own right to take the measure and see if they could get comfortable with the candidacy. there were those who had already the meetings,of but the large majority were undecided, and this was the opportunity for them to interact and take as much. that one of the themes was religious liberty. what did mr. trump say about that particular topic and what does it mean to you? guest: let me give you context. aristotle, folks have been concerned about the organized power of the state and the tension with individual liberties, and within the context of religious liberty and the american context, religious liberty is one of the most

important fundamental human rights that we exercise in this country because it is not only worshipingving are in a church, it is about how we can live our lives in the public with ournsistent seeefs, so folks wanted to if he was up to the measure of putting the harness on the organized power of the state, which we have done for over 240 years in constitutional governance. the constitution is harness on the intrusion and concentrated power of government, so we wanted to take his measure. casey constitutionalist -- is he a constitutionalist? does he believe? in the limits of the constitution places on

government does he believe in the separation of powers -- does he believe in the limits of the constitution places on government? does he believe in the separation of powers? i think that was answered because he had preempted that question by announcing his list of prospective candidates, so people wanted to take a look there. they wanted to see if in fact he was ready to defend the practice of religion in the public square , but most of the folks there were christians, so they wanted to see if they would put me halt to an assault on the little sisters of the poor or on christians who were small business owners who want to have their business is guided by the fundamental beliefs, so for me, going back to your question, religious liberty is one's

ability to live their faith in the public square without the fear of the heavy hand of government. i happen to believe that religious liberty is an expression of the human conscious, and as a former u.s. ambassador to the united nations in charge of the human rights forfolio and apathy fundamental rights like religious liberty, i was there to see if i can get comfortable with donald trump's position on religious liberty of the constitution and restraint on the power of government in particular. host: let me put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. just two numbers, one for evangelical voters, (202)-748-8000. everyone else, your number is (202)-748-8001. we get to calls in a moment for

ken blackwell. just continuing this laminate, -- continuing for a minute, did you get comfortable with what you heard from donald trump? i will point out that in may, you wrote a piece urging a slow walking embarq embrace or your embrace of mr. trump. but did you take away from this? comfortable more with donald trump and his position on the constitution, his position on restraints on judicial activism, and i was taken by the fact that he never pretended to be an evangelical himself, but he did profess belief in the bible and most importantly, he was ready to our rights to exercise

our legislative or the in the public square. i am from the old school. i will defend everyone's just sotional right long as their exercise of their religious liberty doesn't pose a violence ort of restraint on the practice of religion by others. i wanted to be very comfortable with his concern about islamic jihadists and make sure that strokesn't a broad against muslims in general because you cannot profess to be for religious liberty but then be against, in general, the practice of islam, judaism or hinduism, so i can away watching how he had started to calibrate his concern about religious

liberty as it applied to his concern to protect the national security of the country and the safety of americans in their home in neighborhoods. host: calls in the moment for ken blackwell. does this mean you and organization are endorsing donald trump at this point and who did you go for the primaries? independent in the primaries. i was an advocate and a principal advisor to an organization called our principals, who was in fact looking at all the candidates against fundamental principles religiousutionalism, liberty and limited government, so that was my job to at least put up the screen for folks to judge the candidates in the primaries. how close areor

you to an endorsement of donald trump at this point? clear let me just be very , elections are about choices. isnow that hillary clinton running on a third term of barack obama. that means she is running on increasing the debt, increasing the intrusiveness and size of the government and the welfare state in general. she is running against the interest of people who are actually wanting all of the freedoms of the constitution, including the second amendment, that given those choices, donald trump, hillary ,linton, i will go with trump but that is not enough and i am sure we will get into it on the balance of our conversation. to be engaged

with him enough to go out and convince 10 more folks to vote for donald trump, and that is what i am trying to get comfortable with right now. there is no question who i am going to vote for if given the choice of trump versus clinton. he is my default candidate in november. i do not want him to be just a default candidate. i want him to be candidate that i can enthusiastically go out and work for and convince other voters to vote for. he cannot afford to have the same number of evangelical 2016. stay home in host: first call from al in cambridge, ohio, you are on the phone with ken blackwell. hower: i just wondered christians would feel regarding

this political [indiscernible] you have on your show today. this man has been in and out the revolving door and republican ohio,s from beginning in and his significant role in guiding the reelection of george w. bush, arguably the worst and most corrupt administration in the history of this country, and plunged this country into the fascist state that we see today -- host: let me jump in. we have heard that, but talk about the evangelical voters and donald trump. any thoughts there? caller: how would christian voters feel about a political hack such as what you have on

here, that i have described in detail? host: let's hear from ken blackwell and give him a chance to defend himself. guest: good morning, al. i do not defend myself against the ridiculous accusations. that we just give your viewers some understanding. i grew up right here in cincinnati, grew up in public housing in the early part of my childhood. andad was a world war ii there was a housing shortage when he came back and we moved into market housing, was educated here in public schools, and then went on to the university, where not only did i and academicessor -- excuse me, administrator of the vice president level, but i served on the board of trustees at xavier and as a consequence, grew up being an advocate for

changing the cycle of poverty that 70 people were locked into. being a strong advocate for life, got elected to sydney council, became mayor of the city, and then was elected treasurer and secretary of state . in between those, i was a secretary with my buddy jack kemp and i was a u.s. ambassador to the united nations, as i mentioned before, the human rights commission. look, and all of my collections, people understood that i was an elected official running with a party affiliation, and i was not i was theublican, conservative republican and became the first african-american elected to a statewide office in the history of ohio. as a consequence of that, i in

fact was true to my principles, true to my party and i was successful. race foro in the 2006, but i have stayed engaged in the political process working with public policy groups like the family research council, and i stand in the public square as a defender of religious liberty, small government, and free enterprise. i served on the boards of the national rifle association and the club for growth and the national taxpayers association, and in honor of my father, i am proud to be a member of the board of trustees of the world war ii museum in new orleans, so have always had political opposition, people who

disagree with me politically, religiously and so on, but that is what america is all about, the enable to compete, win, lose , get up, dust yourself off and win again. folks barkingd to being concerned, -- myis is what i know dad used to tell me, dogs did not bark at parked cars, so you stay on the move and do what you can with what you have and where you are. bill onr next caller is the line for evangelicals in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. to blackwell, i am afraid say this, but what you are doing is sickening. you are trying to get religious people like myself to abandon

their morals, abandoned their values, abandon god and vote for a guy like donald trump. the guy that i see making fun of a disabled person. he says he cannot get a fair trial because his judges mexican. that is sickening. i will not put the republican party ahead of my morals and values and that is what i need to say. host: let me add to that the voice of shawn king from "the new york post" who writes "to see these men and women who claim to be ambassadors for the trump.sed clearlyrabbi's do not represent morals or decency. donald trump is the antitheses of all of those things." what is your reaction to that quote and the call? guest: that is fascinating.

