then the girls soccer team did the same thing. after the girls of soccer team, -- after the girls -- after the girls' ash -- a categorye alain is store -- four storm that is expected to have an impact on the state of hawaii, kristen nielsen briefed the president on the hurricane this morning. we incurred all those in the path of the storm to listen to the instructions of state and -- we encourage all those in the path of the storm to listen to instructions. president trump wishes for the of all hawaiians, and has instructed fema to stand ready to support them in whatever they may need. also the president had a phone eall with prime minister ab

of japan. they expressed that they look forward to seeing each other later this year to continue these important conversations with allies. on behalf of our entire administration, i want to extend pairs to the family, friends, and loved ones of mollie tibbetts. the nation watch for 30 days as locals and federal officials search for mollie. the individual believed to be responsible for the murder has given us an unfortunate reminder of why we need to strengthen our immigration laws. brokend heals the hearted and binds up their wounds, the tidbits family is hurting and they are on the hearts of all americans and we are grieving with them. >> michael: under oath pleaded to, among other things,

paying a stormy daniels and karen mcdougal and he said he did this under the direction of president trump. the president has stated many times that he has done nothing wrong and there are no charges against him. we have commented on this extensively. [indiscernible] >> as a president has stated on numerous occasions, he did nothing wrong, there are no charges against him. just because michael colin made a plea deal does not mean -- made a colin --cohen plea deal does not mean -- >> are using the president did not lie to the american people, he said he did not know about these payments, but he knows -- but he we now know that he knew everything about these payments. >> the president did nothing wrong and there are no charges against him. >> [indiscernible]

-- he put more than $60 million of his own money into the campaign, how do you draw the line between disclosing to the campaign, and between was a campaign contribution and what money went to someone for other purposes? >> >> i'm not going to get into the back and forth of the legal part of this. as i told cecelia, but i can tell you is the president stated a number of times that he did nothing wrong, just because michael cohen made a deal didn't do anything with regards to the president. >> the president tweeted this morning and frustration over michael cohen, because the implication is that michael: gave something up to the president. is that what we should read into this? >> the president has expressed his views on that.

president intent on pardoning paul manafort? >> the manafort case doesn't have any to do with the president, his campaign, or the white house. >> even if it has nothing to do with the president, is that something he has begun discussing? >> i'm not aware of any conversations regarding that. other than when he was asked by a news outlet earlier this week and he said he hadn't been thinking about that at all. this, they'reke trying to figure out if there are any internal adjudged -- internally needed with lawmakers, is the white

house making any adjustments in terms of responsibilities to the chief of staff with voters, respondrs, how you offensively to the question? >> i wouldn't view it that way at all. i would disagree with the premise of the question. the white house is focused on the same things we were focused on the first day that you got here. that is growing the economy, which is doing extremely well, protecting our borders, strengthening the safety and security of all americans. those are the things we are focusing on and they are the same things we are focused on right now. start off like to congratulating you on your 100th briefing. no way that we do every day is the. jonathan over at actio quickly

wrote -- several republican operatives working on the midterm elections could depress republican turnout and make the blue wave eger. republicaniliar with operatives that would concur with this statement. >> not that i'm aware of. i think the thing that will encourage people is a lack of a message from democrats. they have nothing to run on other than attacking this president. the record that republicans have had is a great one to run on. we have an incredible story to tell, the economy is booming, record numbers just today and we will continue focusing on the things americans care about and that will be what encourages them and certainly what will help push republicans to do well in november. >> yesterday the president stated that they will pay a , should israel be concerned that the price that they have to pay is not one they

are prepared or willing to? >> we think that the president's decision was the right one, to move to the embassy, something other presidents of promised and failed to do. this president delivered. >> and what price mice israel have to say? >> i don't have anything further for you? >> the guilty verdict in the paul manafort trial, the president has called mr. manafort a good man and a good prison and he feels badly for what has happened to him. he tweeted today that unlike michael cohen, he refused to break and make up stories to get a deal. he tweeted great respect for a great and. is mr. manafort a candidate for a presidential pardon? >> that is not something that has been up for discussion, don't have anything for you. >> some democrats are saying that the nomination for brent cobb -- brett kavanaugh should be put on hold because of the legal developments yesterday.

