balance. >> that's your opinion. >> twice as many prosecutions as all previous administrations

combined. that's not even close. >> i understand that there are ongoing investigations that preceded this administration, but again i can tell you what the president's views are and the president's views include his defense of the first amendment, his belief that journalists ought to be able to pursue information in an unfettered way and that is backed up by his support for a media shield law both as senator and as president. it is also true that he believes a balance needs to be struck between those goals and the need to protect classified information. and you're not going to hear him say that it's okay for the nation's secrets to be freely reported when that information can endanger our national security and do harm to individuals, endanger individuals. >> do you think a fair analysis of this administration's actions reflect the view that you just described? >> i believe that the president supports balance and that he has made that clear. both as president and within his administration. you know, i cannot comment on the specific case, but i can

tell you what the president believes in, what his actions have been in the past. >> just mentioned that you said the president has made his goal of balance clear within administration. can you be clear about how he's communicated that among the justice department as far as guidance? >> the president -- i think i just cited in november 2009 letter to congress from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence expressing the administration's support, the obama administration's support for media shield legislation. so that is a clear expression from several components of the administration about the president's views. i can tell you that as somebody who spends a lot of time with hill and speaks about the press frequently, that he firmly believes in the need to defend the first amendment and the need for reporters to be able to do their jobs. he also as commander in chief and a citizen interested in the

or endanger individuals and i think that is a balance that every -- >> jay carney, momentarily. eric holder, the attorney general of the united states is answering some questions as well. >> -- gathering operations, violation of the department's own guidelines and asking you to return those records and destroy all copies. will you consider doing so? >> if i don't remember the whole question, i'm sure you'll come back to me with those. i testified, i guess, back in june 2012 that i had been interviewed by the fbi in connection with this -- with this matter and to avoid a potential appearance of a potential conflict of interest, and to make sure that the investigation was seen as independent, i recused myself from this matter. we'll get to exactly when that happened. it was early on in the investigation. this matter has, therefore, has thereafter been conducted by the

u.s. attorney here in washington, d.c. under the supervision of the deputy attorney general. the deputy attorney general would have been the one that would have had to authorize the subpoena that went to the ap. i'm not familiar with what went into the formulation of the subpoena, i'm recused from that matter. i'm confident that the people involved in this investigation, who i know for a great many years and worked with for a great many years, followed all of the appropriate justice department regulations. and did things according to doj rules. so -- >> you understand why people in the news gathering business such as us would find this troubling? >> well, you know, as i said, i don't know all that went into the formulation of the subpoena. this was a very serious -- a very serious leak and very, very serious leak. i've been a prosecutor since

1976. and i have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three. most serious leeaks i've ever seen and puts the american people at risk. that's not hyperbole. puts the american people at risk. and trying to determine who is responsible for that, i think, required very aggressive action and as i said, i'm sure the subpoena, as formulated, based on the people i know, i don't know about the facts, but based on the people i know, i think that subpoena was done in conform ans with doj regs. >> why was no attempt made to seek the ap's voluntary cooperation? >> again, you're getting into matters that are beyond my knowledge. i was recused in the matter. so i don't know. >> -- ordinarily wouldn't protocol require you would try to approach for voluntary cooperation? >> i don't know what the

circumstances were here. so, you know, how things are done in particular investigation have to be dictated by the facts and i frankly don't have the knowledge of those facts. >> i think the real question here, the underlying question is the policy of the administration when it comes to the ability of the media to cover the news. and i think the question for you is given the fact that this news organization was not given an opportunity to try to quash this in court as has been precedent, it leaves us in the position of wondering whether the administration has somehow decided policiwise that it's kind of going to go after us. >> that is certainly not -- i can talk about policy. that is certainly not the policy of this administration. if you will remember, in 2009, when i was -- after my confirmationheargs, i testified in favor of the reporter shield law. we as an administration took a