like i said to you earlier, it is about choices. let's talk about our choices. we had donald trump, who is not the perfect candidate, who we are basically slow walk in, but we have another choice and that is hillary clinton, who we do know a lot about. we know that she is in support of abortion on demand. we know that she is trying to trample on the religious liberty of those a bus to practice christianity in our life. we in fact know that this is a gross that has shown incompetence when it comes to protecting the national security of our country. here is a woman who in fact once america to become a nation without borders, and as a consequence, we now find an

america that is at risk. we see a woman who wants to expand the welfare state as opposed to creating a growing where we are producing jobs, giving people a way to get off of dependency of government, so i have to make a choice. i know it hillary clinton is. i know what she professes that she wants to do. she once to be that their term of barack obama, where we now have one of the lowest labor participation rates in our recent history. we see that our debt is $19 trillion and growing, and one of the things that we know about that is that when government continues to get a good and take her and the welfare state close, we chase capital and opportunity

out of the country. that is what we have $2 trillion of capital sitting on the fence because those owners of those dollars to not want to have them unfairly taxed, so they will take them someplace else where it is a better tax plan. as a consequence, we are seeing anemic economic growth and as a consequence, more and more americans are falling out of the workplace. look, give me a break. .e is not a perfect candidate i am slow walking might embrace of him, being very critical, inspecting every aspect of what he stands for, but i know it hillary clinton stands for. in fact, that is more antithetical to the interest of bible believing christians, who want to practice their faith in the public square. he is a default candidate. i would like to meet to be able

to be enthusiastically supportive of him because of what he is for and what he is demonstrating he is for, but i have no question about whether or not he is a better choice for the future of america than hillary clinton. host: let's get to another called. forink that graphic was "the new york post [indiscernible] from chicago, how are you doing? caller: can you give me a couple of seconds? i listen to mr. blackwell said he know what hillary clinton is about, but donald trump tell you every day what he is about. he says he once to destroy isil and if he cannot get to the men leading isil, he wants to go to their children, kids and wives. you talk about evangelical, but if you go to that rivaled, it's -- go to that bible, it says thou shall not kill.

muslims have arrived to believe that faith they believe in, just like christians have a right, but to a parallel between the two. use a muslims chop off people's heads, gouge their eyes out, kill them. let's go back. probably some of your people have run up on these atrocities. back in america, christians, not muslims, in the 1960's, quite christians on the way to church throw bombs at black people's houses because they were black. if they did not buy -- if they did not die from the bombs, they shot them coming out the front door. thinking black men from trees, skinning them, laughing about it, standing on the trees. are barbaric for doing that, what do you call christians? simply with is not the bible because he said corinthians. how can he be so christian but they get on tv and talk about different people?

host: thank you for calling. we went to get ken blackwell's reaction. questionsk, no one the history of america. lincoln said, we are not a perfect nation, but we are a professed abomination. we went from those periods she described to electing the first african-american president. in many -- in many countries, that would not be possible because of hardened prejudices and ideologies. , i startedof the day out by saying, i have no reservation about defending somebody's constitutional rights to be theologically in disagreement with me or theologically wrong, so that is where i am. notve in fact worked with

only donald trump, but with other republican candidates, to make sure that they zero in on what is a direct threat, and islamic jihadists, islamic terrorists are a direct threat. if you are not able to say that, there's no way you will be able to come there. mr. blackwell, let's take another caller from michelle in wisconsin. good morning. morning.ood i am calling because i am having a hard time understanding why the republican party and the in village eligible voters -- republican party and the evangelical voters have a hard time keeping church and state separate? i have my religious police and idle push them off on anybody else. yet, republicans who are

evangelicals who want the evangelical voters, they tend to cater to them without reservation for other people's religious believes. attack. planned parenthood, i did not have insurance at the time, this with years ago. women cares,re for and they were the ones that fell my cervical cancer. it was already at stage four. i had just treatment and everything that they helped me through and they were very supportive. host: and what is your question? why themy question is evangelicals believe their religious beliefs be upheld over everybody else's.

i have my religious beliefs, and yet, my religious police get trampled on. host: thank you very much. callerguest: i will say for thed time that i will defend everyone 's constitutional right, even if they are wrong. remember the american experience of those who would just come here from england where the state and church were one. a notion that you separate and state and you elevate religious freedom, that means that families can practice their religion in the public square in the place of business. when that sort of practice of faith becomes under direct attack by activist courts at all

levels, i think organizations like the family research council , are important as being those who will shine their light in the dark corners of the sort of thing. parenthood and the services that this woman god, i ate -- the services that this woman got, -- when you have an organization that has been demonstrated to sell baby parts, that is a practice that needs to be condemned, and in fact, we need to make sure there is no public dollars, incredible dollars we need to make sure there are no public dollars going to that organization. we need to make sure taxpayer dollars are not used to harvest baby parts and kill babies. int: let's hear from andy

north carolina. caller: i want to make a couple anpoints if i could about article about trump versus cruz. mr. blackwell, i wonder if you saw the article toddled -- article titled "evangelical christians are selling out." talking about how evil evangelical christians are. i am glad you read that. i would like you to respond. it makes a lot of good points that they have this cynical subordination of faith and politics. how eager they are to be exploited. he talks about them being on the wrong side of history in the civil rights era and how they are doing it again today. it is not about putting christ

back into christmas, it is about putting christ back into christian. there is a whole lot to that. there is a whole life christians need to look at. trump,o the cruz versus there is a lot to that. trump is basically just an bigot, and it shows with the evangelical christian's values are. they did not hold any deeply held religion. they went with the candidate that least represents christianity, including hillary. and how he could be your default choice, i do not understand. he is the least christian of all the candidates. maybe he might show a pandering

attempt to defend christianity, which he has nothing to do with. principleyour overall of protecting all religious liberties, clearly he is not prepared to do that. host: thanks for calling. . we understand the point -- we understand the point. let me talk about this headline from a recent poll that says donald trump is not generating zeal. do you sense that? do you agree with that? guest: absolutely. that is why i found the last caller's comments to be fascinating and best, and ludicrous at least. look, evangelicals are not monolithic. all of the indications are that folks who went to church regularly and labeled themselves

as evangelical, actually did vote more for ted cruz then donald trump. but elections are about choices and the people spoke through those elections. now i have to take a look at who donald trump is up against. veryichael's article is fascinating to me because is he suggesting that we go for years, clinton, for 25 has demonstrated that she is willing to wage war on the traditional family? there are those of us who believe that the traditional family is the incubator of liberty. her attacks against on life come on family, -- on life, on family, and all religious liberty.

a greats article was academic piece, but michael now has to tell me that he is going to vote for johnson, the independent, or hillary over trump. his he has to weigh conscious because we do know the measurable works of hillary clinton against those issues that are important to us as we go forward. host: do you think fundamentally donald trump is pro-life? fundamentally he has evolved into a position that is pro-life. terms of where i am in the exceptions. he has more exceptions apparently than i do. , i have to look at him against the other choice. johnsonr two choices of

and clinton, and by all measures, he becomes a logical choice for those who want to defend life. most notably because he, and fact, has put out a list of judges that would in fact defend life and get us off of this track that we are drifting towards of being more and more anti-life, and empire religious liberty. .ost: let's hear from caleb caller: good morning. mr. blackwell. vet a muslim without using a religious standard? what doesn't mean to how we should view the separation of church and state? thank you. actuallyll, look, you

process,screening which we were woefully lacking. you look a geographical areas. you look at organizational affiliations. matter, a question of, it is a question of activity and behavior and association from a particular geographical area that is known for its harvesting of jihadists terrorists, period. lenka from santa monica health area -- santa monica, california. are you there? caller: yes. in regard to color from before -- in regard to the caller from before, i feel for her.

