millions of americans who don't have health insurance, you'll finally have the chance to buy quality affordable care, just like everybody else. so here's how this is going to work. we're setting up a new online marketplace where beginning october 1st, you can go online, or talk to organizations in every state that will have this set up, and you can comparison shop on an array of private insurance plans. you can look at them side by side like you would go online and compare cars. and because you'll now be part of a new pool of million of other americans, part of this exchange, insurance companies will want to compete for your business the same way they compete for the business of a big company with a lot of employees. so once these market places are up and running, no one can be

turned away from private insurance plans, period. if you're sick, you'll finally have the same chance to buy quality affordable health care as everybody else. if you can't afford to buy private insurance, if it is still too expensive even though you're getting much better prices through these exchanges than would you in the individual market going out there by yourself or if you work for just a small company that doesn't have a lot of lenk with insurance company, you're going to have a better deal through these exchanges but if you still can't afford it, you will get help reducing your premiums with the largest tax cut in history. >> that's president obama in the east room talking about the impact that the health care law has had, particularly on women. we'll have much more on that later in the spin cycle. we're also watching the briefing

room where press secretary jay carney is expected just minutes from now and he is likely to face some tough questions about the white house's talking points in the days following the attacks in benghazi. we'll bring you the briefing live when it happens. we begin with the latest developments out of cleveland. michelle knight, the longest held kidnapping victim and the one found in the worst state by police was finally released from the hospital. also today dna confirm that her alleged captor, ariel is the father of amanda berry's 6-year-old daughter. we're learning prosecutors will go after castro for the miscarriages he is accused of causing by starving and beating his captives. authorities may seek the death penalty against him. let's get to msnbc's craig melvin on the ground in cleveland with the latest. what have you got? >> reporter: toure, good afternoon to you. first i want to call your attention to some activity behind me. this started within the past 20

or 30 minutes. three thing happening at the castro home right now. we just saw the fbi go into the house once again, about five officers, part of the evidence response team. this has become a daily ritual of sorts. we have not seen them come out with anything. that's going on in the house. also, they are basically starting to clean up the property, taking some trash and hauling it away. and they're in the process of erecting that 10 to 12-foot fence that we're told should be finished. you mentioned michelle knight out of the hospital. we have not heard from her just yet but we did get a statement from the hospital a short time ago. this statement from michelle knight through the hospital. it says in part, michelle knight is in good spirits and would like the community to know that she is extremely grateful for the outpouring of flowers and gifts. she asks that everyone please continue to respect her privacy at this time. with regard to the dna, with regard to the paternity test. you mentioned the paternity test

confirming what we suspected all along. that castro is the father of the 6-year-old girl found inside the home of amanda berry's daughter. also the dna testing according to police also confirming that castro is not connected to any of the other missing persons cases in ohio right now. they took his dna and they cross referenced it with some of the missing people. with all the missing people in the database in ohio. they're in the process of doing the same thing with a national database. no word on whether he is connected to any of those cases. again, investigators tell us as you mentioned, they're going to be at pursuing the death penalty. at this point we're hearing there is a chance that this case may not go to trial. that the death penalty may be used as leverage against castro. remember, if this goes to trial, then all three of those young ladies will have to get on the stand and recount what happened

in the house behind me for more than a decade. >> right. it would be nice to spare them that indignity. thank you very much. before i move original i want to you share something we were talking about before the show. craig mentioned before that we're suddenly talking about this as a capital case. a death penalty case. kidnapping doesn't usually lead to the death penalty. how do we get there? >> that's right. craig mention that had could be a key factor in what the prosecution uses to get a plea agreement here. typically kidnapping would not be a capital crime but ohio is one of the 38 states that has a fetal homicide law. what that means in the case of the ohio statute is that if you in a premeditated fashion, you deliberately cause a miscarriage, that you will be up for aggravated murder which is what we think of as first-degree murder. the worst charge in a capital state. that can be used as a capital crime which means you would face the death penalty in a normal trial. so what we may see here, it is early yet. we may see the use of that

statute as lenk to tell these folks, you would be up for that and that may either get to an agreement or if you cannot reach an agreement with the defendant. you go to trial and you have a kidnapping charge that would result in potentially a capital conviction. and it is clear based on what we know that a jury would look very aggressively and very negatively at the defendants. >> in that regard could you kill an unborn person. that's different than when we talk about abortion. >> correct, ohio specifically says that the criminal code which seeks to basically move forward and write justice on those issues does not affect the rights of women with regard to abortion. >> all right. as more information about this case comes out, questions are being raised about the circumstances surrounding these women's disappearance. do residents of poorer neighborhoods get put on the back burner or forgotten due to a hlavac resources. the cleveland neighborhood has a median income of $23,000.