position in favor of such a law. didn't get the necessary support up on the hill. something this administration still thinks would be appropriate. we investigated cases on the basis of the facts. not as a result of a policy to get the press or to do anything of that nature. the facts and the law have dictated our actions in that regard. >> you said it is not hyperbole that this puts american lives at risk. if the underlying investigation was basically being run with the knowledge and with the hand of the u.s. government, why was there any risk to americans when that information came out? >> i can't answer that question. >> -- on your decision to recuse yourself and when -- >> towards the beginning of the investigation. perhaps we can get for you the exact date. i don't know when that was. but as i said, it was because i was one of the people who had knowledge of this matter. i have frequent contact with the media and try to make sure that

this investigation was seen as one that was independent and to avoid the possibility of an appearance of a conflict. i made the determination to recuse myself. >> on the rs controversy -- on the irs controversy, is there any concern that criminal laws have been broken? if so, have you ordered an investigation? >> i have ordered an investigation to be begun. the fbi is coordinating with the justice department to see if any laws were broken in connection with those matters related to the irs. those were, i think, as everyone can agree, if not criminal, they were certainly outrageous and acceptable, but we are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations. >> are you also recused from the investigation out of maryland? >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> -- with the irs and ap

situation, a lot of americans say they don't trust the administration now. what can you say to them that you can ensure they should trust all of you? >> to the extent that we have determined that actors in government have gone beyond what they were supposed to do, broken regulations, broken rules, broken the law, we have prosecuted people. we have held people accountable. we have tried to do things according to the rules. there are going to be people occasionally who will not do so. it is then incumbent upon us who have enforcement responsibilities to make sure we hold those people accountable and our record shows over the last 4 1/2 years we have done that. >> regulations require these things to be drawn as narrowly as possible. do you believe in this case where there is a two-month period of 20 different phone lines, is that in your view a narrowly drawn request? >> the deputy attorney general has written a letter in response to the ap letter.

i assume -- i don't know if it's been made available yet, but that has a number of factual assertions in it. that contradicts some of the aser assertions that came from the letter of the ap. >> the ap story, the irs story, failure to close guantanamo, there are -- there is a growing sense that this administration's record on civil liberties has not lived up to the promises that you and others made beginning in 2008. and the criticisms of the past administration. looking broadly at the civil liberties record, are you disappointed and why hasn't more been done? >> i'm proud of what we have done. the policies that we put in place with reg to, let's say, the war on terror, we decided that certain interrogation techniques were not going to be

used. we have been, i think, very aggressive in our enforcement of the civil rights laws. there have been a whole host of things that this administration has done, this justice department in particular that are consistent with what i think the president campaigned on, and what we promised at the beginning of this administration. >> during the last administration, the president signed executive orders that effectively just continued what had already happened. it mentioned civil rights laws, but there are so many other examples where people are disappointed in this administration, civil liberties record, both on the left and the right, do you need to change course and aren't you trampling on civil liberties the same way the bush administration did? >> no, we're not. this administration has put a real value on the rule of law. and our values as americans. i think the actions that we have taken are consistent with both. if one looks at in a

dispassionate way what we have done in a whole variety of areas, we -- i found more abundant civil rights division. and that is a division now that has brought record numbers of cases, protected record numbers of people, i would take issue with regard to how we have conducted the war on terror and with regard to interrogation policies. there were changes made by this administration. a repudiation of opinions that existed when we came into office. so we're talking about, i think, changes that were consistent with, as i said, with president campaigned on and what we talked about early on. carrie? >> -- express some concern about lack of transparency with regard to the administration's drone program and promised more transparency. what are you going to do about that? >> let me come back out and let you know you've been listening to attorney general eric holder answering a barrage of questions on what we assumed would happen

here as part of this department of justice briefing where he and kathleen sebelius were talking medicare fraud and now all the reporters are asking questions about this, what is made public now about this secret decision to seize these phone numbers and records from the associated press, from ap offices and reporters, this was for a two-month period last year. so this is the first time we have heard from eric holder talking specifically about this investigation that goes back into last year. and what this means. obviously for, you know, freedom of the press, but also privacy issues and questions about what the white house's involvement could have been here. let me bring in wolf blitzer and gloria borger and dana bash who all join me live to go through this. wolf, let me begin with you. listening to the attorney general, talking