allows for sensible gun restrictions and gun regulations. i think the supreme court, even friendly with antonin scalia on it, would've held regulations. host: we talked about domestic abusers and having their ability to own guns themselves. guest: it was the first time justice thomas asked a question in 10 years, so it's clearly something important. that's a very interesting conversation for justice thomas to engage in. he himself is very interested in the text and history of the constitution. i'm always interested, even when i disagree with him, when he weighs in on these issues. host: for maryland, carl, you're up next. caller: i have a quick, and a question. my comment is that i agreed that a woman should have a right to choose. my question is does the father of that child have a right to choose whether to financially support that child from the next

18-22 years or to not support the child? guest: that is a good question. i think it might be a little bit beyond my expertise in the world of abortion rights that i study when it comes to the constitution. i cannot recall a case in the supreme court on that. there might have been won and i just do not remember at this early hour. host: season in connecticut on the republican line, go ahead. caller: hi, my name is susan. i am a republican. i believe in pro-choice. i have been pregnant three times in my life. 30, ok, let's, see if this will work. second time, absolutely, let's keep those baby clothes recycling. the third time at age 46, we used birth control.

this was not what my husband -- with my husband. i am like, are you kidding me? 46you really think that age i'm going to carry something to term? i can't stand the father. i don't know. i wish the republicans would understand pro-choice. this is what i've spoken to my sons about. use birth control and it is choice. guest: i think that's an interesting comment because we know that abortion is a fairly common procedure that is done in the united states. and a lot of women have had them for many reasons. i think what we have seen in previous supreme court opinions idea that even

justice kennedy wrote that there was regret and what was seen by some to be a fairly maternal listed way. -- maternal listed way idea than justice kennedy wrote. its a very common procedure done for many reasons. what is interesting about the opinion that we had yesterday is that a kind of treat abortion as this medical procedure that women choose to undertake for their health or other reasons. it's a decision that they choose to take that is safe and common. i think that is a little bit of a different shift from this very almost dramatic morally fraught writing that we have seen from the court in the past. in some ways it is very justice , who is sometimes tried, but people saw and that dryness of victory, the idea that abortion is something that is a choice that many women make that is safe and common. host: talk about the role that

justice kennedy plays now, especially with eight people on the court. now when decisions are not deadlocked, it seems like the court takes a more liberal swing now. do you sin see that? it certainly seems justice kennedy has been swinging more to the left this term. we saw this term, not just kennedy the majority in the abortion case, but also the affirmative action case. that was a big step for justice kennedy. it previously never found enough affirmative action program that he liked. he what he wrote uphold in university of texas is, it was a big deal. we have seen more liberal justices, very strongly, which i

obviously like, and that works well with kennedy. that has been interesting is within this eight justice court, we have not in -- necessarily step up as much as one might think. thought in the immigration case, chief to come will economize. terrible case in which the court was unable to do its job because it was not fully staffed. you have millions of american families who have to live with a cloud of uncertainty who deserved to get their case decided upon by the supreme court. instead, the court was unable to decide. a ruling in place that will have nationwide consequences. court, you wino or you lose, but you get a

ruling or to have the court not be able to decide an issue of for national importance, the families affected by this, that is a disgrace. host: action was used to put that into place? guest: a good question but we do not know and that is part of the frustration. we do not know how they felt on the smaller issues. a question of whether texas should have been in court in the first place to challenge the program. thought of us, we justice roberts might say that texas has snow standing. very critical, you might recall from a few years ago, in the climate change case. very critical of the ability there. many people thought he might be critical of texas.

how that broke down. and there not know are no recent analyses and no back-and-forth. we just do not know. line came out,e i was there at the plaza, children were crying and concerned their parents would get deported in the middle of the night, it was heartbreaking and they deserved a ruling even if they lost, no matter how you feel. let's hear next from natasha. indiana, hello. caller: hello, how are you? i just wanted to say a few things. i am holding my rosary and praying i will be able to speak the words that i need to say to get my point across. the litigation is

just a front for constitutional rights instead of defending the week and hopeless. unborn children have feelings. thou shalt not murder is one of the great commandments and the law of the land. there are two good points that need to be thought about as far as life is concerned. host: thank you. you.: thank it is a right that our constitution has set forth, that the supreme court has giving women the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. it is a serious decision for women to make this but under our constitution's grants of liberty and equal citizenship, it is a decision or women themselves in consultation with just their

internal hearts or their families or their priests and their god, that is their choice and part of their liberty and part of their equal citizenship under the constitution. back to one of the things you mentioned about states rights. , we take states rights very seriously. on issues entrenched in the constitution when it comes to fundamental rights, the state do not get to vote on those. some rights are enshrined in our constitution that states do not get to experiment with. states cannot decide you do not get first amendment protections. there are things that transcend states rights because we elevate them. it is true states have innovative opportunities to have iterse policies, but when

comes to nationally and constitutionally enshrined fundamental rights, they cannot. four republicans -- -- for republicans -- talk about the case. the justices seemed bothered by the prosecution here because it seemed so potentially rod -- broad. the question is whether there was an official act here. as the court said, all these --es they had, for aris and

the question is whether that then translated into an official act and the court said setting up a meeting with someone did not qualify as an official act. what i think is more interesting is the court has narrowed its of what political corruption is even in campaign decisions. citizens united, the mccutcheon case, the court is looking at corruption as a narrow, a cartoon with the $ on it and you handed over to the elected official and they pull the lever on the vote in that moment. it is a cartoonish and simplified idea of what corruption is. that has had massive effects

when it comes to campaign-finance regulation. when you look at the broader framework, the framers were concerned about when setting up lyrical branches, they wanted elected officials to be dependent upon the votes of the people, dependent upon the democratic process and the people, not to be focused on meantl interests, which different things in the 18th century than now, but the point is the same. that they should be dependent only upon the people and that my from dependence on big business or special interests wanting you to legislate a certain way not beneficial to york veterans, the framers wanted to make sure we kept that away. there is a broader perception of corruption in our constitution that the supreme court has moved away from. host: it seems like a smoking

gun in order to prove it. guest: exactly. the something has to be very particular. i think that is perhaps not with the framers had in mind when they tried to put together all of these interlocking, not to nerd out on the constitution but , one are various revisions of my personal random favorites of the constitution, it does not allow you to get gifts from foreign dignitaries and it does not allow you to raise your own pay. there are all these different parts of the constitution that show that they wanted our elected leaders to be focused on serving the people and not money or special interests. our next call, west memphis, arkansas. go ahead. caller: i am retired.