37% of the residents there live below the poverty line. and what happens if a family decides to not look for their missing child or thinks that the child has run away? according to the cleveland dealer, michelle knight was dropped from the fbi missing persons database after just 15 months. so what can a family or a community do to keep the spotlight on even after the immediate media attention faithful let's bring bob in. a big reason why some missing children that have their cases continued is because the family keep the pressure on. but clearly, some families know how to do that and some don't. and i think one of the differentiators there is that a lot of poorer families just don't know how to keep the pressure on or perhaps don't have that sense of efficacy they can work with law enforcement to keep the pressure on. >> well, i think you bring up a

very good point. no long term missing children case should ever be forgotten. and yes, there are a number of families that stay in touch with law enforcement. stay in touch with us at the national center. it doesn't mean just because the family is not engaged, that we're not looking for those children. i can tell you on any given day, we have 3,500 to 4,000 cases of long term missing children that we're working on each day and each is a little bit different. as you know, children go missing for a wide variety of reasons. some which garner a lot of media attention and some which don't. >> kids go missing from affluent neighborhoods and they go missing from poorer neighborhoods. i'm wondering, is there a sense of mentality among some of these abductor, whoever they're taking, and from whatever kind of viral, a sense that, well, no one will miss them. and are there any commonalities you've seen in term of the abductors, in terms of the kinds of people they target for these

kidnappings? >> well, i think it is important first to point out that what happened with amanda, gina and michelle is extremely rare. nationally our latest study shows this only happens about 100 to 115 times a year. even though that is a significant number burk compared to the 800 missing children reported each year, it is a very small percentage and they are rare. but cases like that do require all the resources and the biggest part of the work that we do to bring them back. >> as you're pointing out, there are a lot of children. have we made any progress on locating or at least keeping the pressure on trying to find missing children? >> absolutely. from the start, when we have a critically missing child, we have amber alert that was just coming online when amanda and

gina and michelle were reported missing. so now we're responding much more rapidly. we're engaging the public as the eyes and ears of law enforcement very quickly. and the very fast recovery of children and some very good new stories. we still have a lot of long term missing children and we have to work on them each day. those are the tough ones. we age progress them. we send them out on the anniversaries to remind people we're for them. at love time there is someone who knows what that. we want them to notify the police or call us at the national center. >> bob lowery, thank you for that work. >> thank you. up next in light of this week's report showing an alarming rise in sexual assaults in the military, new legislation aimed at protecting the victims who report it. the senior member of the armed services committee is live on the guest spot. and we continue to keep an eye on the briefing room where jay

carney is expected to be asked new questions about the benghazi attack. on their 401(k) to hidden fees. is that what you're looking for, like a hidden fee in your giant mom bag? maybe i have them... oh that's right i don't because i rolled my account over to e-trade where... woah. okay... they don't have hidden fees... hey fern. the junk drawer? why would they... is that my gerbil? you said he moved to a tiny farm. that's it, i'm running away. no, no you can't come! [ male announcer ] e-trade. less for us. more for you. no, no you can't come! what that's great. it won't take long, will it? nah. okay. this, won't take long will it? no, not at all. how many of these can we do on our budget? more than you think. didn't take very long, did it? this spring, dig in and save. that's nice. post it. already did. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. show mom why you're her favorite, with a 12" infinity color bowl, a special buy at just $14.98.

the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪ [ male announcer ] that's handy. i i had pain in my abdomen...g. it just wouldn't go away. i was spotting, but i had already gone through menopause. these symptoms may be nothing... but they could be early warning signs of a gynecologic cancer, such as cervical, ovarian, or uterine cancer. feeling bloated for no reason. that's what i remember. seeing my doctor probably saved my life. warning signs are not the same for everyone. if you think something's wrong... see your doctor. ask about gynecologic cancer.