now. am talking about because heing trump had dr. james dobson blessing --and he is a christian. we know that for sure. for the last eight years, it is been totally chaos, ok. glad thatell, i am so i was able to hear him. dr. james dobson, focus on the family founder. he is definitely a christian. trump.sed

blessing, ii's looked at that. we don't want the same things. hillary is not going to protect isis, killing, our beautiful men and talking their heads off walking on the beach, with and tied in the back --with hands tied up in the back. i can't stand it. and they are killing children and women and putting churches on fire. that is what i'm saying. donald trump is going to protect us with that situation. i am in favor also to not have

them coming into our country. i came to america when i was 18. and i have always been in love with jesus. host: lenka,, thank you for calling. we are running out of time with ken blackwell. james thompson, the founder of focus on the family. here is a little bit of dr. dobson on the screen. we were reading about donald trump's conversion in his face. what have you heard about this? is it something that you noted? what does it all mean? read the comments of dr. dobson, who was in one of the smaller meetings with donald trump. he might have been on a one-on-one session with mr. trump.

as a consequence, he has walked is abelieving that trump born-again evangelical, or christian. i haven't been able to witness that. the family research council are concerned about the advancement of public policies that strengthen the family, advance religious liberty, so we of candidatesst to make sureffs they have the right policy prescription. that they know where to advance protection of religious liberty. at the same time, that they also know how to get government out of our lives, making decisions their moms and dads should be making, as opposed to the government.

and providing us with alternative forms of education, cleansedfact, we have our children's education to any reference of faith. that is what we have concentrated on, our public policy issues and matters. and again, when you start to weigh up his prescriptions and policies versus what she has in fact been advocating for 25 years in the public square at the national level, we see a clear choice. basicallyk dr. dotson , any broader context, is saying his policy of prescriptions and the policies, that he is advancing a more consistent -- that he is advancing our more consistent of the interests of evangelical christians and lovers of liberty in general the hillary clinton. one more lesst

call from pete in california. caller: good morning. i would like to say, first of at, with trump -- you look what any independent ranking shows is that trump will be much worse on the deficit then hillary clinton. the other thing is i find it ironic the organization that mr. blackwell is with is called and most of them have family values and mr. trump does not have family values. finally, i have a question for mr. blackwell. what does hes think about donald trump questioning hillary clinton's

faith? he said she never mentioned anything about religion. it is well known she is a methodist. she says that in her biography. is religious freedom questioning someone else's faith? host: pete, you put a lot on the table. any reaction to that caller? guest: the family research council is a 501(c)(3) organization. we advance policies and that our constituents and followers judge how candidates look against the policies that we advance. now, within individuals of the are individual, political rights.

in terms of hillary clinton's , i fundamentally don't questionher faith, i whether or not her public policy pronouncement further religious ethic, ande pro-life defense of the natural and traditional family in america. on all of those fronts, i can see her positions the antithetical. so you question those public policy pronouncements. i am not here and nor should donald trump question her face. -- question her faith. host: ken blackwell has been our guest. he is in cincinnati, ohio. he was mayor of canady and

treasurer and secretary of state. he is now senior fellow at the family research council. mr. blackwell, thanks a lot for taking >> loretta lynch said today she would accept any recommendations rosters make about bringing chargers about hillary clinton's use of private e-mail to the government business. here is some of what the attorney general said. mr. capehart: you have the having goodf being

judgment, integrity, utmost, solid judgment. so when people heard what went down in phoenix, a lot of people were like, backers were saying, what on earth was she thinking, talking to bill clinton? what on earth were you thinking? what happened? attorney general lynch: that is a question that is called by what happened in phoenix because people have also wondered and raised questions about my role in the ultimate resolution of matters involving the investigation of the state department e-mails. to the extent people have questions about that, my meeting with him raises questions and concerns. believe me, i completely get that question. and i think it is the question of the day. the issue is again, what is my role in how that matter is going to be resolved? let me be clear on how that will be resolved.

i have gotten that question a lot over time, and we usually do not go into those deliberations, but it is important people see what that process is like. as i had indicated the matter is , being handled by career agents and investigators with the department of justice. they have had it since the beginning. mr. capehart: which predates your tenure. attorney general lynch: they are acting independently. they follow the law, the facts. that team will make findings, will come up with a chronology. the factual scenario. they will make recommendations how to resolve what those facts lead to. the recommendations will be reviewed by career supervisors in the department of justice and the fbi and by the fbi director. and then they presented to me, and i fully expect to accept their recommendations. mr. capehart: you "fully expect to accept" the recommendations. one thing people were saying

this morning when the news broke was that you were recusing yourself from having any kind of role in the final determination. is that the case? is that what you are saying? attorney general lynch: recusal would mean that i would not be briefed on what the findings would be. while i do not have a role in making those recommendations, how to go forward, i will be briefed on it, and i will be accepting their recommendations. mr. capehart: when you say -- this must be the journalist and linguist in me -- accepting means here, madam attorney general, here are our findings, and you accept them and issue them to the public, or you accept them, look them over, and make your determination as to what the final determination will be? attorney general lynch: no, the final determination will be

contained in the report and in whatever report they provide to me. there will be a review of the investigations, what they had found, and it will be their determination how they feel the case should proceed. mr. capehart: when you say there will be a review, the review will be done by you once you accept the recommendations and determinations -- attorney general lynch: i am talking about how this case will be resolved. this will be resolved by the team that worked on it from the beginning. supervisors always review matters. in this case supervisors will be , career people in the department of justice, and the fbi will review it, including the fbi director, and that will be of the finalization of the

factual findings and the next steps. >> next, white house press secretary josh earnest. mr. earnest: good afternoon, everybody. happy friday. i do not have any announcements, so we can go to your questions. kathleen, you want to start? >> to start with, any update on the -- [indiscernible] to confirm the report or stand behind it? mr. earnest: i have seen the reports. i am not in any position to confirm them at this point. this is a turkish investigation. u.s. officials are devoting time and energy and attention to learning what we can about this incident, and when we have information that could be useful to turkish investigators, we will share with them. i do not have an updated assessment.

>> so was chairman off base or -- the administration or -- mr. earnest: i have seen some of his comments, but you would have to ask him or his staff about the nature of them. >> and i wanted to talk more about the attorney general's comments about her meeting with president clinton. mr. earnest: i suspected that you might. >> says she fully expects to accept the recommendations of the investigators. if that is the case, should she refuse herself entirely to avoid any insinuation of impropriety there? and is the white house involved in the conversation at all? mr. earnest: the white house and the president were not at all involved in that decision. i will leave it to the attorney general to describe the role that she will play in the

process of the department of justice will undertake as they conduct this investigation. the president's expectation is this investigation will be handled just like all the others, which is the investigators will be guided by the facts, they will follow the evidence, and they will reach a conclusion based on that evidence, and nothing else. that is the president's expectation about how this should be handled. i think the attorney general in her most recent comments indicated that was her expectation about how this will be handled, but i will leave it to her to describe what role she will play and what process the department of justice will follow in conducting this investigation. >> she said she understood that the meeting had cast a shadow on the investigation. do you think that now that shadow is lifted? mr. earnest: i did not attend the meeting.

i will let her describe the meeting, and if it has had any impact on the investigation, i will let her describe that as well. this is something that is being handled completely independent of the president and completely independent of the white house. >> to follow up, you said you have not have a chance to speak with the president. have you had a sense that he is frustrated about this issue and that that meeting took place? mr. earnest: i have not raised this with the president, so i have not discussed this particular piece of news with him. but what i feel confident in telling you, even though i have not discussed it with him, he believes this matter should be handled without regard to politics, and he believes this investigation should be conducted based on facts, not based on the political affiliation or the political standing of anybody who may be involved in it. that is the way these kinds of investigations have been handled in the past. it is the way these kinds of

investigations have been handled throughout president obama's in tenure in office, and there is an expectation of how these kinds of investigation should be handled in the future. >> does that suggest you would be supportive of her decision as she has articulated that she will accept the recommendation of the fbi and not -- mr. earnest: the president feels strongly that is a decision she should make without regard to his opinion about it. these are independent decisions that should be handled by the department of justice, and it is appropriate for the attorney general to determine what her role is. she has spoken to that today, and that is appropriate for her to do, and, frankly, my view of that matter or the president's view of that matter is not relevant. this is an independent investigation that is intentionally being shielded from any sort of political interference.