say, is it possible that abortions, abortion laws may be unconstitutional [indiscernible] under four different , under george herbert walker bush, when i gave arkansas, and under bill clinton, i said to we did -- redistribute wealth and put the money where it belongs, under c-span2. he balanced the budget at the end of 1998. said weorge w. bush, i have got to go to work, september 11, [indiscernible] so specifically, what are you looking from our guesses are is a question? caller: can i say this, i just

wanted to ask, to knowledge, people would take advantage of say positive things to uplift people to change minds and emotions to make changes in the country, why can they violate the laws against me and say that i have got to pay medicals knowing my paperwork under obama and george w. bush. host: thank you. .e will move on sherry is from hampton, connecticut, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am pro-choice, but rose wondering if the guest thinks there could be a compromise between pro-choice and pro-life should bef, abortion legal but may be limited to a certain amount of months that a woman could have an abortion, so

she could make her mind up about not itr whether or should just totally be abortion on demand up until partial or -- partial-birth abortion? that is my question, a compromise for people on both sides pier 1 do you think? a great question to we kind of have that system already were states are able to regulate abortion much later in the term. scale ofe a sliding regulation. later in the term, found to have a greater interest in regulating. compromised of that already. one thing i would like to emphasize after your great points is i think the idea of is something that should attach to prenatal care and making sure that women have

the opportunities to be able to access contraception to help when theyr decide want to have a child and under what circumstances. the whole integrated system of making sure that women have access to well-paying work, access to health care, including contraception, something the affordable care act made sure to put in. it is part of the affordable care act. i think it was actually a game changer and if you want to reduce the number of abortions, i think that is a great place to start. vision ofs holistic what it means to be pro-life, and not just focus on abortion, i think that would probably reduce the number of abortions in the first place. at its heart, the constitution protects a pro-choice movement for women being able to choose through access to contraception,

access to abortion services, and meaningful access to those services. that is what the supreme court decision was all about. you cannot just have a right on paper to abortion. you have to be able to exercise that right. saw the decision yesterday and we have seen previous decisions on gay marriage. what is the is asian on social issues? i think the court is in many ways in sync with the american public. there are hotly contested views on both sides, but the numbers are actually not as divided in some ways. we have seen the majority of americans think they should be marriage equality. even a lot of republican leaders came out and said, you know, it is something that the constitution protects, and i think of my family and i want them to be able to marry like anyone else. i think abortion is one of those issues as well. stigma,because it is a people do not talk about it as much. if you look at the numbers of

how many women have had abortions, conservatives know a woman who has had an abortion. women themselves might understand the reasons why the earlier caller brought up reasons why you might have an abortion. i think it is not an actual core right, and again, people might disagree strongly about the end of term pregnancy, but actual support for the right i think it's fairly well entrenched. you mentioned justice kennedy, we have seen the supreme court be a little more progressive than we have seen from the roberts court's. in the past, we saw a resounding affirmation of the importance of the fair housing act, which is that we do not have an entrance to segregation in the housing system. one of the gems of the civil our legacy to dr. martin luther king, in this term, we saw justice kennedy affirm the right of public universities to use programs in the affirmative-action case, and

the case about voting, justice ginsburg wrote the unanimous result in a six justice majority on the raising -- reasoning, a powerful majority on democracy. we are seeing a lot of i think very inspiring progressive cases coming out of the supreme court. that is with justice kennedy and current liberals on the court. whether that is because people are making strong arguments thatd in the constitution, is pushing them in this direction or not, that is from my perspective a great advancement. ont: of the conservatives the court, who do you see stepping up, justice scalia, someone who fills that role, so to speak? in oral argument, justice scalia was a presence. he asked a lot of questions. -- especiallyto

so after taking on the role and being the primary conservative , he asked extremely good, insightful, and difficult questions. particularly the advocate on the more progressive side of things. he is very good at that. they translate into strong defense as we see in the affirmative-action case, a great example. he read his dissent from that not extremely rare but deftly unusual practice. that was the first and last time alito had read. he cares about the issues a lot, the fieryt with eloquence of justice scalia, that would be hard to match, as justice ginsburg always said, but i think alito will step up in that role in many ways. justice thomas will continue to be perhaps the intellectual original list on the court, which shkreli a at times was,

but i think justice thomas is more consistent originalist. justice thomas generally does not ask questions in oral argument. i do not think the public will view him in the same way but he will continue to carry on that intellectual, originalist view. he has written, i think we crunched the numbers and in almost half the cases, may be more, he has written an opinion. inhas been very active putting forth his vision in these cases for the court, which is really interesting. what is the likelihood of president obama''s choice becoming the head of the supreme court? how do you see that playing out? byst: i have been dismayed the senate republicans absolute refusal to do their job and give up on governance in this case. the constitution gives the president the authority when i

face -- vacancy arises, put forth a nominee or he has fulfilled that duty. republicans themselves praised him as a fantastic supreme court until he was actually the supreme court take, and now they are refusing to give him a hearing. in theave seen like immigration case, the court needs the full kopelman of nine justices. -- full complement of nine justices. i hope they will get it together have atheir jobs and confirmation vote on merrick garland p or he is unquestionably qualified. someone told me when they were reviewing his integrity that he is nearly a perfect human being. they actually said that. senators., republican give him an up or down vote. host: elizabeth wydra taking your calls. keith from north dakota, thank you for waiting on the democrats

line. has she ever seen abortion done? i have seen it done on tv and they go after a live tv with .our sets and the kid was trying to get away from the forceps. they squished it and it popped like a balloon. it is murder. i'm totally against it. there is something wrong with women who want to have abortions. you know, i am not a doctor so i will not refute point by point what you just said, but particularly, i would urge you to look into more of the facts on this. that not -- we do not all want to watch on

television, but especially at the early stages of pregnancy, you can take a pill. it is nonsurgical. your facts are wrong and i'm courage you too -- i encourage you to look at the center for reproductive rights, and read perspective,heir what is involved. i think perhaps most importantly, this is a choice that the constitution protects for a woman to make. it may be a difficult choice and it might not before her. but it is her choice that she makes with her family and with herself, with her doctor, with her faith, and that is the choice for her to live with. i think that is what the constitution protects you that is what the supreme court says it protects. line, atlanta,nt georgia, chris, good morning. caller: good morning. believe ine to say i

light of the court's's decision that the state of texas will be unregulated. i am against abortion myself, but i will tell you what happened in my family. youngest daughter was a senior in high school who got pregnant. the doctors told her that she needed to have an abortion and --y strongly recommended hit strongly recommended it. the doctor tried to tell her she really needs to have an abortion because the child would be severely challenged mentally and physically. my daughter chose not to do it and she chose to have the baby be the baby turned out to the smartest, brightest, healthiest child you ever want to see. something for young women to think about.

thank you. thank you. i'm glad to hear that was the outcome. the point is it is a choice and that was her choice and i am delighted that it had an out -- a happy outcome. i think one of the main parts of the opinion from the supreme court was about whether the regulations would in fact make these clinics safer. the court carefully went through evidence to show that they were not necessary, the courts said they were not necessary to make these procedures safer, which are already very safe. importantat is an point. we want to obviously make sure these procedures are done in a safe environment and people know what they are doing. but that is already under current in the regulation. top, these did nothing to protect the health of women.