hawaii's senator put out a statement saying that this president was an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal matter and doesn't deserve the courtesy of a meeting with his nominee. what is your reaction to that? >> this is a desperate and pathetic attempt by democrats to obstruct a highly qualified nominee. the hearing date has been set and judge kavanaugh will be there. >> trade talks between the united states and china are resuming. the president earlier this week expressed low expectations for the talks. i'm wondering if that has changed and what you would like to see come out of these discussions. >> as you said, these conversations are continuing. i don't have any announcements on them. they are ongoing. we would like to see better trade deals for the united states. the president wants to see free, fair, or more reciprocal trade between other countries, particularly with china. we will continue in those

conversations. >> does the president feel the trade by michael: and is he concerned about what he might say to robert mueller? >> the president isn't concerned at that heknows there -- did nothing wrong and we will continue to focus on the things that americans care about and that we can have an impact on. >> a deal between mexico and the >> i'mstates on nafta? not getting ahead of any potential announcement. for decades nafta has harmed american workers >> i'm not and cost the u.s. billions of dollars and we are focused on addressing those problems and we will let you know when we have an announcement. >> in his interview the president said he found out about the payments from michael cohen later on, but he is on tape discussing how to make one of the payments with michael: before was made. how do you explain that? >> i have commented on this extensively. i can tell you the president did

nothing wrong, there is no collusion. anything beyond that i would refer you to the president's outside counsel. >> rudy giuliani is not the taxpayer-funded sponsor for the pratt desperate -- spokesperson for the president. you are. audio seems to confirm that it is the president saying that. >> i have addressed this a number of times because you continue to ask think russians over and over, i'm not going to give you a different answer. there are no charges, there is no collusion, that is what i can tell you. further -- something >> does the white house maintained that for stephanie clifford -- a numbere addressed as of times. >> you said that there have been no discussions about a potential pardon for paul manafort. so are you are not ruling it out entirely. the president hasn't said he won't do it. it's possible that the could be

a pardon for him in the future. >> the only comment the president has made on this was when he was asked by a news outlet earlier this week and he said that no he was not considering that. beyond that there has been no other discussion. >> that was before paul manafort was convicted on eight of the 18 counts. i'm asking now, now that he has been convicted. >> and i'm answering that there have been no discussions of the white house on that matter. >> the last time that we were in your, you read ask officials and one current official that the president was considering taking away their security clearance. i wanted to follow up and ask you -- who was conducting that review, to determine whether or not those security clearances would be pulled it? and second of all i wanted to ask you about a tweet from the thoughtt that said he the james clapper was being nice to him so that he doesn't lose his security clearance. is that a threat that if james

clapper isn't nice he will lose it? >> i don't have any other announcements on that front and when we have one i will let you know. >> who is doing the review? >> a number of people involved here at the white house. >> in the tweet this morning about paul manafort, the president seems to be set -- praising him for refusing to work with federal prosecutors. doesn't that seem to indicate that he thinks that loyalty to him personally is more important than abiding by the law or kebab -- or cooperating with the government? >> not at all, it doesn't involve the president, his campaign, and has nothing to do with the white house. >> michael: paz lawyer has suggested publicly that there is new evidence they would like to present about foreknowledge of hacking. the president and the white nose maintain that there was knowledge? >> i'm not aware of anything, no.

>> given that five convicted felons are now linked to the president or his campaign and given his promise to hire the best people, did he fail to live up to that promise? ask the president has employed thousands in his lifetime and had incredible successes in business and in the public service. he's the president of the united states, i think he's doing quite well. >> that's my second question, i understand you don't want to answer anything incriminating they, you said the president did nothing illegal, but i didn't hear a response to whether he lied to the american people. >> the president has addressed this in number of times, no. fore said he feels badly cohen and manafort. the men pled guilty to crimes, or robbed the american public of tax dollars that they were owed. why does he feel bad for either of these men?