there may well be some new confidence starting to develop that we will take it seriously. those charges. they won't, the victims won't be penalized. we will do something about it and we will get control of this. i think working with the congress which we want to do, we will do, we are doing, is a responsible way to do this. >> defense chief chuck hagel vowing to work with congress to combat sexual assaults in the military and protect victims who come forward. but this week's pentagon survey on sexual assault in the

military shows a disturbing trend. 26,000 military sexual assaults last year alone. that's a huge increase from the 19,000 we had in 2010. even more disturbing, only a fraction of women report the assaults to a military authority. just 33%. it is not hard to see why when you dig a little deeper. mopping those who did report, 62 were retaliated against. nearly a third were socially shunned and a quarter said it was a combination of professional, social, and administrative retaliation. democratic congresswoman loretta sanchez hopes to change that. she co-chairs the women in the military caucus and is the top women on the armed services committee. she is co-sponsoring legislation for better whistle blower protection. she is in the guest spot. this is an important issue and we're very glad you're taking it up. i have real concerns about allowing sexual assaults to be adjudicated within the military.

chuck hagel was talking about this earlier this week. let me play what he said and get you to weigh in on it. >> we have to go back and review every aspect of that chain of command. of that accountability. and some things do need to be changed. i don't think taking it away, the responsibility ultimate responsibility away, from the military. i think that would just weaken the system. >> do you agree with chuck hagel, congresswoman, that this should still all be handled internally within the military? >> well, actually in a lot of ways i believe that the secretary is right. i mean, it does sit on the commander's shoulder to have the cohesive discipline of his unit, division, whatever it is that he or she is commanding. and so when you say, oh, it is a sexual assault issue. take it over to the pentagon or give it to a jag.

what you're really doing is maybe, and there is my fear, maybe telling that lieutenant colonel or that colonel or what have you, that captain, that this is not his or her problem. that someone else will take care of it. when that happens, i think we'll see a lot worse cases than the ones that we have right now. so i'm really not for puck that out although i believe that secretary hagel did a great thing when he said, we're not, we're going to take it away in some places in the chain of command on final say. so i think a hybrid might be good in this particular case. >> and congresswoman, your new bill talks about basically having an investigative arm that would deal with these type of retaliation that s.e. was rt roing. what do you say though to critics who feel that that isn't where the focus should be. that there is finally some overdue momentum to move it to the civilian courts. and some say this bill seems

like perhaps a watered down alternative. >> well, i would say that there are several things that need to happen. that's my particular belief. and i think retaliation, and we've seen it over and over and over again, has got to stop. and that's one of the reasons why i'm a sponsor of that and really pushing for it and i think we will see it in the national defense authorization act. again, i don't believe that prosecutors on the outside are any better or any worse than the people in the military of handling this. and i'll tell you why. what we have begun to do in the military, sort of what you've seen on some of those law and order type of things where having special units, we're having special units. we're training up our prosecutors better. we're having better evidence chain so that we actually get the thing that we need in order to do prosecution.

the reality is if you think about our jags, they come from the same law schools that others do. they come from the civilian world. and they are put in the military. they get training. they'll get more training under the new rules that we have in place. one of the things that happens on the outside, d.a.s get to choose the cases they bring forth. that's why they tend to have higher prosecution rates sometimes. in the military, you probably have commanders who even if the evidence is not there, feel the need to prosecute. so i think there is a lot of mixed messages. >> but congresswoman, i don't think anyone is concerned that these d.a.s, these prosecutors don't have the requisite training. i think what people are concerned about is that keeping this in the family. keeping this in the military mean that there is so much isolation and insulation from outside accountability.

and these prosecutions are not having the desired result in staunching these sumts. >> the first thing we have to do is figure out where and how are people getting sexually assaulted. i continue to ask for information. how is it? is it after hours? maybe we go back to what we used to have in the 1950s and '60s. you had to have a pass to leave the base because we had more control over our people that we had in the military. because we want, it is a volunteer force and because we want people to join the military, you know, we've done away with that system. i would venture to say, i would like to see, where are these really taking place? how are they? what percentage? what are we really doing there to inhibit the thing from happening? and of course, we must prosecute people who sexually assault in the military. and you know, i'm outraged as so many of the women in the

congress and across the nation are when some of these guys are letting these other guys off. i've been fighting this for 17 years. >> to s.e.'s point, i think to the larger point, part of why the military maintain jurisdiction is that thing that happen during the fog of war cannot be fully understood by civilians and it would make no sense to have civilians ajude indicating whether or not something happened in the fog of war is a crime or not. but when we're talking about a sexual assault, we're not talking about a military action. even if they happen to be on the base, they're not doing something militarily so that would suggest to me and i think perhaps to s.e. as well, that would fall under the traditional civilian criminal court rather than being able to hide in the military court. >> well, actually the ucmj is made so that you can have a trial. you can have a decision anywhere

