right now on "andrea mitchell reports" -- the justice department under fire. for using a secret subpoena to obtain months of phone records from scores of reporters at the "associated press." without their knowledge. it's clearly distressing to think that without our knowledge, someone is looking at phone calls that we make in the course of daily business. i've been in this business more than 30 years. and our first amendment lawyers and our lawyers inside the a.p. and our ceo is also a well-known first amendment lawyer. eric holder set to speak in just a few moments. the a.p. scandal, the irs targeting of conservative groups and benghazi.

republicans see a trifecta. >> over the past few days, we've heard many in the media talk about how this has been a rough week for the administration. that's true, it's been a worse week for the first amendment. >> last night, president obama shared his frustration with wealthy donors in manhattan. >> i sure want to do some governing. want to get some stuff done. i don't have a lot of time, i've got three and a half years left and it goes by like that. at the shore, prince harry and chris christie. meet new jersey residents hit hard by superstorm sandy. plus, why did angelina jolie undergo a double mastectomy? a top breast cancer doctor joins us to talk about genetic testing. and ouch -- last season's rookie of the year, the nationals' bryce harper becomes the talk of the senate after a

frightening face-first collision with a fence. >> he's chasing a ball at full speed and runs into the wall full speed. i talked to his mom and dad to find out how he's doing. but he crashed into that wall he has 11 stitches in his chin. he was knocked out. he hurt one of his shoulders. >> when you speak to his mother, remind her this is one thing that leaders on both sides fully agree on, we're hoping harper has a speedy recovery and back in the lineup. amen to that. good day, i'm andrea mitchell live in washington. secrete spenas, irs, overreach and benghazi. trouble in 3-d in washington right now. nbc justice correspondent pete williams joins me from new york. let's start with the "associated press" story. what do we know so far? >> what we know so far is what the a.p. has told us. and the government, when it does this, when it monitors the calls, gets phone records of the calls of reporters, important to note they didn't actually listen

in. they just got the records of calls that were made last year. when it does this, there's a rule that says they have to when they're through looking at them, tell the a.p. or whoever they were getting the records on, that they did this. that's how we know it. what we know is what the a.p. has told us what the letter from the justice department informed them. that 20 phone lines were monitored, these are the personal and cell phone numbers of some reporters, these are also office phone lines and the gentle phone numbers, the phone numbers of the "associated press" offices in new york and hartford, connecticut. it's perfectly legal for the government to do this. it's done it before. but there are two things here that are unusual, andrea. one is the number of reporters involved. and secondly, the breadth of the number of lines that were, the subject of this record requirement from the government. >> pete, my understanding is just alluded to of the fisa laws, the terms of engagement, if you will. they've done this before.

this administration has been much more aggressive than past administrations in going after reporters involving national security. they've used this and expanded it. we've seen what happened with the "new york times" and others. in the past it's been individual or a few people from each news organization. this was 100 a.p. reporters and their main line in the house gallery. where the reporters all work and where they interact with news sources. with members of the house, staff members from the house this is critically urgent to people in the house and certainly to other journalists. also -- i understood the guidelines to mean as you were just saying, limit the scope, try other remedies first. if you can before going to the fisa judge. to get the subpoena. >> right, now i don't know that this was fisa, andrea. this sound to me like garden-variety subpoenas. the foreign intelligence corps probably wasn't involved. we'll hear about that later today, perhaps from the justice department. so yes, that i think is the big issue here. but remember, this administration number one has been more aggressive about going

after leaks than any other administration. and of course, if you're going to go after leaks, the target is the government person who leaked this information to the a.p. about the fact that we had penetrated this yemen terror operation, if you're going to go after the target and you can't get satisfaction, as you so well know, very often these leak investigations die on the vine because administrations are reluctant to go where this administration has gone. which is to go after the reporters who were talking to the sources to see if they could find out who improperly leaked classified information. >> and gary pruitt, the a.p. president, has written to attorney general holder saying there can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of the "associated press" and its reporters, the regulations require that in all cases and without exception, a subpoena for reporters' telephone toll records must be quote as narrowly drawn as possible. and this plainly did not happen. now pete, while i've got you there, i want to also ask you about the irs.