>> moving on to next week, the president will be campaigning with secretary clinton on tuesday. can you give us a sense of the message that he intends to bring to that? will he have any more to say about bernie sanders, and how will he be trying to attract voters for her in that state? mr. earnest: i do not think anything the president says on tuesday will be a particular surprise to those of you who have been covering the president for a long time. the president obviously has had an opportunity to evaluate secretary clinton, both when they were competing against one another on the campaign trail, but also when she was serving this country as secretary of state under president obama. over the years, the president has developed a deep appreciation for her toughness under fire and her commitment to a set of values that the president shares. so those attributes, that

character, those values are principally the reason the president believes she is the best person to succeed him in the oval office. those are the reasons the president has decided to support her campaign. and i think that will be the essence of the case he will make on tuesday in charlotte. >> lastly, there is a ruling in austria today allowing for a rerun of a presidential election there, giving the far-right party another chance at trying to achieve office. are you concerned about that ruling, or is the white house more broadly concerned about the rise of the far right in europe? mr. earnest: i did not see the

news about the ruling, so i will take that news without question. i think the president has spoken more generally about the question that voters around the world will have to face it terms of how countries will engage in the world. the austrian people will make their own decisions about who should lead to their country, but politicians in austria certainly have a strong case to make about the way their country has benefited from engaging with their partners and allies across the continent of europe. the president has certainly made a strong case about how the usa has benefited, economically and from the security perspective, when it comes to our engagement with the world. and whether that is trade agreements that expand economic opportunity for american workers and american businesses, or national security alliances that keep us safe, the united states benefits from using our influence and using our advantages to advance our interests around the world. that has certainly been true over the course of this presidency, and he believes that -- president obama certainly

believes that his successor is somebody who should continue that strategy. >> can i ask about report we're are getting on drone strikes and the executive order the president is planning to order along with it. why the need for some greater clarity and rules on drone strikes, and does the president think the numbers show too many civilian deaths, or more than he was expecting? mr. earnest: mark, i cannot speak to the specific numbers. i anticipate the office of dni will have news to make on this relatively shortly. so they will have some context to present alongside those numbers, but i will not speak to them at this point. i also anticipate there will be some news later today on steps that the president believes would be useful in ensuring the counterterrorism strategy that

he has put in place is one that continues to be transparent and durable going forward. the president believes that our counterterrorism strategy is effective and has more credibility when we are as transparent as possible. there obviously are limitations for transparency when it comes to matters as sensitive as this, but the fact is these operations that will be the substance of an announcement later today are the kinds of operations that just a couple years ago we would not even confirm existed. and it is an indication of how far we have come, that we are

now in a position where we are describing a process for making decisions about these kinds of operations and being rather transparent with the, not just the american public, but with the world, about the outcome of those operations, even when the outcome is not entirely consistent with our intentions, because the truth is the united states goes farther than is even required by international law to avoid civilian casualties. that is a start contrast to the k contrast tostar the adversary we face that seeks to maximize civilian casualties to advance their narrative. the united states on the other hand those at great lengths to avoid those kinds of casualties, and when we fall short or when those efforts are not as successful as we would like, the president it is important for us

to be as transparent as possible about those results. and in doing so, that may mean there will be a little bit of negative press coverage in the short term, but over the long term it will build the kind of credibility that is critical to the ongoing success of these efforts. >> by issuing the guidelines with these numbers, is the president acknowledging there were instances where civilian deaths or the possibility of civilian deaths were not properly taken into account in making targeting decisions? mr. earnest: i think the architecture that the president plans to discuss later today, and by that i mean i do not interested the president will make test will be making a statement later today, but information that we will release on paper from the president later today -- i just do not want to ruin everybody's afternoon plans, so consider that a public service announcement. the point is the president believes it is important to put an architecture in place that reflects the kinds of reforms that this administration has implemented to ensure that proper steps are taken to avoid civilian casualties and to ensure that the operations that are undertaken are consistent with our national security goals.

you will recall that when president obama took office, drone technology was relatively new. and again, it was something that was not discussed from this podium, and there were a lot of legitimate policy questions about how this new technology and this new tool could be used to protect the american people. and there is an extraordinary amount of work that has been done, not just over the last two or three years, but over the last 7 1/2 years, to organize an architecture for making decisions about how to use this technology. and how to use this tool to enhance the safety and security of the american people. this is a tool this administration and this president has used frequently in a way that has had a devastating impact on the ability of terrorists to establish a safe

haven and use the safety of that safe haven to plot against the united states and our interests. so this is a powerful tool, one that it has been used to great effect and one that makes the american people safe. but the president believes it is important for us to establish a structure to guide how that tool is used, not just for the remainder of this administration, but into the next one, and also to establish a regular mechanism for bringing some transparency to those efforts. and that includes at least some transparency around those occasions when the outcome is not as good as we expected. >> not to belabor the point, is not the issuance of these guidelines implying some regret about the way things have

transpired to date? mr. earnest: i think this will be a easier conversation for us to have once you have seen these guidelines. this is what it is important. the guidelines said rb on steps -- the guidelines go far beyond the steps to prevent civilian casualties, that there are a host of other questions that are raised about with this technology and when this tool can be used in an appropriate and effective way. so certainly the question of civilian casualties is a critically important one, both for moral reasons and for legitimate policy reasons, too, and that will be discussed in the language that you will see, and the report that is issued by the dni will illustrate a greater transparency we are bringing to this. i also do not want to overpromise because not all the questions will be answered by the material that is presented, and i think that is an indication how difficult it is to be transparent about matters

that are this sensitive. but i think it would difficult to deny the remarkable progress that has been made has been made over even just the last couple years where we have gone from refusing to confirm these kinds of operations are taking place to now disclosing proactively not just the fact that they have taken place, but to chronicle some of the outcomes, including those that are negative. >> speaking of negative outcomes, why not include afghan and iraq and syria in the numbers we're going to see? mr. earnest: yes, because we will have a more robust explanation of this, but let me take a shot here. operations that are carried out by the department of defense already have a regular mechanism for disclosing the results of those operations. so you regularly get news

releases, for example, from central command detailing individual operations that take place in iraq, for example. and there have been a number of situations where the department of defense, after a careful analysis, has disclosed there were civilian casualties associated with individual operations. so there is a mechanism for doing that when operations are carried out by the department of defense. when there are counterterrorism operations carried out not by the department of defense, there was not an established mechanims for reporting the outcome, and that is what is being established today, and that is what will be reported for the first time today. >> so if i am understanding you, the things that are in title 50 would all begin to be moved into title 10, which is more standard in recognizing and releasing

information about the certain strikes. is that your understanding? mr. earnest: for technical questions, we will be able to talk about this a little bit more today. but the point is operations considered out by defense already have a mechanism for public reporting, both in terms of specific operations that are undertaken and the battlefield assessment that is done with regard to those operations. they also have a mechanism reporting in those rare instances where civilian casualties, that we go to great lengths to avoid, are nonetheless sustained. so there is a mechanism for transparency that is built into the department of defense process. there has not heretofore been a process for disclosing specifics around counterterrorism operations that are not carried out by the department of defense. >> that would fall under title 50? mr. earnest: well, again, i have said -- >> got you.