you place it in the world. that's one of the beauties of it. think about what happens. let's say we change it and now you have, you call back to the pentagon. hi, i've been sexually assaulted. then we've got to send people to the pentagon in iraq or afghanistan. by the time this comes to trial, all of these people who were involved in whatever process, witnesses, if there were, they're all over the nation. we move our troops around. i don't think that you would get a quicker trial. i don't think that you would get a better trial. that's just my personal opinion on it. because understanding the uniform code of military justice. i don't believe it is the ucmj that is the problem. i truly believe it is the culture of what's going. on i believe that there are people who have stars on their shoulders who are rapists in our nation's military. and we have to weed that out. we have to weed them out and change the culture of what's going on in there.

and then we will do a better job at this. >> we really appreciate your focus on this issue and the fact that you have brought forward legislation, bipartisan legislation. i think the role that played in the house and the senate, bringing this issue to the forefront has been critical. what would you say though, one of the concerns. what i'm hearing from you is that you believe the fundamental problem is that there is a fear of retribution. that women fear to come forward because as you know, there is a much lower rate of reporting sexual assault in the military. even than in the civilian world and it is not that great there either. you have a higher incidence of sexual assault to start with. so you're posing that the real issue is women fear retribution. others are positing that they're afraid to go to their commander which is who they have to go to right now. that person may know the individual who assaulted them. may even be the individual who

assaulted them. and may have an inkrepive not to bring charges because it reflects poorly on their abilities as a commander. how do you address those particular concerns? >> well, first i will tell you that regardless of how we change the ucmj, if you're talking about the situation where a commander finds out something is going on and there is pressure put on a woman, let's say, not to do anything. i'm going to make the guy who did this clean the toilet with a toothbrush for the next 30 days. it will be bad for you. it won't be good for the unit. don't go ahead and do that. however we change this thing. it is still not going to change those types of things going on. if we hold the commander really responsible for these things. if on his sheet for promotion he has on there, how do you handle sexual assault, have people said that you have not done, have we had a blind survey about what's going on there. when they see it just like they

see, i have to do 100 push-ups in one minute in order to get to the next rank or whatever. with we care enough about it. when it is on the sheet for promotion, they will care more about what's going on with respect to this. >> congresswoman loretta sanchez, thank you for joining us. up next you just heard the president touting his health care law three years after it became a law. clearly the people are not yet convinced. we've all had those moments.

when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership.

energy efficient appliances. you can get a tax write off for those. a programmable thermostat, very smart, saves money. ♪ cash money sorry. i see you have allstate claim free rewards, for every year you don't have a claim, you'll get money off your home insurance policy. put it towards... [ glass shatters ] [ girl ] dad! dad! [ girl screams ] noise canceling headphones? [ nicole ] that's a great idea. [ male announcer ] home insurance that saves you money for not having a claim? that's allstate home insurance with claim free rewards. talk to an allstate agent... [ doorbell rings ]

president obama just wrapped up his latest sales pitch for the health care law surrounded by representatives from women's organizations that will benefit from the new rules. >> moms so often put themselves last. so often, they put everything else before themselves of and that's particularly true when it come to things like health care.

women in this room and people all across the country, we worked really hard and it has been more than three years since congress passed the affordable care act and i signed it into law. >> just down the road, house republicans next week will vote for the 38th, is that right? 38th time to try and repeal obama care? the 38th time is the charm? that's not a thing. speaker boehner said it is an opportunity for new house freshmen to finally go on the record. it has been more than three years since the patient protection and affordable care act became law. and nearly a year since it was upheld by the supreme court. so why are both parties still campaigning on it? excellent thing to spin on. i think there's three things at play here. number one, a lot of americans don't really understand what the a.c.a. is about because of consistent and long term conservative media disinformation about what obama care really is. if you listen to michael savage, for one, for five minutes, you

will hear five lies about obamacare and how it has already ruined america. another thing is that there is this grand desire on the part of republican lawmakers. both in state houses and in d.c. to try to attack obama's key domestic achievement of the first term. any sort of puncture of that would be a key victory for them. and third, we have the challenge of getting young healthy people to want to buy into this. and people in general understanding that we are a community. we are not 350 million individuals. if we don't take care of everybody, we are not the nation we could be. when we have people using the health care system. which is inevitable as human beings. we will all use the health care system. we will all go see a doctor. some people are not paying for that. who is paying for that? everybody else. we have to change that. >> i have to tell you, toure, i don't think there is an issue