they were aimed at shutting down abortion clinics. this was described as a significant abortion case. other ones expected for the supreme court specifically regarding abortion? i think this is the most significant abortion case in decades. what it makes clear is the right meethas been protected has --meaning on the ground. right torcise the choose to have an abortion. this was absolutely a huge victory for women. this one will set a marker for other cases to say the court will take seriously any effort to take the end run around the constitutional right to an abortion. host: wyoming, republican line, good morning. believeyes, i don't

that we are such a dumb country that we even have to have abortions anymore. believe we have any thought as to what is going on. i thank you. alan from brooklyn, new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for i'm calling about the bob mcdonald bribery case. this is troubling to me at several levels. we used to have public officials that if you cannot prove intent to link a gift with an action because you cannot get inside someone's head, the response is not to liberalize the standard but continue to make -- maintain the standard based on the appearance of possible wrongdoing. accessans limiting the

in the first place, which is easy to prove. it almost seems the court has righthis liberalization of the public officials to take money without being accused of bribery to protect the rationale for their wrongheaded citizens united decision years ago where they opened the floodgates in the first space -- first place. they are increasing the possibility for gifts to start a bribery situation and making it harder for people to protect themselves against that notonesty by saying we will allow a bribery case to be brought unless there is a clear linkage of a quid pro quo. like very unfair to people formally assembly speaker of

new york who had a very joy and convention brought against him for bribery, where i believe the quid pro quo proof was at least as weak as it was, and he is now serving 12 years in prison for something the court would probably say should have been thrown out. if we both limit the access to and go more on appearance rather than the standard, we could maintain an act of bribery in the system where the penalty is not quite as severe. we do not have people get it off scott free on the one hand and being thrown into prison for long terms. on the other hand, it should be an easier ability to prove it and less severe penalties so they do not have this institute -- inconsistent going on. that is a great point and

i am sympathetic in many ways to what you just said. one thing that gives me pause as we are talking about criminal conviction with potential jail time. standard andad part of itthe intent because we are talking about a conviction, that causes some people to take a pause. over criminalization is a problem. i probably would not start in my priority of officials when i am dealing with over criminalization. nonetheless, i think it is important when someone is suffering criminal conviction, that there are clear standards by which they are convicted. the understanding of official case couldned in the

have been overly rod, conduct not covered by the statute. to court sent the case back the court can decide whether there will be new prosecution under the standard. there could yet be a prosecution. i haven't heard if they've made any decisions about that yet. made any decisions about that yet whether to ask the court of appeals to try to continue to see whether or not they could reap prosecute him under the clarified statute. one thing that is interesting about your question is the beginning and the end of the political corruption process, the campaign regulation focused more at the giftgiving, at the pushing of the official, the influencing. that is where the narrow definition of corruption has been extremely problematic. aboute are talking

terminal i think some sort of criminal act on behalf of that gets it shows, difficult. but if we just staff at the this improper dependence on big money, on outside influence, that would go a long way toward getting our government focused on people and not just the people with the host: independent line -- most money. host: independent line. caller: i would like to challenge her position that there is a big celebration going on because the constitution says a woman has the right to kill her baby. planned parenthood, the babies parts, but nowhere in the is abortion referred to.

it is one man, in this case anthony kennedy, saying, with the standard democrat majority, , woman has the right to choose and that is one man. they overturned a lower appeals court decision where judges said that the clinics in texas need to be safer and this was ok for clinics to be safe. nothing about constitution. your continuing comments saying the constitution says or the you are just on a track that has no basis. this is one person, anthony kennedy, siding with liberal members of the supreme court, to safety texas law of should be overturned.

don't keep harping that the constitution says, because that is not. that is one person. that is why the election that is coming up for president is so important because we will get more liberal activist judges to make laws rather than interpret. so many supreme court justices have said there is a constitutional right. since the 1970's. it is not just one justice. even yesterday, it was not just one man saying that. it is absolutely about the cuff the tuition. as it says in the opinion itself on the court, texas regulations onstitute an undue burden the women's constitutional right to do so. explicitly a constitutional ruling is what this case was all about, decided under the 14th amendment. so the constitution has everything to do with whether or not a woman has equal determinep rights to

how to live her life including whether or not to bear a child. host: what do we expect in the next session of court? in strange times. eight justices. the court has granted cases looking forward to the next term knowing it might have a justices for the next term as well. if a public and senators make good on the blockade of the election, let's say the new president puts for the nominee even on his or her first day, they probably would back exit -- get confirmed that the april. that is two terms that would be affected by the blockade of the supreme court nominee for the current vacancy. we have seen a slowdown in the theer they have granted for next year. there might be in inclination to not want to take up hot button issues for next term because they only will be working with a justices.

but there might be voting cases that have to be heard. a lot of cases are working their court that the lower deal with voter id and other regulations put in place after the supreme court gutted voting rights. those are important cases working their way up. we do not know because the court is working with the nine justices. host: elizabeth wydra. >> the white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest is set to begin at 1:00 eastern today. when it starts, we will have live coverage here. coming up today, donald trump is giving the speech on the economy and trade policy, speaking -- speaking in pennsylvania at 2:30 eastern. we will also open up the phone lines to get your reaction.

thorpe,from frank here's the photo of the venue of the speech today. shredding the compact that aluminum. july 1, 1976, the smithsonian national air and space museum opened doors to the public with president gerald ford on hand. friday marks the 40th anniversary of the museum. american history tv's live coverage starts on c-span3. we will tour the museum and see one-of-a-kind artifacts, including the spirit of st. louis and the apollo lunar module. learn more as we talk with its director, general jr check daily, curator kenny, and valerie meal. you can join the conversation as we take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. the 40th anniversary of the smithsonian national air and space museum, on c-span3's

american history tv. today's white house briefing is scheduled to start at 1:00 live here. we are expecting the best secretary to give -- to take questions about the report given by the houston gaza committee. right now on c-span a news conference from this morning with other members of the committee. we will show you as much of this as we can before the white house briefing starts. [chatter] [indiscernible] >> i want to begin by expressing our collective gratitude to tie woods.

their families and loved ones for their service and ultimately, the sacrifice that they made on behalf of our country. i want to express our collective appreciation of the americans who fought so valiantly that night and uncontroverted we saved other lives. this service and sacrifice and desire to defend fellow americans in our interest for all truly represents the best of what our country has to offer. after more than 100 witness interviews, including more than 80 with -- congress talk to and tens of thousands of pages of documents, that is the single greatest impression we are left with. there are men and women who love this country enough and what it stands for and how it can inspire others to serve in dangerous places under dangerous

circumstances. so i will respectfully ask my citizens to simply do this -- read the report. read the report, and if you do, i think what will become manifest to you will be what has become manifest to us, two different images. the minute -- the image on the one hand of what was happening at benghazi, and the other hand on the decisions made and not made in washington during that same time. you will see the urgency shown by the grs agents at the annex as they went to the mission compound to try to save american diplomatic security agent lives. you will see the emphatic mess with which they entered and reentered burning buildings in an attempt to save shauna smith and ambassador stevens. you will see -- who got their own aircraft and deploy

themselves from tripoli to benghazi for those fellow americans who needed their help. you will see the firefight at the compound and you will learn about the ambush from the compound to the annex. and you will learn about the firefight before the final, lethal, border attacks. there are only three assets that made it to benghazi. two unarmed drones and a team who deploy themselves. they were not ordered to go. they deployed themselves. glenn doherty was on that plane from tripoli to benghazi and he not only flew to benghazi with libyans who were supposed to be our friends to get to the and so he could help defend the facility and he got there. just in time to join his fellow navy seal, tyrone woods, minutes

before they both died. it has been said that nothing could have reached benghazi before the lethal border attacks. and i suppose what is meant by that is nothing other than the two unarmed drones and the team from tripoli that deployed themselves. what is missing from the analysis, each is straightforward to those who have investigated that, is that nothing could get to benghazi because nothing was headed to benghazi. no u.s. military asset was deployed, despite the order of the secretary of defense at 7:00 that night. so washington had access to real-time information but somehow, they thought the fighting had subsided. washington had access to

real-time information but they thought these fighters were going to evacuate. even without the remains of the ambassador. and without asking, how is that evacuation supposed to be effectuated? how are you supposed to get to the benghazi airport? who was supposed to take you? those are the decisions being contemplated and discussed in washington. and this mistaken believe that there was an evacuation that was evident without asking the fundamental question of -- how do you expect us to effectuate this evacuation? washington had access to real-time information. but the real-time information did not inform or instruct decisions made in washington. after the secretary ordered assets to floyd to help, the