quick on hillary -- will she be riding on air force one? mr. earnest: i do not have details about the arrangements were to take him that we will keep you posted. you can check with her campaign to check how she will the getting to charlotte. the president will be riding air force one to get to charlotte. >> fair enough. during the brexit controversy, if you want to call it that, advisor rice talked about contingency plans and things that happen, and i am just curious if the white house has made a contingency plan in the event that secretary clinton were to be criminally indicted. mr. earnest: again, not that i am aware of. i am not really sure what impact that specifically would have on any specific policy around here. >> would the president then say, encourage someone else to run for the nomination, if that happened? mr. earnest: that is a hypothetical situation. i will not get into that. >> last thing, you talked about an indication of how far we have come in disclosing not just

often what has happened, unfortunately, as it relates to drone strikes. is it fair to say that you are satisfied along the continuum in this presidency in terms of disclosure, in terms of using the mechanisms as you have them to inform the american people and indeed the world when you have utilized drone strikes? mr. earnest: again, we have made remarkable progress in both establishing an architecture for making smart policy decisions about when to use this incredibly powerful counterterrorism tool, and part of that architecture also includes the extraordinary lengths that this administration goes to -- and our national security professionals go to

to avoid civilian casualites. that seems in stark contrast to our our adversaries who seek to capitalize on civilian casualties to demonstrate their strength, when in fact it demonstrates they are cowards. what is true is we are talking about technology and a capability that in many cases is unique to the united states. but i think what is also true is we are going to greater lengths in our commitment to transparency when disclosing this kind of information is also unique to the united states. and it is something the president believes build a of credibility into our broader national security efforts, but also adds credibility to our efforts to go after terrorists. i think i would just add that none of this capacity would exist and it would not be used so effectively were it not for the skill, professionalism, and courage of our national security professionals. these are men and women who do

not seek the spotlight. these are men and women who in some cases even when we are trying to be as transparent as possible were not able to discuss them or their activities. but as we prepare to enter the fourth of july weekend, i think it merits at least some time spent to expressing our deep appreciation for their courage and their professionalism and their patriotism in keeping our country safe. and it has been patriots like these individuals over the course of generations that have allowed us to establish the greatest country on earth. >> last one for me, did the president have occasion to speak with the attorney general since the much-talked-about meeting with president clinton? has he had a conversation with her? i know she has made public comments. i presume you watched them this morning as well.

have they had a phone call? mr. earnest: i am not aware of any conversations that they have had in the last couple of days. michelle? >> do you agree with the attorney general having that meeting was not a good idea now? mr. earnest: i am not going to second-guess or go for my back-seat-driving here. i will let the attorney general speaks to her schedule and to her handling of the significant responsibilities that she has. >> even though she has come out and said it, she said she would not do this again because of the shadow that is cast. isn't that something the white house agrees with that this has turned into a couple of days of debate over it? mr. earnest: i will let the attorney general speak to that. >> it is a question of judgment, though, isn't it, and the decision to sit down for that 30 minutes or however long it was. isn't that something you would be concerned about, that the judgment and what it means to --

mr. earnest: i think when it comes to judgment, i think there is no quarreling with the 30-year history that loretta lynch has established as a highly competent, highly successful, thorough prosecutor. she is somebody who has prosecuted democratic and republican public officials for corruption. she is somebody who has broken up organized crime rings. she is somebody who has held accountable some of the largest financial institutions on wall street to make sure that the interests of middle-class families are protected. she did that work as the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york, and that is work she has continued to do even as the attorney general, both in terms of fighting corruption in the most powerful international athletic institution in the world, as well as continuing the important work to fight medicare fraud and make sure that taxpayer dollars that are dedicated to the health and well-being of our senior

citizens is wisely spent and that unscrupulous administrators, scammers, are not able to get away with it. so she is somebody who is remarkably tenacious. she is somebody who handles her responsibilities consistent with the values that are enshrined in our constitution and consistent with the president's expectations about what the attorney general of the united states should do. >> do you not then quarrel with her saying that was a bad idea? mr. earnest: again, i will let her render judgment on that. >> ok, and on the drone report before numbers some , groups are questioning how the numbers would be a right that, because in the past, estimates on the ground or from ngo's are larger. so what would you say about the effort that was made to find out really how many were killed? mr. earnest: well, the goal of

being transparent as possible is to settle on numbers that are as accurate as possible, and i will let the director of national intelligence discuss how exactly do numbers that they present were arrived at, and once they have had the opportunity to do that, everyone will have the opportunity to evaluate -- they will have the opportunity to evaluate how successfully these kinds of operations are. >> do you acknowledge there is a possibility that this number, whatever it will be, was not able to account for every death? i'm assuming there is some threshold of verifiability -- mr. earnest: i will let the director of national intelligence speak to this because they are numbers that they have worked on. >> is it possible that the actual number would be higher than these numbers mr. earnest: again, i will let the director of national intelligence speak to it. alex? >> you said the president feels this investigation with attorney

general lynch should be handled without regard to politics, but doesn't her announcement this morning mean that politics did rear its head here? mr. earnest: no, i do not think so. i think -- again, the president continues to believe it is critically important for people across the country to have confidence in our justice system at large. and for generations, our country has followed a tradition making sure that our justice system is not used to benefit or exact revenge against american citizens based on their political affiliation. a core principle of the united states constitution is that the rule of law is paramount and that everyone, including the president of united states, is

subject to the rule of all, and that people are treated under the law that same, regardless of whether they are famous, regardless of who their supporters are, regardless of which political party they are in, and this is an important principle, one that the president believes is worth fighting for. his attorney general has said the same thing, and we continue to be confident that is what she will do. what exactly her role is in that process or what exactly the process will be as it is implemented by the department of justice is something they should answer. >> so it is the view that her announcement this morning was any way related to the airplane meeting? mr. earnest: again, i will let -- i think it is pretty obvious that is exactly what she was discussing today, but i will let her words speak for themselves. >> on zia, we did a poll this week where 73% of the public

that they are ok with the level of the administration of the funding proposal, but only 46% said it should be approved immediately. does the administration feel they should do anything differently to instill this kind of urgency in the public? mr. earnest: i think this the kind of question that frankly should be more important than politics. what we have here is a public health emergency, and that is not just a phrase i am using by accident or even a phrase i have coined. this is what our top health professionals say about the situation. and this is an emergency the president and these public health officials identified five months ago. and over the course of that time, we have seen very little movement from the united states congress. and this does raise significant questions about the republican leadership in congress. republicans spent hundreds of