that better illustrates the responsibility of the president on domestic policy and the total irresponsibility of the house republican caucus better than health care for americans. when we saw the president who would speak today, i went and looked at the number. it was something that passed and that was discussed on the floor about 700 plus times. in contrast, obamacare which is done and real and happening, over 1,500 references which reflects the other point you made. the fact that we are headed toward the 38th vote to re, re, re-repeal obamacare. on the left you see the 37 votes we have had on obamacare by this house. if you move to the right, you see we've had one vote in the senate on the jobs act. in the house, the very same people finding time to re, re, repeal. we have never had a vote on the

jobs act them sent it to 11 different house committees but never scheduled a vote. you can see there. they literally just farmed it out. like a sad series of hand me downs and nobody is even talking about the american jobs act anymore. i'm happy to talk about it because it is the legislative shadow against all of this symbolic message legislation. i think it is pathetic that the house is doing this. i think it shows how unserious they are about legislating. if you have issues with obama care, please bring us some perfecting amendments. if you don't like spending money to create jobs, fine. i think it is outrageous. >> i can sense where this is going over there in new york. but i hate to remind you guys that there are a bunk of democrats who have problems with obamacare as well. max baucus, a democrat who helped author this legislation has talked about the coming train wreck. if fact there is a piece right now about the so-called train wreck club of chuck schumer and

ron widen and max baucus, all democrats who favor this legislation but now have real problems but how it will be implemented. the electronic health records were supposed to save $81 billion. now it looks like the only people benefitting from those are company who lobbied for the legislation. two, the largest insurers, even ones that initially supported the bill, are very reluctant to enter the exchanges. some people will see their premiums explode by 100%. fortune insured obamacare high risk pools, were supposed to cover 375,000 people. only 100,000 have enrolled and the program is already almost out of money. the administration has closed it to new enrollees. so i guess on this program, they've said, look, we'll fix obamacare over time. but the reason was to lower

costs and insure more people. when it is raising costs and insuring fewer people, i don't know that there is a fix without totally dismantling it. >> health care costs still rising but the rapidity has already slowed. a lot of economists are attributing that to the people of obama care already in place. my bigger point is this. if you think it will be a train wreck, back to ari's point, why don't you fix it rather than voting to repeal it 38 times. i think this bill would be better. >> they're democrats. they're trying -- >> max baucus. >> it includes democrats. >> that's fine. include democrats. but republicans have from the beginning adopted a strategy to say absolutely no. this bill would be better. it would be a better bill if they had decided from the beginning to engage with it. and offer meaningful amendments and try to fix the things, rather than cheering for a train

wreck. i think we all want to see a better health care system in this country. obama care is the law of the land. try to fix it if we have a problem with some of these. nbc news learn that benghazi talking points changed 12 times leading up to the infamous sunday show appearances following the attack. >> separate from that, there is no question that if this activity took place, it is inappropriate and there needs to be action taken and the president would expect that it be thoroughly investigated and action would be taken. >> on benghazi and with all due credit to my colleague on the right. we now have e-mails showing the state department pushed back on talking points from the cia and expressed concern about how some of the information would be used politically in congress. you have said the white house

only made a stylistic change here. but these were not stylistic changes. these were content changes. so again, what role did the white house play? not just in making it but in directing changes. >> well, thank you for that question. the way to look at this is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what that. who was responsible. in response to a request from the house permanent select committee on intelligence, to the cia, the cia began a process of investigation points that could be used in public by members of congress. by members of that committee. and that process as is always the case, again, led by the cia involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest in or

a stake in the process. that would include the state department since it was a state department facility that was attacked and an ambassador who was killed, as well as three others. the nsf, the fbi which is a lead investigation, investigating authority and other entities. the cia in this case, deputy director of the cia, took that process and issued a set of talking points that saturday morning. and those talking points were disseminated. this is all in response to a request from congress. and the only edit made to those points general rated by the cia was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi. i think i referred to it as a diplomatic facility. it was a diplomatic post. the point is it was a matter of

n nonsub tan i have the. there was a process that involved inputs from a lot of agencies as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate. the effort is always to, in that circumstance, with an ongoing investigation and a lot of information, some of it accurate, some of it not about what had happened and who was responsible. to provide information for members of congress and others in the administration, for example, who might speak publicly about it. it was based onnon what the intelligence community could say for sure it thought it knew. that is what was generated by the intelligence xhu. by the cia. >> this information that was information that the cia obviously knows about prior attacks and warnings about those. does the president think it was appropriate to keep that information away simply because of how congress might use it?