>> once again, the president has expressed his views on this matter. >> to follow-up up on that, does he believe that there is an intrinsic problem with the justice department? or does he only believe that someone close to him is a victim of the justice department? >> we have certainly seen a lot of concern, out of some of the activities of people that worked at the department of justice. whether it is peter strzok, lisa page, or james comey. we have walked through those and number of times and it has given calls -- cause for a lot of americans. hims far as people close to , the president seems to have his own justice department and saying it's not doing its job. >> the president has certainly expressed his views on this matter and he has raised concerns about a number of other problems he is seeing in the department of justice. >> i wanted to follow-up about the earlier question about his comments on fox news with the

regards to the payment to daniels and mick google. when exactly did he learn about them and are there any other payments that he has now become aware of? are those the only women who received the money for agreeing not to repeat their stories of alleged affairs with the >> for those specific questions -- counsel refer special outside matters -- >> here in the white house i would encourage you to reach out, john. >> thank you, sarah. going back to security clearances, all signs are that this is the first time that a president has personally been handling the removal of security clearances. it's usually done by superiors, even in the last two big ,spionage cases of the cold war

1961 and 1990, the secretary of state pulled the security clearances of the accused. others areat reviewing it. who are these others and does the president take a personal role in the potential removal of security clearance? certainly the president has the constitutional authority to do so. i'm not aware of the details of those specific cases that you outlined, but the president has the authority to make that and is also consulting with members of his national security team and his team here at the white house. considering a policy of simply having all security passes turned in when someone leaves government service? >> i'm not aware of that as a policy and certainly we would like the ability of needed to be able to consult with individuals

on national security matters. but they do feel, the team here, that we should look at the security clearance process as a whole. my understanding is that there are roughly 5 million people that have security clearances in the united states and we would like to take a look at the overall process of who has and who maintains them. deborah? you are right about the president having constitutional authority about security clearances and pardons as far as i understand. the question i have is -- even though he has that authority, has anyone in the white house thought about putting something together to look at security personnel for former and for pardons as well? the president doesn't seem to be consulting the ag paz office much. has he thought of doing something that would be more transparent, perhaps? ofcertainly in that review

those security clearances there is a working group looking at the overall security clearance process. there is someone who maintains those and determines whether or not those are needed across the board within government and in terms of the pardon process, the president has the authority to carry out those decisions. he takes input and looks at them on a case-by-case basis. >> who is on the committee? >> can you tell us? >> there are a number of members, i would have to get back to you. i know that the chief of staff is involved in the process. >> earlier this week the president told reuters -- >> speak up, sorry. >> he told people that he could run it, in reference to the mother investigation. what does he mean by that? >> many times he has said that he has chosen to remain uninvolved in the process. >> is that an indication that he ofthinking about some kind

action against robert mueller, like revoking his security clearances? >> i'm not aware of any conversation around that. >> is it an indication that the president sees himself as above the law? >> not at all. >> the grounds for the impeachment case, is the white house concerned that that could have an effect on the midterm elections? and does the white house take these allegations seriously? >> certainly we do. the idea of impeachment is, frankly, a sad attempt by democrats, the only message they seem to have going into the midterms and a great reminder of why americans should support other like-minded candidates like the president gore focused on continuing to grow the economy, secure our borders,'s focus on the safety and security of all americans.

the biggest contrast that you could possibly make is the message of the democrats, which is nothing more than attacking the president and looking at cheap political stunts while this white house and republicans in the house and senate are focused on doing good things for the american people. >> earlier this week the president had tough words of criticism for the federal reserve chairman. can you tell us the last time that the president and powell brought up that criticism with him directly? >> the last time that they met, i will have to double check, was right around the time that jerome powell took his place on the federal reserve board. >> have you spoken to him directly? >> thank you, sarah. on venezuela, does the president plan on getting involved there at all? what is the u.s. stance on venezuela at this point? >> the united states continues to support the neighbors of

venezuela and provide emergency aid and shelter to venezuela and continues to stand with the people of venezuela. we are going to keep all options on the table and we will keep you posted if we have further announcements. thank you so much, we are going to wrap up so that we can join the president for the honor ceremony. thank you. >> a brilliant. [laughter] [indiscernible] >> that wraps up today's white house briefing. want to see it again? .o to our website, c-span.org coming up in about 40 minutes president trump will award the medal of honor to the family of an air man killed in

afghanistan. we have live coverage of 3:30 p.m. eastern c-span. s. c-span viewers know him as host of the -- and creator of "the young turks." -- upfor getting so early early for us in l.a.. your reaction to the busy newsday yesterday. guest: now it is game on. we have significant issues here. paul manafort's trial did not have to do with donald trump, but with manafort -- but if manafort has information, he might be serving the rest of his life in prison, this would be the time to give it up. maybe he doesn't have any info. michael cohen we know for certain does have information on donald trump and has implicated or now in a federal crime perhaps a high crime and misdemeanor. the president is in a world of trouble, if you are i were implicated in a federal e