white house convened a two-hour meeting and perhaps nothing shows the contrast between what was happening in benghazi and washington than the two-hour meeting. and the readouts that came from it. so it is true that nothing could have reached glenn doherty and tyrone woods, because nothing was going towards them. and it is worth noting that that statement would be true had the attack taken place at 7:15 a.m. or 9:15 a.m. or even at lunchtime. because at the time those two americans were killed, not a single wheel of a single u.s. military asset had even turned toward libya. our report starts with the attack, and there is a section on the post-attack communication between government and the american citizenry. there is a section on pre-attack

decisions made and not made which led to the environment which made our facility vulnerable. it is better to be the first committee to investigate and it is always better to investigate as contemporaneously to an incident or event as can be done. our committee did not have the luxury of either one of those. we began a 1.5 year investigation after the incident that collectively and individually, all seven of us believed that there were more questions to ask and more answers to acquire. more witnesses to interview and more documents to access. and this report validates that belief. there is new information in what happened in benghazi and that information should fundamentally view what happened in benghazi. and there are recommendations made to make sure it does not

happen again. in conclusion, i want to thank the house of representatives for giving us the honor of investigating four of our brave, courageous, fellow citizens. and those that fought so valiantly that night. and it want to thank the six members who are standing with me who took on this assignment, not in lieu of other assignments, that in addition thereto. and the women and men on our staff who took on, what proved to be, and incredibly difficult challenge. they did so out of the singular motivation of honoring four people whose political ideations none of us know anything about. that gave their lives in benghazi. lastly, i want to thank my fellow citizens forbearing with our committee as he went through the process of uncovering the process of new information of witnesses and documents. i hope my fellow citizens will

read this report. not for me, but for those who sacrificed and those nameless, faceless americans who incontrovertibly saved other american lives that night. i hope you will reap the report with them in mind. i would hasten to add, you can read this report from pillar to post in less time than our fellow americans were under attack in benghazi. so what i am asking you to do is a small investment, it even what others were willing to do on our behalf. with that i would recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> i too, want to thank the committee members here, for

participating in this. it has been a lot of hard work but we need to recognize the staff that we had. it is not easy working for seven members of congress, much less one. so i want to thank our personal staff for filling that and especially be staffed with benghazi. what we have done is produce new evidence that will allow the citizens of this country to take all the different pieces that have come out through the other investigations and tie those things altogether. one of the things that we have had and the reason this committee was born is that in the house of representatives, each committee has a lane. and these lanes were getting confused and back and forth

about who had the authority to interview who. this committee was put together so we could bridge all of those gaps and get new information out. and that is what we have done. i think if you will read the report, you will see, as the chairman mentioned, that what was going on in washington at 10:08 when the secretary made her first comments, we had men on the roof at the nx trying to protect their lives and the lives of other americans in that ghazi. -- americans in benghazi. so what we have done with the new fax we have discovered is allow people to take those new facts with the old facts that came out, and some of those old facts have been reevaluated and determined that they were not actually good.

so we have corroborated some of those different things in his report. to take this new information that we have got and be able to put it together. and if our fellow citizens will read this, they will come up with their own opinion of what happened. because there is enough new evidence that i think people will be able to put together for themselves exactly what led up to this attack, what went on during the attack and then post attack, when there was so much misinformation that was being repeated by this administration. so with that, i turn it back to the chairman. >> before the attack ended, no military assets were headed towards benghazi. but what did start was the political spin. with tyrone woods still on the roof of the annex, fighting for his life, secretary clinton issued this statement. the official statement about government this evening. justifying this behavior. we know that statement was

misleading because an hour later she told her daughter that terrorists killed two of our people today. the next day she told the prime minister that it was a planned attack, not a protest. and then public-private contrast continues for days, publicly telling the american people it was a protest but privately telling the truth that it was a terrorist attack. and maybe be best example is on the 14th. we had mr. carney at a press meeting saying -- there was no example to suggest that benghazi was a preplanned attack. that same day, a state department in libya says -- benghazi was a well-planned attack.

you couldn't have a starker contrast in those statements. it is important to member this. don't forget the context. libya was supposed to be the crowning jewel of the clinton state department foreign policy and administration. this was their example of how it works. no boots on the ground, out the dictator -- this was supposed to be how it works. -- sent an e-mail where he talks about leadership, stewardship and ownership of the policy from start to finish. this was something that hillary clinton pushed for and got done. maybe be better one is the ebay -- the e-mail from blumenthal. gadhafi had been removed and he sent an e-mail to the secretary saying it is a big moment. he finished of the evoke the statement. "this is a big moment, you are vindicated, don't wait. tell cleo now." so they were committed to this. they were invested in this. this is how it was supposed to

work in the state department. and they were so committed that it didn't matter that there were 200 security incidents at the time from when blumenthal said the e-mail and the incident happened. it didn't matter that the agency went to benghazi and when he came back he said it was a suicide mission. "everybody there is going to die." it didn't matter on august 17, 2000 and 12 when a memo was sent to secretary clinton about the uptick in violence in libya. widespread violence. it didn't matter because they were committed to this policy. and then it happened. then it happened. a terrorist attack. september 11, 2012, days before vice president had said that the

president -- they now had a terrorist attack and they had to mislead the american people because it is days before an election and the legacy is on the line and she has the goddess of history looking over her shoulder. so they mislead the american people. we put together a report that we think supplements the good work and the full report. we did that because we felt it was important to know what happened and also why. why did it happen? you look at every step of this and i am convinced it happened because of political concerns that this administration had. why do we stay in benghazi when everyone else was leaving? why did we stay with the security position was so dangerous? why were they talking about military went in wearing

civilian clothes and not uniforms? it was political concern that drove this and that is what we outline in our report. i would encourage you all to read both because i think it tells that story. and that is something that shouldn't happen in a country as great as ours, for a political concern to dominate instead of telling the truth in a straightforward fashion. >> america asks its citizens to go to dangerous places and to do difficult rings. these are people in the military, in the services, diplomats -- and they go willingly. and they go acknowledging there is a risk. but the understanding that they carry with them is that if they end up in harm's way, historically, they have rest assured that their country will

do everything they can do to rescue them. that is not a guarantee. and the people that go and accept assignments voluntarily, they know there is an inherent risk but the understanding is that their nation will move heaven and are to save them. and that didn't happen. and for people were murdered. that is the scandal of benghazi. the thing i take away is this jarring contrast between the ingenuity and heroism and initiative that was taking place in benghazi. you can read the communications and understand the urgency of what they were dealing with. the overwhelming sense of responsibility to rescue other americans. across the ocean, almost a disposition of near fecklessness. the summary of the white house meeting that the chairman mentioned that took place at 7:30, half the discussion of that meeting suggested that they were talking about a video. when you read this information, you come to the conclusion that there is concern -- more concern -- about whether they will be defending the libyan government

by how this rescue is supposed to take place and whether the rescue is successful. marinate in that for a second. they are worried about approvals and how this will come off. it is clear that they were worried previously to that about the notion of pulling back from benghazi, because an early exit would have done what? it would have upset the libyans. that is outrageous. ambassador stevens, when he is