>> well, first of all the cia was the agency that made changes to the edits. to the talking points and then produced the talking points. first of all. second of all, i think the overriding concern of everyone involved in that circumstance is to make sure that we're not giving to those who speak in public about these issues, information that cannot be confirmed, speculation about who is responsible. other things like warnings that may or may not be relevant to what we ultimately learn about what happened and why. all of that information, by the way, was and remains part of the investigation. it is information that is provided to congress and to others looking into this matter last fall and throughout the winter and into this year. and that investigation continues. but on the substantive issues of what happened in benghazi and at that time, what the intelligence

community thought it knew. that was reflected in the talking points that were used again that weekend by ambassador rice and by others, including members of congress. and i think if you look at the information that has been reported. you can see that evolution. and it was, the points were focused on what we knew and not speculation about what may or may not have been what was related. i would say that all of this information was provided months ago to members of congress. a fact that we made clear to all of you at the time. during the confirmation process for john brennan as director of the cia, there was a request for more information, including e-mail around the deliberating process involved in producing these talking appointments. and this administration took the rather extraordinary measure of providing those e-mails to members of the relevant committees, as well as the

leadership members and staff in congress. and that information was available in late february to members of congress and through march. and once that information was reviewed in the case of the senate, senate republicans, a number of whom went on record saying now i feel like i know what i need to know. then allowed the confirmation of john brennan to go forward and he was confirm in early march. >> why were those e-mail provided in a read only fashion? >> it is standard procedure for administrations of both parties going back decades that internal deliberations are generally protected. generally protected information that is not something that is regularly shared with congress. and that's to allow for a deliberative process in the executive nbranch. in this case, to answer members

of congress. that step was taken and provided. and they were able to review all these e-mail which they of course are now leaks to reporters but they were able to read all of these e-mail, take extensive notes if they chose to. once that process was completed the confirmation of john brennan went forward. a number of republicans came forward and said they felt like they have the information they needed about that aspect of the benghazi incident. and it isson now for what i think is again reflective of ongoing attempts to politicize a tragedy that took four american lives. we're now seeing it resurface together with sort of political assertions by republicans that ignore the basic facts here. there was an attack on our facility in benghazi. the intelligence community

provided the information that it felt comfortable providing for public dissemination to members of government, congress, and the administration. as we learned more about what that, we provided it. that's why everybody has received that information that it has throughout this process. from the, one of the things that i think is interesting, from the very beginning there was included in the points the statement about demonstrations taking place outside of the building and the facility in benghazi. that is what the assessment, the consensus was. from that there were spontaneous attacks launched against the facility. when we found out that was not true, we made that clear. and that was going back if you remember when we had this discussion back in the fall. that was the point that republicans were focusing on. and yet it is clear from what

you see in these documents, that was the assessment made by the intelligence community. and it is clear from every, the evolution about what public officials said about what we knew. as we got more concrete information and information that we felt confident about, we provided it to the press, to congress and to the public. >> jay, the substance of these e-mails suggest or have very specific exchanges between the state department official and officials at the white house. the state department officials raises concerns about providing talking points that would include a mention of al qaeda because of a concern that congress would use that against the state department. >> i think that's not -- i think, the state department has said that this spokesman's office raised two primary concerns about the talking points. the points went further in assigning responsibility than preliminary assessments

suggested. and there was concern about preserving the integrity of the investigation. that concern was expressed in other quarters. not just at the state department. >> specifically concern about giving members something to use against the state department. >> this was a process where there was an effort underway. an interagency process to develop information that could be delivered by government officials, both administrative, about not going beyond what we knew. >> the language of that e-mail is pretty clear. and the response is pretty clear in terms of saying we want to address the concerns. no matter who ended up providing the talking points, it certainly seems clear that there was an influence by the white house and the state department on the talking points. >> i think you're conflating a

couple of things. the white house made one minor change to the talking points. the other discussions that went on prior to this, in an interagency process reflected the concerns of a variety of agencies who had a stake in this issue. both the fbi because it was investigating the cia, obviously, and other intelligence agencies, and the state department because the ambassador had been killed and a diplomatic facility had been attacked. and what i think the concern was, these points not provide information that was speculative in terms of whether it was relevant to what happened. and the, what could not be known at that time was the relevance of issues about warnings. there is the discussion about, the republicans again, this ongoing effort that began hours