millions of dollars, spent days and days, if not weeks or months, on the campaign trail, making the case to the american public about why they deserve to wield the authority that is exercised by the majority in congress. now, presumably they did that because they had an agenda they wanted to advance. there is little evidence they have an agenda or that they succeeded in advancing it. but we can have that discussion, if you would like. i would like to, but i will leave the it up to you guys decide that. that also comes with a set of responsibilities. one of our responsibilities is making sure our countries and governments' top health care professionals have the tools and resources they need to do

everything possible to protect the american people, including our most vulnerable populations, like pregnant women and newborn children. and republicans in congress have utterly failed to fulfill that responsibility. i do not know exactly how they are going to account for that, but they have some explaining to do, and i will not be surprised if it is the subject of some discussion around the country, while they are enjoying their fourth of july recess. the president feels a sense of urgency around this, and that is what you heard the president say earlier today that before congress embarks on their nearly two-month-long summer recess, that they will fulfill this responsibility. so the president has had some conversations with congressional leaders in the last 24 hours about this. i anticipate he will have additional conversations with congressional leaders in the days ahead, but the

responsibility rests with congress. this administration has put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations the president has received from top public health professionals, a proposal that we forwarded to congress more than four months ago. it is time for republicans in congress to fulfill their responsibility and make sure our public health professionals have the resources they need to have everything possible to protect the american public from the zika virus. ok, chris. >> the pentagon yesterday lifted the ban on transgender serving in the armed forces. has the white house been moving toward that come or was that in terms of the pentagon? mr. earnest: this is something that secretary of defense carter decided to review. he announced a few months ago that he wanted to take a look at this policy. at that point he described the policy as outdated. so he conducted this review consistent with the priority he has placed on making sure that our department of defense and our armed forces are ready and well prepared to defend the country.

he has come to the conclusion the best way to do that is to update this outdated policy. this is a review he conducted on his own. this is a decision he made. it is one that is supported by the commander in chief. >> it sounds like he did not have a specific role in moving forward with the decision of the trigger on -- [indiscernible] mr. earnest: again, the secretary of defense has the responsibility and assumes responsibility to conduct this review, and obviously the president and secretary of defense have had an opportunity to discuss it, but this is a review that was conducted by the secretary of defense, and he did so focused on the priority he places on military readiness. and he made an observation that is consistent with the president's view, which is that our country and our military is

best served when everybody who is qualified to serve in our military has an opportunity to do so. that means our military can draw on the rich diversity of this country, the skills that everybody has in this country, to protect it. and we should be giving everybody who has a talent or a skill and a commitment to this country the opportunity to use it in service to this country in the military, if they are qualified to do so. >> a future administration hostile to transgender military service could reverse it. does the change yesterday underscored the risks to lgbt right in the upcoming election? mr. earnest: i will let voters make their determinations about this. the president and secretary of defense agree on this principle, and both men believe it enhances our national security to live up to this principle.

so, frankly, this is not a decision that is rooted in politics. this is rooted in a decision that is more important, which is the national security of the united states. >> there is a judge enjoining the enforcement of the mississippi law, the obama administration was reviewing that law. is the review now on hold? mr. earnest: chris, this individual law is subject of ongoing litigation. so somewhat limited in what i can say about it. what i can just say in general is that these types of laws raise a number of difficult legal and policy questions, and what happens in the courts in these cases will inform our assessment of these laws and their implications. speaking more generally, you have heard the president say on a number of occasions that he

pretty strongly disagrees with laws that are focused on taking away the rights of law-abiding americans. we should be more focused on protecting the rights and expanding the rights and enhancing the right of law-abiding americans. it is a principle the president has been guided by throughout his tenure in public service. it has also been a principle that has guided his assessment of laws that are passed at the state and local levels as well. >> [indiscernible] a law like the one you just spoke about is on the books in north carolina. will president obama speak out in opposition to that law in charlotte next week -- mr. earnest: i do not have

detailed remarks to preview at this point, but i can tell you the focus of the president's remarks in charlotte will be on secretary clinton and his view that she has the character, the toughness, skills, and experience to succeed him as president of the united states. margaret? >> were the leaders of the countries where these drone strikes took place briefed on these disclosures? mr. earnest: there are significant and dramatic implications for this kind of transparency, and it goes to the questions mark was raising about how challenging it is to be transparent when you are dealing matters that are as sensitive as this one. there certainly was a diplomatic effort to communicate with our allies and partners about this information.

>> did they wait in come in, for was of a better term -- there a two-way communication given how sensitive it is, given oftentimes countries do not really want to be acknowledging that america is bombing their own citizens? mr. earnest: we are going to factor in concerns raised by our allies and particularly our closest partners. but i am not able to the substance of any conversations the united states had with counterparts around the world. the state department they provide additional insight on that, but i have not been briefed on any individual conversations. >> but based on the architecture that the administration's trying to shape here, that you are talking about, took some of that into consideration? mr. earnest: sure, we certainly are aware of the way these kinds of operations have an impact on the operations can and we are

talking about how our close partners of the united states, then their opinion matters. but the architecture that we have established is one that is consistent with our national security interests and with our values. and it was the result of a lot of painstaking work that has been done the last seven years. the president inherited this powerful tool that we were just beginning to understand, and our professionals were just beginning to understand how powerful it is and what the consequences of its use could be. so i bring this up not to criticize the previous administration, but rather to an administration, but rather to illustrate how dramatically our counterterrorism capacity has been enhanced over the last seven or eight years.

and that has challenged our policy process to ensure that that new and highly effective tool is effectively used consistent with our national security objectives, but also consistent with our values, and that work that has been underway for quite some time, and that is something that the establishment of this architecture is something that the next president will benefit from. >> any chance we'll get similar disclosures on the other powerful tool, cyber? mr. earnest: again, i think that is a different policy area, but it is another example of the way that our nation's capabilities and vulnerabilities have developed. and there is a similar set of

questions that could be asked about this policy area, too. i think what i would say about that is when it comes to cyber security and our cyber capabilities and the policymaking around that, it is not as developed as these questions about our counterterrorism capabilities. but there certainly is appropriate time and attention that is focused on them as well. >> quickly, the president heads to nato next week. vladimir putin today say he wants to start a dialogue with nato though they are pushing to close russian borders. is there any plan to change the agenda, have any kind of outreach to russia as the president heads to nato?

mr. earnest: i am not aware of any conversations in the nato context that are planned with russia. but, look, what is true is the united states has a wide ranging and extraordinarily complex relationship with russia. and we have talked about at various times in this briefing room about the way we have been able to successfully work together, for example, to isolate north korea, to eliminate chemical weapons from syria, and even to reach an international agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. each of these things are priorities. each of these things have significant consequences for the national security of the united states.