the envoy, he goes and lands with no diplomatic immunity. he is on his own. it was a white house policy of no boots on the ground that deprived him of military support, support that was previously going to accompany him. yet he goes in alone. it is a foreshadowing of things to come. so i think we have to look at this notion of responsibility. there has been a lot of discussion about secretary clinton. at the end of august, we learned that she approved a $20 million grant global security contingency fund to the libyans. but this was the same state department that basically stiff armed one request after another request, cumulative requests, requests for security and support that were essentially rejected, ignored and went somewhere else. so here is what is in it for us. here is what we have to recognize. if we are going to ask americans

to put themselves at risk in the future, we have to remedy this. all of us. america needs to have your reputation with people who are serving america that america will follow its end of the bargain. and america, the bureaucrats in washington, failed this miserably. >> 56 days. you cannot begin to understand all of the facts that this committee has worked to present to the american people. while understanding that this took place 50 six days before a contested political election for the president of the united states. whether it was the failure to put adequate security on the ground. whether it was the dithering

while americans were at risk that night or whether it is the continued story, despite evidence to the contrary, about a youtube video, it takes place against a political backdrop. you don't have to take my word for that. you can read the e-mails themselves. they are talking about politics. as they debate whether or not to send additional security to libya, the concerns are about the libyan government, not about americans on the ground. i sit on the intelligence committee and i come from it in that perspective. when you read what the intelligence was the night of the attack, it is uniform and uncontroverted. this was an attack by radical islamic terrorists on an american facility. there was no dispute. the evidence was clear. go read what secretary clinton herself said. wiki words from officials on the ground that night communicating with the senior levels of government what had transpired. it wasn't about a youtube video or folks out for a walk. and when secretary clinton says -- what difference does it make -- we can now tell you exactly

what difference it makes. it makes a difference in how you respond to an attack. whether you think this was a bunch of folks walking around or an assault on america that took place in benghazi, washington, d.c. somehow viewed this as having ended once our men and women were evacuated to the annex. you read the timeline of this, the men on the ground that night understood it was not over. they understood that the risk to their lives continued. and in washington, d.c. we debated and that had nothing to do with whether we had aircraft on route. that is what difference it makes. you can't begin to exercise the leadership you need if you don't understand what is happening on the ground. and if you choose to put a

lyrical expediency and politics ahead of the men at women on the ground, you will have to answer to yourself. i find it morally reprehensible. if it was your son or daughter or family member or friend on the ground that night and you watch the actions in washington, d.c., you have every right to be disgusted. this was a failure at the most senior level of the government and one that i hope the recommendation of this committee recommends will help to make sure something like this never happens again. >> let me start by saying i am so proud of this report. i am so proud of the work that this committee has done as a whole, the majority. i want to thank our chairman and the rest of the committee for the way in which this investigation was handled and for the leadership as the chairman. this investigation has uncovered a time of new information, which leads to our much greater understanding about what happened before, during and

after the attack in benghazi. while our guys were on the ground, taking gunfire and mortar attacks, washington was moving at a snail's pace. in washington, the administration was more concerned about diplomatic sensitivity with the libyans and promoting policy than it was about the americans that they had sent to benghazi. at the end of the day, no military assets wherever moving towards benghazi. the bottom line is that washington failed to have our guys backs when they needed it. and from my perspective, this represents incompetence, indifference and both. as we know now, but for the bravery of a few americans and the unexpected response of gadhafi's underground militia -- there would have been an even greater loss of life. in this case, i believe that the

government failed and lied to the public in the aftermath. it is unacceptable. and i know that this report shines light on that. and god willing, this from ever happening again. >> i want to join martha in thanking our chairman. this has been an incredible task to undertake and we have worked day in and day out to come up with the truth and bring facts to the american people that we did not know before. i was particularly focused on issues prior to the attack.

and the things that we learned about benghazi -- there were many new things we learned about benghazi. we have all admitted and it has been known for sometime that the security was in adequate but what we didn't know until this investigation was that the state department made a conscious decision to keep the benghazi compound off the radar. and not provide it with the security it needed. in fact, none of the facilities in libya met the security requirements, required by the state department and law. and when chris stevens was sent into benghazi, he was initially going in with the military. but because of the president's policy of no boots on the

ground, at the last minute, military support was pulled. so we know he didn't have enough security, whether it was people or security tools. but he had a mission. and a mission to ensure that benghazi became a permanent post at some point. because it was the individuals in benghazi that helped to lead the mission that helped to topple gadhafi. and so the secretary of state wanted to show benghazi how important they were. they wanted to show them that they would not leave. and we learned during this investigation that it was during october 2012 that the security had a planned trip to benghazi. she had planned a trip to libya in order to show the libyans that the americans had been there for them and that the americans had led the charge.

i will tell you that this was failed american foreign-policy. failed policy from the beginning. and that is because, we have learned and does the president has said, the worst thing that we did was not planning for the day after. he has indicated that the worst mistake of his presidency was not planning for the day after gadhafi fell. and so we sent american diplomats to benghazi, to libya, to a failed state. and what they were most concerned about at the beginning of going into libya was making sure that it wasn't a failed state. and what is it today? a terrorist safe haven. isis, al qaeda. militias are there controlling the resources of oil. it is failed policy. we failed the american people. i want to close by making sure that people realize that we said we would try to make sure this didn't happen in the future. so not only did this committee work hard to uncover facts and truths and to put light on the truths, but we have pages of

recommendations. many pages of recommendations. and i would encourage you to look at the recommendations. just a couple recommendations that are so critical is that our government agencies and the leaders of the agencies had not planned for an attack like this. cia, defense department, state department -- they have not been prepared and no plans were in place to execute something like this on of all days -- september 11, even though the president had called a meeting of top government officials asking if we were ready for september 11. and while leaders said the ready, we were not ready. we were not prepared to respond. we also learned that political operatives got involved in messaging after this incident occurred. that should not be happening. internal and public government

communications should not be taking place. the government should be telling the people the truth, not trying to put a political spin. have many recommendations that we hope and will encourage members of congress and administration's to look at, to change policies and laws, to find funding mechanisms to make sure that our people are protected in the future. and with that, i yield back. >> if you have questions, please identify yourself, the entity with whom you work and who the question is directed to. >> the democrats on your committee say that you put out a lot of new details but that they don't really change the fundamental understanding. and a lot of those themes that you discussed have been known for years. at the end of the day, was this worth taxpayer dollars and your time? >> it is difficult with where i should begin with the foundation of your question. who says that stuff was new?

nobody has ever reported that nothing was headed to benghazi. that not a single wheel was headed towards libya. god knows nobody has ever reported who ever evacuated our folks. you may have reported that clinton reported back but you did not have the corroboration of the e-mails. you didn't know about any of the e-mails from ambassador stevens or the e-mails from sidney blumenthal. you didn't know that a single u.s. military asset did not leave a single designated timeline. inc. about that.

the world's most powerful military did not leave a single solitary self-imposed timeline. so all of that is new. and as for the democrats, color me shocked that they are critical of our report. all five of them voted not to form the committee. they threatened not to produce spate and for the most part, they did not. they have been beakers of information and they missed a good opportunity -- i don't know if you have had a chance to read the report but if you do, their report mentions her name far more times than ours does. you can direct those questions to elijah and the rest of them. i am proud of what we found. >> are you saying the military could have saved those people and done more? >> clearly you couldn't have saved two of them because they were dead within 15 minutes of the fire starting. there were three assets that made it there.