after the attacks. when mitt romney put out a press release to try the take political advantage out of these. from that day forward there has been an effort to politicize it. if you look at this, the efforts to politicize it were, were we trying to play down the fact that there was an act of terror and an attack on the embassy. and the problem with, has always been with that assertion, that it is completely hollow. the president in the rose garden said this was an act of terror and he talked about it in the context of september 11th, 2001. and we had other officials of the administration refer to this as a terrorist act. susan rice, when she went out on the sunday shows, using the very talking points that we're

discussing now talked about the possibility. we believed that extremists were intelligence involved and there were suspicions about what affiliations those extremists might have. but there was not hard, concrete evidence. so ambassador rice in those shows talked about the possibility that al qaeda might be involved. or other al qaeda affiliates might be involved. or nonal qaeda libyan extremists. which i think demonstrates that there was no effort to play it down. it was simply that we did not, and the intelligence community did not and others in the administration did not jump to conclusions about who was responsible before we had an investigation to find out the facts. >> the concern about how congress would react a factor? >> again, i think if you look at the development of the talking points, the answer to that is, no. the talking points reflect the intelligence community's assessment of what that. and all the other issues about

who was responsible. what specific organizations may have participated. what information was available or threats were known about the situation in libya or benghazi, specifically. all of that was part of an investigation and provided to congress and as we learn more, to the public. by the administration. >> since you say this is a minor change, a minor change in venue. why such a big deal with this off the record. >> it wasn't off the record. and that was an erroneous report. it's a big deal because republicans have chosen in the latest iteration of their efforts to politicize this. to provide, leak this information to reporters. information that we provided

months ago to republican lawmakers from the relevant committees and republican leadership as well as democratic. there is an ongoing effort to make something political out of this. the problem with that effort is that what it is they think they're accusing the administration of doing because when it comes to who was responsible, we were very open about what we knew. what we thought we knew. what we did for a fact know. and the fact that this was on ongoing investigation and we would certainly learn more that would change our view of what had happened in benghazi. >> i'm understanding that, but it seems like there's been fuel added to the fire, if this was such a minor issue, why not just tell the press like you did from the podium just a few moment minuts ago instead of having a briefing and not the whole group if it's such a minor issue? >> i'm here right now to take your questions about this issue. we have background briefings periodically. 15 news organizations were

represented. that's something administrations do regularly in both parties. and as i said at the top, it's not a replacement for this briefing and that's why i'm here taking your questions. >> jay, how do you go from a conversation that was apparently happening between various administration officials, various officials of this government on september 14th, and in those e-mails, in that e-mail exchange, there's a discussion about a group ansar al sharia. victoria nuland references to that group and removed from the conversation and don't make their way into the talking points. that is not a stylistic edit. that is not a single adjustment as you said back in november. that is a major, dramatic change in the information. >> no, i appreciate the question and the opportunity, again, to make clear that the cia produced talking points that was a result of an interagency process on the morning of -- that saturday morning. >> when you say -- >> and to that -- let me just

finish this then you can follow up. from that, we -- >> and from pressure from other parties that were involved. >> i think i would point you to the numerous statements by the top officials at the cia making clear that they wrote the talking points, that they believed that those talking points represented what they knew to the best of their knowledge at that time. and did not include things that they could not be concretely sure of. ansar al shari is a good example. in the wake of the attacks there was an initial claim of responsibility by that group and a lot of people rushed out and said, this is the group that's responsible. then that group withdrew the claim of responsibility. now neither is de-spositive. we don't know that that group was responsible at the time. jim, if i could, if the idea that saying extremists is some

how hiding the ball, i mean, does anybody in this room not understand that extremists in libya means the kind of people who would attack a u.s. diplomatic facility? >> but if you go back to what susan rice was talking about during those talk shows, she may have left open the possibility that this is an altogether different thing. >> well, actually, jim, as i just said, on the sunday shows she talked about anshar al sharia, talked about al qaeda r could be responsible or other al qaeda linked affiliates. she did not say, we know for a fact they are responsible. that's why in the basic talking points, again, this is all about talking points. this is not about the facts of the investigation or all of the information provided to congress in countless hearings, countless pieces of information, documents that have been provided, i think 20,000, 25,000 pages of documents. this was just the talking points