and in each instance, we have been able to coordinate effectively with russians to advance our shared interests. there have been a variety of situations in which our interest -- interests are not shared, in which we have had to give in concerns with russians, with russian behavior. particularly as it relates to the situation in ukraine, which is a subject of heightened concern in europe. so the point -- what i'm trying to get around here, simply that the united and even nato will continue to have an open line of dialogue russia about a wide range of issues. but what is also true is the united states and our alliance with nato is critical to our national security. and the united looking for ways to invest more deeply and deepen our cooperation with our nato allies, and that will be the

subject of discussion when the president travels to poland next week. >> you said nothing planned in terms of speaking to russia about the proposal for dialogue, right? mr. earnest: i did not see exactly what president putin was suggesting, making it hard to get your question, what the -- question, but in the context of the nato summit, i am not aware of any specific or prominent russian role or negotiations that would be started. >> lastly, attorney general lynch said she wished she knew where the lock on the plane door was in hindsight. mr. earnest: i did not see that part for discussion. >> she wished eric holder had given her that. it was a joke, but one you would agree with? mr. earnest: i will let her speak to that particular situation. i was not there, so i will let her describe exactly what

happened and what she thinks about it. >> it suggests she was an unwilling recipient of a guest who boarded her plane? mr. earnest: that is what it suggests, but if that is what she intended, you should ask her. ok. >> does the drone strike report contain definition of what a civilian is? mr. earnest: stay tuned. >> human rights groups are saying u.s. has changed definition of what a civilian is over the past several years. can you confirm that? mr. earnest: i cannot. i will let you have an opportunity to take a look at these materials for yourself, that is the point of this whole exercise here. >> whether the u.s. has changed its definition of what a civilian is over the seven years that this report covers -- will that be in there? mr. earnest: you can take a look

at the report when it is released, and i will take a look at that report yourself. how does this benefit the conditions you are supporting? i talked about this a little bit yesterday. our position from yesterday have not changed. and it's got a bit about what our view is. for quiteen saying some time that the united states ,ould welcome a more effective more constructive contribution from the russians to counter our isil coalition.

we've been focused on destroying and the grading isis and we would welcome any available assistance that russia is prepared to offer. the reason that they have not is that they have prioritized shoring up the assad regime or in -- over going after extremists in the problem with that is that represents a fundamental contradict of the strategy. by shoring up the assad regime, they only prolong the political chaos inside of syria. they exacerbate the violence inside of syria that makes for more hospital environments for terrorist organizations. the cake that we have been making to the russians -- case that we have been making to the russians that predates their military intervention in syria is that -- essentially twofold.

isis andr efforts on work with us to do that. and user political influence the assad regime to get them to engage in the kind of talks that will lead to a little transition in syria. a transition that even present pune knowledge is it necessary -- president putin acknowledges is necessary. even though they have acknowledged that the transition is necessary, they continue to shore up the assad regime. again, it is difficult, there's such a clear contradiction in the typical to explain exactly what their intentions are. the case we continue to make, one that predates their military intervention in syria, we is let's focuse

on the cessation of hostilities. let's make sure everyone participates in the cessation including russians and the regime should live up to be commitments. fledglingnurture the political talks that we haven't tried to get going and when i say we, i mean the international community. concerned about the threat that is posed by extremists in syria, and they should be focused on hastening those actions and they should work with us to target isil and other extremists. >> you don't have much faith in the russians. that the fact, the report [indiscernible] >> i disputed the nature of the report.

illustrate -- what i'm try to illustrate is that the context of the case to the russians, you described it as not having faith in the russians. are a lot of are reasons for us to be distrustful, but that is not the question. the question is about this fundamental contradiction and their strategy that they have buspar refused to address. refused to address. as long as you are sure that the ability of the assad regime to remain in power, you are prolonging the chaos. exacerbating the violence and pushing a solution off further to the distance. been, to the surprise, a subject of consternation.

case to president putin and the russian government is that if they are willing to capitalize on the opportunities that exist, for them to use actuallyluence, we can make some more progress in trying to address the situation. the attorney general, can you say what president obama did not avail himself of the opportunity to comment on that? simple questions but he would not have any of that. >> that inserted into things. president's views on the importance of investigations by the department of justice being free of political influence are quite well-known. this is a topic is addressed on

a number of occasions. it undermines,g, or at least has the potential to that independence. if the president is weighing in on this at every opportunity. sometimes the president is asked a direct question, he has answered the question. in each case, i think the president has made clear that he believes in the importance of these investigations being handled independently and free of any sort of logical interference. -- political interference. those are situations where you can't avoid the question. yesterday, there's a scenario where he could avoid the question so he did. >> appropriate as you indicated? >> i don't recall the president

ever suggesting that somehow it is inappropriate for someone to ask him. well known his views are on the topic, i think he has decided to pass the opportunity t. >> can i buy you -- [indiscernible] >> you like to start your weekend rather early on friday. [laughter] i'm just teasing. >> yesterday the state department issued its report on human trafficking and [indiscernible] presidenty [indiscernible] administration reopened the domestic ties the i'm wondering if you can tell me if the president is disappointed by the

evidence of trafficking in myanmar and the future of the relationship of the countries? >> the president has made nurturing political reform a nationalurma security priority. and we certainly are pleased that the progress burma has made. over the last several years. making fundamental changes to the way the country is governed. in a way that has benefits for the citizens of the country and the brother region. -- broader region. at the same time, and i think at every turn, the president has made clear that the journey on which they have embarked will be a long one. there is a lot more progress that we would like to see the government of burma make when it

comes to protecting universal human rights of their people. i think what you are inerscoring is the fact that they will have more work to do. think there is, even when he has been on burmese soil, the president has not papered over the priority. he has acknowledged it. theas made the case that government doing a better job of protecting the basic universal rights of the people will actually strengthen the country and democracy. i think that is a powerful signal for the president of the united states to travel to burma

and make the case directly. that theno denying government of burma has a lot to denying thato remarkable progress has been made in a rather short period of time. angela. >> situation in the u.k. choosing its next prime minister. one of the leading candidates, talking about a lack of urgency and executing brexit. does the president what to senior prime minister -- want to see a new prime minister [indiscernible] >> i think the president, the views of the president he has expressed our respective of -- irrespective of who succeeds david cameron. the president believes the u.k. and the eu should negotiate with

one another and establish an orderly and transparent process for moving the u.k. out of the eu. it will be up to those two entities to carry out those negotiations. obviously the nine states will continue to maintain our strong relationship -- united states will continue to maintain our strong relationship with both parties. by decisions need to be made leaders in the eu and the u.k.. [indiscernible] a laterhat happen at date? >> my understanding is that the way that the eu charter has been written is that it essentially establishes a process that could

take up to two years once article 50 is invoked. there is, time bound a little bit of the rules and regulations of the eu. up taking two years -- whether it ends up taking two years to complete the process is something that will be determined and talks between the eu and leaders in the u.k.. weekme infighting this among the clinton and sanders campaign working out the platform as a platform. if president concerned about the interparty squabble? >> i don't think the president is particularly concerned. thearge part because president has been through a process back in 2008 of working to unify the democratic party after a competitive primary

campaign. i think the president has been pleased buspar with the good-faith -- thus far with the good-faith effort by leaders of the parties to unify the party. good indication of how leaders in the party understand the stakes in the upcoming presidential election. i think all of this is being done with a healthy amount of respect for democratic voters. think people at all levels of the democratic party have an interest in making sure that our party platform reflects the diversity of the party. giveresident can confidence but as the process the result will

reflect that priority. francesca, the last one. convention,ratic how involved is the president and the white house in the convention itself? this is almost entirely the responsible the of the democratic national committee. the dnc is bearing the imprint of the presumptive nominee is. . that is where those decisions are made. >> how involved with the president be? give a speech at some point, doing anything more than that? >> he will be doing a lot more than that. >> staying on the topic of secretary clinton, how