the group from tripoli that deployed itself, an unarmed drone that was elsewhere in position over the facility and another unarmed drone, the evidence is split on whether or not it could have been armed. it got there before the border attack. so -- i don't know. i'm not going to make a reckless allegation that their lives could have been saved but that it will tell you is that if it had happened at 7:15 or 9:15, the result would have been the same. nothing was coming to benghazi. that is an important question to ask. there is an e-mail that is a takeout from the white house meeting, which, which you knew about it, no one reported on it. so for the democrats to claim there is no new information i have not heard about that meeting until our report was

issued. one of the takeouts from that in addition to the five action items on the video -- consider this. the video had been out for a while. it wasn't new. cairo had happened. it happened before benghazi. so if you were concerned about this video, you have done absolutely nothing after you received notice that the video was going to be disseminated. you did nothing after cairo happened. so cairo happened and you have not changed one iota of military position. but when benghazi happened, 50% of your action items coming out of the civics related to the video. >> [indiscernible]

days before the election -- when we have talked to members of the committee and read through the report, there are different lanes that deal with secretary clinton, the defense and so on. there are folks who read this and say this is a ploy to get hillary clinton before the election and convention. that will be the criticism. how do you fight that? some of you have said this demonstrates incompetence at the highest level. how do not have that perceived as -- >> read the report for yourself. if you read this report and you believe on the last-place of the report that it is about one person instead of four people than i have nothing to say that can dissuade you. there is no amount of fact that will this we do from your previous conviction. the democrats mantra all along

is that there was no new information. so now their position is -- it doesn't fundamentally change the way we view benghazi. if it does not change the way you view and ghazi, if the fact that no asset was ever headed towards the place that had a crisis, this e-mail that we need to plan in case a crisis emerges, this is what came out of the civics. we need to have a plan in case a crisis expands and a real threat approaches -- what was going on in benghazi? was that not a real crisis? i can't do anything to this a fuse what elijah thinks. he is not my audience. my audience is reasonable americans who want to know what happened to their fellow citizens.

>> you said -- quoting hillary clinton -- what difference does it make russian mark saying that you can't be a leader if you don't know what is going on on the ground and then saying she was morally reprehensible for the leadership -- how is that -- >> i don't think you will see any of that in the report. >> but you are promoting that right now. >> you are going to write a story about your take away from the report. my story is how you read the report. you read the report and you will not see any of that. >> can you address that? is hillary clinton's leadership morally reprehensible? >> yes. but let me be clear. none of us volunteered for this assignment. .we were asked to undertake this mission and it was clear. he said in a room and i remember it like it was yesterday. we looked each other in the eye and we said this day would come and what we want to be able to

tell each other is that we worked hard, worked our tails off to develop every fact we could. we have been obstructed and free step along the way in that effort. including by the democrats. go read the transcripts. look to ask the questions. this is not the first congressional inquiry in the history of america. identified another congressional inquiry where one party behaved in a way that was so deeply instructive to getting the american people the facts that the needed. with respect to my statements about secretary clinton, i believe them in my heart. we felt that we had delivered an important work in the committee's tally of the information that was available. we also felt that we had to ask everyone of you to develop your conclusions. i have been knee-deep in this for over two years. we feel like it is incredibly important to highlight the conclusions that we draw from the facts. read the facts, read the report. i think you will see that the

conclusions we draw our real and accurate and fair. >> the flip side of that could be that -- had you drawn -- had you chosen not to draw conclusions, does that suggest that -- any blame on the administration? >> shockingly, that was not what the house asked me to do. look at the resolution.

..........he resolution doesn't mention secretary clinton. speaker boehner or speaker ryan have never asked me to do anything about 2016 politics. they asked me to find out what happened to our fellow citizens and i believe that is what i have done. you are welcome to read the report, i know you will. if you at the end of the report that you can conclude it is about one person, i will be shocked. >> i'm asking the opposite question. you believe that after doing this for two years and spending millions of dollars, do you believe that the american people should look at this and see this woman -- >> i believe the american people should look at it. they ought to look at it because fellow americans died and americans did her wrote things to save other americans. what conclusions a draw after reading it is up to them. >> i wrote the report that i think is centered in the facts. i have a background of who, what, when, where. i don't have a background on the why. my job is to report facts and that is what i have done. you can drop whatever conclusions you want to draw. >> who was tapping the brakes on the military response? my second question is -- what

did you learn about the operation? >> we asked questions about a covert weapons operation and we made some progress. the lawyers intervened when we were beginning to make a lot of progress. and among the questions i asked the president included that one specifically. i have not heard back from him yet. i have heard from his lawyer and i am not holding my breath that i will get an answer for that. i think it is important because the house asked us if there were policies that could have led to the attack. it is important to ask that question but that is not the focus of our debate. >> who was tapping the brakes on the military? >> i remember when we said we were going to interview -- i remember a lot of raise eyebrows.

why are you talking to him again? as if all the right questions had been asked the first time. i think military leaders would tell you what i said. they believed an evacuation was imminent. when you question why they believed an evacuation was imminent, the answers do not withstand even the mildest level of scrutiny. you had real lives, real witnesses who can tell you what is going on. if you think the fighting has subsided, i don't you talk to the witnesses who are being shot at? if you really believed an evacuation is imminent, at some level, you are going to have to ask, how will that evacuation be effectuated? you don't have the proper vehicles to take them from the annex to the airport. and the only plane that you have is one that is privately commissioned. you have no idea whether it will hold everybody.

so how are you going to evacuate in the midst of a firefight? general helmet did not even know our guys were ambushed from the compound to the annex. he didn't even know that. so for everyone who wanted to know why we wanted to talk to him again, we thought it would be nice for him to have all of the facts because he didn't have them when he made decisions. >> some have described this as a perfect storm of bureaucratic inertia. is there one entity or person to whom you lay most of the blame after the analysis? >> that is in the eyes of the fellow citizens. i think there is enough to go around, just like there is enough urgency and ingenuity. that really is my take away. and maybe it is because i have talked to the families of the four. when you do what i used to do for a living, you ask the family -- what is it that you would

like to see done? and i am at peace that we did exactly what the families that we said we would do. it took longer but we did what we said we would do. i want to be able to tell the widow about the truth of the military response. i want to be able to tell sean smith's mother about the security leading up to it. and i'm appeased that we have more information than the other committees had and we could have had more if we had cooperation from the other side. >> along the lines, put aside the attack itself and what happened that particular night -- have you been able to, in some way, some abstract way, getting to ambassador stevens' mind regarding the american presence in libya? about the facility there in

benghazi? about how he wanted america to not appear militarized? >> let's be clear about something. chris stevens loves the people of libya and in particular, he loved the people in that ghazi. and the heroism that he showed going in as the envoy and what he had to deal with as the envoy before he was ambassador is a level of valor and heroism and commitment to this country where if you don't read the report for any other reason, read it for what he endured during 2011. he got there on september 10 and started meeting with intelligence officials about the state of security in libya. and he began to postpone subsequent readings because of what he was hearing. he knew it wasn't great. he had no idea how bad it was. so he began to postpone the next meeting is ready, and here is our ambassador saying, i am not

through getting my debriefing. and then he moves the off-campus meetings on campus. and then you see his diary entry. you see it on september the 11th. read his diary entry. read e-mailed that he sent to the british diplomats. now we know exactly what was on his mind. benghazi had deteriorated in a way he didn't expect and security was on his mind. >> but he wanted the appearance of the united states presence there was not solidified -- >> i think he wanted to stay alive more than anything else. with all the respect. and if that means a slightly higher footprint, then at their me be experts or supervisors who say, we appreciate your valor but we are going to give you the