that were the baseline for what public officials, beginning with members of congress, that's what they were developed for, but also provided to ambassador rice. then she spoke beyond that based on, you know, what could be true. as opposed to what we knew to be true. >> just to follow up on this once and for all, you are comfortable, you are still comfortable -- >> you promised once and for all? >> well, maybe not. but you are comfortable with the way you characterize this back in november. this was a single adjustment. yes, it may have been the white house that made a single adjustment, and perhaps it was the cia that drafted these talking points. but that's sort of glossing over the fact you had these other parties involved. these were not stylistic edits, jay. this is very much a content-driven change. >> let me just make clear, i do stand by that when we were talking about the talking points that were produced by the cia and provided to members of congress on the intelligence committee in the house who had

asked eed for it and others as as folks in the administration, that that document was -- there was a suggested edit that was accepted by the white house and that was a change from, you know, to make it factual. the calling of the building in benghazi a consulate because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post or facility, i can't remember which. prior to that. but, you know, there had been a lot of discussion and iteration process where the various issues were discussed about what could be or should be said publicly, what we know, what we're just speculating about. that process involved a whole bunch of agencies. and it's also the case that in that process the white house involvement in the talking points was very limited and nonsubstantive. but the issues that you mentioned had to do with limiting a talking points to what we knew as opposed to speculation about what may or may not have been, in the end, relevant to what happened in benghazi. john?

>> jay, you told us that the only changes that were made were stylistic. is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi? >> well, i appreciate the question, again, and i think that what i was referring to was the talking points that the cia drafted and sent around to which one change was made. and i accept stylistic may not precisely describe the change of one word to another. >> these underwent extensive changes after they were written by the cia. these were concerns raised by the state department. the white house directed the interagency process to use in making these talking points. >> well, i think the -- >> the original version included references to al qaeda, references to ansar al islam. the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous threats of terrorist attacks in benghazi. those were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft. >> then the cia wrote another

draft at the -- >> based on input from the state department. >> well, but here's what i've been saying. >> do you deny that? >> no, john. what i'm saying is, and i've answered this question several times now. i'm happy to answer it again if you let me answer it. there was an interagency process, which is always the case, because a lot of agencies have a stake in the matter like this. the investigative agency, the intelligence agencies, the state department in this case, the national security staff. and everybody provided information and comment and on saturday morning the cia said we're going to take a crack at drafting these points based on what we know. the things you're talking about, again, don't go to the fundamental issue here which was what would, could be said concretely about what the intelligence community knew to be true? some people thought it was other al qaeda affiliates or other libyan extremists. we knew it was extremists or believed we knew extremists had

participated. there was also the belief from the beginning by the intelligence committee by these points there had been protests out of which the attacks occurred, the demonstrations in cairo at the embassy in response to that video. that turns out not to be the case. it demonstrates the fluidity of the information, the fact it was hard and continues to be hard an investigation to know concretely, especially in the first days afterwards, what happened. and that's why we were so careful to say, here's what we know. or we believe we know. and every time we said that, we fully expect this information to change as we learn more. and it did. and we -- we provided it and, again, the whole -- the whole effort here by republicans to find some hidden mystery comes to nothing because the president called it an act of terror. the ambassador to the united nations, that very sunday, that has caused republicans so much

concern, talked about the possible involvement of al qaeda and ansar al sharia. all of this is a distraction from the key issues. a diplomatic host was attacked by individuals in libya, in benghazi. four americans lost their lives. from the beginning, the president has committed all the resources of this administration, of this government, to finding out who was responsible and to bringing them to justice. he also, very clearly, together with the secretary of state, said we need to make sure that we find out what went wrong, what problems there were with security that allowed this to happen, to hold people accountable and to make the necessary changes so it doesn't happen again. and that process happened, was stood up by the secretary of state. it was a process led by two of the most experienced and widely

regarded figures in national security in washington. former chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen and ambassador tom pickering. nonpartisan serving both parties for different administrations. they conducted an extensive review of this. they said they have access to all the information they needed, had access to all the people they needed to talk to. they produced an unsparing report with a serious of very critical observations and very serious recommendations every single one of which the state department has adopted. so that's the way the system should work, and it worked that way because the president and secretary of state insisted that it work that way. >> jay, we come back to what you said. you said that the only changes that were made by either the white house or the state department were stylistic in a single word. what we see here is that the state department raised objections about the references to ansar al sharia, raise