frequently came in the president be out there campaigning? >> i know nothing on the president schedule at this point. he's indicated desire in those of you who have watched some of his public appearances over the last six weeks or so have recognized he is quite eager to about thelic case past that his successor should follow. path his successor should follow. it's hard for me to say at this point how many days a week the president will be engaged in political activities. over the summer i do not anticipate there would be extensive political travel election is general fully engaged and has the attention of the country, the

president will have opportunities to make it visible case for secretary content and will increase. clinton and will increase. >> donald trump said it will have to be either the job to take care of terrorism are will have to set up a new coalition, and a group of countries to handle terrorism is terrorism is out of control. with the nato summit coming up next week, is on the president's agenda to put in a new request for nato to fully join the isis coalition? what is true is that the united states benefits enormously from the commitment that our allies have made the nato coalition. many of our nato allies are active participants in contributors -- and contributors

to our counter isil coalition. the president has been appreciative of the contributions are partners and allies have made around the world. but there is more that can be done. both in terms of committing military sources, but also committing financial resources to degrading and ultimately destroying isis. offering that military and financial support to the central government of iraq as they work to rebuild those communities that have been retaken. making substantial and important country visions to international relief organizations try to meet basic human it. the millions of people displaced by the violence in syria. there a lot of ways people participate. we have been deeply appreciative of the important contributions made buspar by many of our allies. we should believe there is more

that can be done. focus more on terrorism? a fundamental has place when it comes to national security. they perform a variety of functions. we have welcomed the important contribution our nato allies have made. the significant challenges that europe is john with. -- dealing with. there is the potential that nato resources could be used to confront some of the challenges as it relates to the migration situation. a defensivearily alliance. the norths to unify in pursuit ofries

our collective self-defense. i contribution has invaluable to the united states international security. certainly countries are out europe have that did it. the president's goal is to look for ways to strengthen the alliance had deep in our cooperation with our allies on the other side of the atlantic. potential situation in bangladesh. it is ongoing. [indiscernible] happening now. >> i'm not aware of the situation but we will see what we can learn and let you know if and when the president has been briefed. mondaywe adjourned, on the president and first lady will celebrate the fourth of july. as they always do by hosting military heroes and their families for an independent state celebration with a barbecue, concert, and if you of the fireworks from the south

lawn of the white house. white house staff and their families will also attend the event for the fireworks viewing. there also be a performance onng the evening budget monday and kendrick lamar. tuesday the president will travel to no caps on affray hillary for president event. wednesday, the president will attend readings at the white house. thursday, the president will travel to warsaw, poland to attend the 2016 nato summit. it will be the president and final summit with nato leaders. the meeting will afford an opportunity to underscore align solidarity, to advance efforts tobolster security and project stability through new partnerships beyond the north atlantic area. on friday the president will meet with the president of the european council and european

commission to discuss u.s.-eu cooperation across a range of shared priorities including terrorism and fostering economic prosperity and the global refugee crisis. then the present will hold a bilateral meeting. then he will hold a meeting with the president of poland to discuss u.s.-polish relations. read from the american amendment .o post security that he will participate in and in a family photo and its annexation of the nato alliance council. friday evening, a long day, you'll participate in the family budget and attend a working dinner with nato leaders. he was bent friday night in warsaw poland. night in warsaw, poland. in the afternoon of saturday, he will participate in a session of the nato, ukraine commission.

after the news conference, the president will do it part -- the part: and travel to spain. it will highlight a strong political and economic relationship. the president will spend saturday night in seville and we will have more details about the trip the next few days. thursday is just a travel day. the excitement of nato will begin on friday. dexcom everybody and have a happy fourth of july. everybody and have a happy fourth of july. >> the house and senate are in recess for the independence day holiday. for at least a few senators, work continues during the break. armed services committee chair john mccain sent this week. -- tweet.

senator mccain is pictured there with members of the armed services committee. on the other side of the capital, when house returns the legislative work, a proposal aimed at preventing the spec iteris combined guns is on the schedule. the hill reports it is unlikely to gain support from democrats who say it does not go far enough. here is more about what to expect. >> the u.s. house will return to work after his july 4 break. billy house, he right that speaker ryan plans a houseboat on gun provision after the city and by democrats. what exactly are the main details of the bill?

>> the homeland safety insecurity at, did not include a provision to prevent terrorist from buying guns, it is much senate thatl in the democrats in the house and senate have already rejected as insufficient. close to whaty the majority whip and the senate had offered and the senate blocked that. why do republicans bank that is the appropriate measure here? if you were a house democrat on a conference call earlier this afternoon, you are saying that it was because you are letting the national rifle association right ba

legislation for you. the legislation for you. whether that is true or not, who knows? house republicans are feeling pressured to do something with the word guns and it. but perhaps not do so much that it might upset one of their big backers, the nra. >> he talked about the democrats may be planning, the house minority leader nancy pelosi released a statement that reads in part that democrats will continue to push house republicans to give the american people a vote on meaningful gun violence, preventing terrorism with expanded strengthen the context and no-fly, no buy legislation. what are you hearing about the plans of house democrats for the coming week but on and off before.

-- the floor? >> talking about the same things they were asking for last week. gunat background checks on sales and want to ban firearm sales on the government's no-fly list. up after thetepped orlando shooting. this is not a. i talked to john larson, one of the ringleaders, it along with civil rights leader john lewis. luislls me that he and have written to speaker ryan and hope to have a meeting with him early next week. the amendment can be put on this if there amendments can be put on this bill, other dilatory tactics may be considered. also certain they will do another sitting. they think there might be another act on that.

or whatt march, whether , id of march that might be don't know. that is what they are talking about. everything seems to inch more on this meeting but hope to have with the speaker. house speaker paul ryan called the democrat sit and a a publicity in stunt and says the republican leadership is looking at other options. what sort of rules exactly are they talking about and what kind of rules were potentially broken by the democrats? >> there are rules with regards to what is actually in session and what you can and cannot do. you cannot disrupt.

photosules you can take or videos. all of that stuff happened did not occur until they quickly jammed boats and lately in the morning. the speaker has said he is looking into what can be done. not quite sure what can be done other than forcing them off before, arresting them perhaps. democrats who want to move. but the notion of arresting a civil rights icon john lewis on tv in front of millions of americans is something they don't want to have ingrained going into the november election. i'm sure speaker paul rain -- paul ryan does not want that especially with a 2020 campaign effort at president. i do know that republicans have

advised him, they had their own conference call yesterday, please, let's not handcuffed these people. billy house is congressional correspondent for bloomberg news. you can read his reporting at bloomberg.com. think it very much for being with us. -- thank you are being with us. -- for being with us. journaln washington like every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up on saturday morning, former acting administrator for the pipeline and hazardous material base of the administration. a recent oil train derailment in the debate of which mode of transportation is safer. and with britain leaving the talks about the impact of brexit on defense and security. stating more

than 80 million americans get the drinking water from systems that exceed national levels of lead. and they are not on record of being in violation. the sure to watch c-span's washington journal any live at 7:00 eastern. join the discussion. tonight on c-span, a look at the state of employment. then attorney general loretta lynch talks about the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail server their own private meeting with former president though clinton. -- bill clinton. after that, a group of young activists talk about racial issues they have encountered in today's education system. economist and author e