security you asked for originally. >> people have asked a version of this question in different ways -- >> they didn't like my answer. >> americans who have viewed these events and investigation through certain lenses will continue, despite the report, there are bumper stickers and t-shirts over this country that say "hillary clinton lied, people died." is that true? >> you don't see that t-shirt on me and you don't see that bumper sick or on my vehicles and you have never heard me, it on that. have you read it? i'm asking you to read it. i'm asking you to read it. i'm not going to tell you what to be on the lookout for. i will tell you there is new information and it fundamentally changes the way i feel about

what happened before, during and after. who was it, then rose said reporters know literally nothing? i don't believe that. i trust you to read the report for yourself. >> but you are the expert, what do you think? >> i know this. i want you to contrast the information and the evidence that was available on the evening of september 11. look at the full body of evidence that was available. and then book at what was said. and dry your own conclusion of whether you have the best views of the evidence and information that was available. it is one thing to say the evidence didn't exist. it existed, we found them. we found the agents. there are conversations that

were ongoing throughout the night. so that argument works both ways. if there is information, she was definitive in certain statements she made two people privately. there was no ambiguity. it was in the public statements to us that it was less definitive. look at the statements made privately. what shee for yourself said privately in what others said and what the administration said and what they said publicly. someone said the intelligence analysis changes over time. that's true but their statements did not. ,hey were consistent publicly paris attack, that continued.

look for yourself when you can decide but when you look at the private statements compared to what they told the american people, a stark contrast, a dramatic difference. look for yourself. that this report has never been about one person. it's been about the four americans. americans didther inside to save their colleagues. media has made this, wants to make this about one person. the democrats want to make this about one person. that's never been our intention. but we have enough facts in the report that i think every american can make their own mind up. dad, healk to ty wood's will have a different opinion from reading the report of what the secretary told him and what

the fact say in the report. sean smith's mother will probably have that same different way of looking at the report. i think each american needs to read the report. it is lengthy but it had to be lengthy so we could spell out what the truth is and what these new facts have given light to. i promise you, the chairman has made this clear to each and everyone of us that this is not about one single person. think, wehe report, i reached our goal when we came up with a different recommendation that need to be done to prevent this from happening again. i think the detail that we went recommendations all the more important and

hopefully the speaker and other people will take them and do something with them. because i think they lay out a means of us not getting in this same situation. thatld like to comment when these americans arrived from tripoli to the airport in benghazi -- >> we believe this briefing to go live to today's white house reefing. -- briefing. >> i don't have any announcements to make at the top so we can take your questions. what response do you have to the committee's report? >> i don't have much. seems that after eight efrin congressional inquiries into this matter, it seems there is only one remaining question. going to disclose the

contribution they received from house republicans? this is a $7 million effort funded by taxpayers to do with the would be speaker of the house as was their goal which was to take down secretary clinton's poll numbers. that was their goal. and that's what they wanted to accomplish. the claims that the military was slow to response? this has been thoroughly republican radius -led investigations in the congress. i will not get into the back-and-forth. frankly, republicans of already done that. republicans in the house intelligence committee have concluded that those charges are not true. questions have been raised about

that assertion by the ben ghazi committee's lead investigator. there is plenty of churn to reveal what republicans have learned from this report and those congressional committees that have been committed to understand the fact of a tragedy that led to the death of four have concluded that what happened is a tragedy. they have also concluded that the variety of conspiracy there is that have been flowering on the republican side of the aisle are politically motivated fantasies. it's unfortunate the death of four americans would be subject to that kind of political fantasizing. is the state of the

republican party these days. >> on another issue on the hell, democrats say it's time to take another look at agency policies regarding a federal cemetery. [indiscernible] i am not aware of how this question has been raised administratively but we can look at that. in a partisanans attempt to extend displays of the confederate flag that a bille that in the zik they passed in the dark of night last week. i think that underscores the partisan nature of the legislation they put forward. i am not aware of any executive action that has been contemplated on this question. i wanted to talk about the fallout from the brexit vote.

is that a concern for the white house especially from a security standpoint? issues if there was to be a break with the u.k. does the u.s. have any position on that? >> a couple of things we have said before are relevant. values thestates critically important security relationship we have with the united kingdom. the u.k. is a critically important partner in the nato alliance which is the that rock of our national security in this country. we believe that that relationship is critically important. there is no reason that should be affected by the decision the

british voters made last week. there was a referendum on scottish independence a year or two ago. we made clear at the time that that was a decision for voters in scotland to make. beennited states view has and continues to be that a is in the best interest of the united states. it makes them a stronger partner and more effective in contributing to the nato alliance, the bedrock of our national security. has the president made any more calls to world leaders in the wake of that vote? david cameronto and angela merkel but have there been any more calls? also, the president made the trip to london earlier this year

in support of the u.k. remaining in the eu. , now that hasdent not gone that way, the markets are flailing. there is a lot of uncertainty now. does the president feel the need to maybe do more to try to calm the market and do more to maybe push the u.s. and what the u.s. would like to happen. >> i will not talk about individual market movement. senior administration officials have been in touch with their counterparts in europe and the u.k. to discuss the consequences of the decision from the british people.

contact fromn secretary kerry to his counterparts in europe to discuss this matter. other senior officials in the also worke but closely with the president have been in touch with their counterparts including the president deputy national security advisor. he has been engaged with his g-20 counterparts to discuss both this vote but also the consequences for increased volatility we have seen in the global financial markets. it's something the treasury department continue to monitor closely and the president is monitoring it as well. would expect the next opportunity the president will have to discuss these issues with his counterparts will be at the nato meeting in poland coming up next week. we previously announced of the

president intends to meet with the leaders of the eu in advance of his nato summit meeting. i would anticipate that a lot of the conversation he will have with world leaders will be at that meeting formally and informally. and that would be to discuss the impact of this vote. there has been renewed volatility in the global financial markets. fact is the special relationship between the united states and the u.k. will endure. economic,financial, commercial, and trade ties between the united states and the u.k. will remain. that is good news because it's critically important to both our economies. that the u.s.-u.k. defense relationship will remain strong.

the united states also has a number of close partners who are part of the eu and we will continue to closely coordinate with them on a variety of financial and national security measures. cooperation continues unabated. quickly, would the president support a second referendum? i think the british ambassador to the united states was definitive about the finality of this statement. but how this moves forward is up to the british people and their elected leaders. the president had a strong opinion when the first referendum was coming around so would he have a strong opinion on a second one? >> the question about whether it would happen is something british leaders and the british people will have to determine.

made itit is leaders clear their view that the decision that was made by the voters was final. it will be up to them to render a judgment about the path forward. is expectation and our hope that the process, as it moves forward, will be orderly and and werent as possible have been pleased to see a commitment to those principles both by leaders in the u.k. but also leaders in the eu. on the benghazi report, you made yourself clear. >> it's not surprising. >> now that it's over -- >> i thought it was over after the first five. this is the eighth. ofdo you feel the breadth this and the time spent in the amount of money spent, this was the broadest investigation we have seen. view, very least, in your

put a definitive stamp on it . >> it's hard to say. thought that after the first or second or third or fourth or fifth or sixth or seventh investigation that might be the end. republicans have clearly discerned a political motive. to their credit, at least they were pretty open about it. the would be speaker of the house said the reason this was created to -- was to drive down secretary clinton possible numbers. congressman richard hanna from new york indicated the same thing. he said the goal of the committee was to go after secretary clinton. it's clear with her motives are. only question that remains is whether the $7 million contribution will be correctly reported on next month's sec campaign finance disclosure by the rnc. maybe we should have a

congressional committee formed to take a look at that. your goal was to put this to rest. that this investigation, unlike the others, looked at substantially more documentation that was not viewed by previous investigations. is there some value in that? it might have answered questions about the kind of information that was not used before? >> this was a select committee that spent more time looking at this matter than congress been looking at rings like pearl harbor or the 9/11 attack and the response to hurricane katrina and the iran-contra affair, the assassination of president kennedy. a lot of timeat and money and resources have been devoted to this. todayenator rubio tweeted that the committee found something we already knew.

republicans are struggling to articulate exactly what value has been derived from this other than what they acknowledges their primary goal which is to take more shots at secretary clinton. we unfortunate thing is that had to spend $7 million in taxpayer money to do it. they are cynically trying to the death of four innocent americans who were serving their country overseas and were killed in this tragic accident. the degree to which republicans are willing to play politics with their death and this is appalling. you about the are political ineffectiveness on democrats and how do democrats need to counter this message? i think individual democrats

will have to figure that out for themselves. secretary clinton and her campaign, they have their own statements. when it comes down to the political question here, i think we should sort of start by what leaderg mccarthy and congressman hannah have indicated and that that is a political exercise. when we start there, we can have about what thee political consequences of this decision should be. i think secretary clinton is more than capable of making her judgment, her her successful tenure as secretary of state and what that says about her presidential campaign. ultimately, that is her responsibility.

>> do you view this as damaging to clinton in the eyes potentially a voters? >> i think voters will have to decide for themselves. secretary clinton and her team have a strong case to make about her strong tenure as secretary of state that is a case i will let them make. extent will this be discussed at the north american summit tomorrow? the brexit vote has had an impact on global financial markets including north america. i would anticipate it's something the leaders would discuss but i don't think it will be the focus of their conversation. >> are there any lessons to be about the willingness of one part of the trading lock wanting to go in alone in terms of north america? it's tremendously controversial.

does the vote have any implications on nafta? toit's always dangerous oversimplify these kinds of questions that voters are considering. there is something unique about efforts to integrate europe. bitink it makes it a different than a trade agreement. the trade ties in our relationship with both mexico and canada are strong. our economies are well integrated. obviously, the security of our es is an hands by maintaining strong and high functioning relationships with our neighbors. what europe was attempting to do was to meet with -- was material different in terms of --

materially different in terms of establishing a common currency. an indication of the ambition they had for integrating the continent and winding their countries together. countries of north america have pursued a different strategy that has worked well for us. it is a strategy that has enhanced the economies of all of our countries and that as well as the international security the mostnorth america successful continent in the world. andgoal of the leaders their discussions tomorrow will be to further intensify our weorts to cooperate even as see added volatility in the global financial markets and we face down some other threats to our homeland security. said in the wake of the

maintain will still european trade agreements? >> we want to complete those negotiations by the end of this year. >> [indiscernible] how can you complete an agreement with europe? >> that is one argument but the given the new challenges the eu is facing, they would place a higher priority in strengthening their ties economically to the united states. ifre is no denying that even the u.k. had voted to remain in by eu that completing a ttip the end of this year would be an ambitious goal. it continues to be ambitious but one that is possible by the end of the year. we will have to see where things go from here. following up, some say the

u.s. should start negotiating a new treaty with the u.k., is that wrong? >> what's important to recognize ant there already is important financial and economic relationship between the united kingdom and the united states. those ties are valuable and they have a positive impact on both of our countries. said when heident was in london earlier this year continues to be true. if the united states were to trade talks with the u.k., those talks would start in a different place. we have already made years of progress through negotiations through the eu and the president discussed the value and the efficiency gains of the united

states negotiating with a whole block of countries as opposed to just one country. the one country we are talking about is the united kingdom with whom we have a special relationship and with whom we already have a critically important economic tie but the fact remains that we have already made lots of progress in negotiating a trade agreement with a block of countries. that's just where things stand now. in terms of what additional steps could be taken to enhance the economic relationship between the united states and the united kingdom is something policy makers in both countries will have to consider in the years ahead and presently, that path -- and presumably, that path forward will be clear and exactly howearer

the u.k. will pursue the process of extricating itself from the eu. the president made a statement that it could be years before britain being at the back of the queue when it comes to trade. it sounds like you are saying the u.k. and the u.s. could not even start negotiations yet. >> it's too early to say. we are four or five days from this decision being made by the british voters. dateld not handicap a about when those kind of conversations would occur. what is true is that the u.k. would not and if it from the years of progress we have made in negotiating a trade agreement with the eu.

the u.k. benefits from special relationship they have with the united states and they benefit from the important economic relationship that already exist between our two countries3 s. if and when those negotiations start, they would start in a different place because of a progress we have already made. how does the president feel about the role he played in the brit debate? was it too little too late? let me unpack this -- what i would start with is that the president traveled to london at the invitation of prime minister david cameron and while in london, they had conversations on a range of issues that were radically

important to our two countries. they were issues related to national security and the economy. while he was there, the president made an unequivocal view of theout u.s. question facing british voters. the president i think gave a rather lengthy but direct analysis of how the united states would be impacted by the decision made by the british people. important analysis for the president to offer for a couple of reasons. relationshipcial between our two countries, it seemed appropriate for the theish people to factor in impact of this vote on their relationship with the united states. it also was an important statement for the president to make because many proponents of

brexit were ascribing to the united states some views of the matter that frankly did not reflect the views of the leader of the united states. the president had an opportunity to set the record straight. what eventual impacted how me outcome is something i will leave to the analysts to decide. in the days after those comments from the president in london, there was positive movement in the polls. up where weot end would have liked. the president all along from beef for the trip to after the trip said it was a decision for the british people to make based on their own analysis of the country's interests. that's what they did.

to our broader relationship with europe, it's hard for the president's harshest critics to suggest that given shortas shrift to our relationship with our european allies. president's most prominent critics have suggested the united states should leave nato. i think that would be undermining our important relationship with our allies in europe in a way that would have devastating consequences to our national security. i think the president's record of strengthening those relationships is well-documented. ghazi, after the investigation, why was there no rescue? there was -- there have been committee hearings

that of looked at this. know the answer to the question and many people at home trying to sort this out, i hear all of this back-and-forth -- why didn't that happen? why wasn't the u.s. military able to rescue them? is what we should start the department of defense did. as secretary panetta has a knowledge, they reacted to the president's order to make sure that all available dod assets in the region were available and could be used to response to the attack in libya and protect u.s. interests and personal in the region. what that meant was that the u.s. military did succeed in executing the safe evacuation of all of the u.s. government personnel from ben ghazi 12

hours after the initial attack. they moved the number of personnel to the ram stein air force base to protect u.s. personnel. that is consistent with the conclusions of the accountability review board that basically found the result was exceptional u.s. government coordination military response, and saved lives of 2 severely wounded americans. >> the dod statement, emphasizing they were involved in the stabilization of the evacuation of tripoli. you are focusing on the military role -- >> they did both. there were personnel and ghazi that were extracted either dod assets hours after the attack. there were some u.s. citizens killed, that is why we are