because the irs investigation troubling to every american. and when we know about this so far is that cincinnati, the cincinnati office had been delegated, tasked to handle all of these multiple applications, after the supreme court decision on citizens united for exception for tax exempt status. and no one has explained why only the conservatives and those related to tea party groups seem to have been targeted. >> it could be, and i just don't know the answer to the question, andrea. it could be that they were the newest of these organizations to spring up. that it was kind of a new movement. but i guess one thing we'll be watching for is whether this does result in a criminal investigation. whether the government concludes that what happened here, violated the law and whether there will be an investigation to see if any laws were broken. a criminal investigation. >> now we've just heard for whatever reason that eric holder's 1:00 news conference which was to announce with kathleen sebelius, some new

cases of alleged medicare fraud has been delayed for at least half an hour, pete. is there any -- any talk at all from your knowledge, that he might be either stepping aside or stepping down or anything else? >> well you mean the attorney general himself? we've always assumed that he would not serve out the second term in full. there's a rule that the justice department, andrea, that news conferences never start on time. so half an hour delay is a little unusual. but in terms of whether the attorney general himself was involved in the a.p. subpoenas, we're going to have to find out that answer. because i think, my understanding was that the attorney general had taken himself out of the leak investigations, sometime before this. that he was in essence, recused and that would apply to this as well. but we'll wait to see what he says. >> thank you so much, pete williams, thanks again. and there is bipartisan outrage as we've been saying over the irs scandal here in washington. with republican leaders vowing

to find out just how did high-up, people high up the ladder and how high up the ladder the decision to target conservative groups really went. >> this morning, we all learned that the targeting wasn't limited to an irs office out of cincinnati. as the administration suggested last week. but that it reached all the way to the irs headquarters here in washington. what we don't know at this point is whether it jumped the fence from the irs to the white house. >> this of course on top of the revelation that the justice department also accessed those phone records of as many as 100 "associated press" reporters. in an unprecedented investigation of allegedly connected to a report on an intelligence operation going on in yemen. joining me for our daily fix on all of the above, chris cillizza, msnbc contributor and managing editor of post politics.com and nbc's capitol

hill correspondent, kelly o'donnell. who has been all over these stories. we'll go to jay carney. let's take it from the top. >> yesterday in your statement you said those matters are handled independently by the justice department. but it is the president's administration. so i wonder, doesn't responsibility for setting tone and setting direction ultimately rest with the president on these matters? >> well, the responsibility to set tone and to focus on the priorities of the american people is absolutely the responsibility of the president. and you see and hear him do that every day. as he fulfills his duties as president. you know i think you have to separate these issues and i think if you look at the answers the president gave yesterday, in response to questions on the one hand about the clear political circus that benghazi has become, and his response to questions about the reports of activity by

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

before we can jump to conclusions about what happened, whether there was a deliberate targeting of groups. inappropriately. and if that's the case, what action should be taken. but you can be sure, and i would point you to the president's response yesterday. what his feelings are about this kind of action if it in fact took place. on the issue of what is a department of justice investigation as i understand it, you know, the president is a strong defender of the first amendment. and a firm believer in the need for the press to be unfettered in its ability to conduct investigative reporting and facilitate a free flow of information. he also of course recognizes the need for the justice department to investigate alleged criminal activity without undue influence. and as i said yesterday in my statement, other than press reports, we have knowledge of any attempt by the justice

department to seek phone records of the "associated press." we're not involved at the white house in any decisions made in connection with ongoing criminal investigations. as those matters are handled appropriately by the justice department independently. and i understand there are a lot of questions about the reports about doj's actions and from my background, i understand them well. but in this situation, where the department appears to be conducting a criminal investigation, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to have answers to those questions. i don't have them and i have to refer you to the department of justice. >> can we go back to the irs issue. the president did use the word "if" these activities had taken place. but there's been an acknowledgement on the part of the irs leadership that these things did indeed occur. so i wonder why the president used that phrasing in claim that it was an outrageous -- >> those from the irs who have

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

that would be outrageous. and would require in his view, action to be taken. >> and that action, would there be something that the white house could do unilaterally? >> i think we have to wait to see what next steps are. because obviously there is a significant amount of independence of the irs, obviously as well as the naig. and we have to wait for what the i.g. assesses before we can decide what next steps might appropriately be taken. >> jeff? >> jay, it's now clear that senior tax officials knew about this extra scrutiny of conservative groups since 2011. which means also during the election, and that this was withheld until after the election. should the white house have been informed earlier? >> my understanding is that when there is a review, as there was and is, by an inspector general,

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

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

need a, the press to be able to be unfettered in its pursuit of investigative journalism. and you saw what he was a senator, the president co-sponsored legislation that would have provided further protections for journalists in this regard. and he is also mindful of the need for secret and classified information to remain secret and classified in order to protect our national security interests. so there are, there is is a careful balance here that must be attained. but i think it's important to look at the president's past here to understand where he comes from in this broadly, broadly speaking where he comes from in regard to issues like this. again i don't have a reaction from president obama, i can tell you that the people had make those kind of comparisons need to check their history. because you know, what we have

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

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

president said, and if the reports are true, he would consider them -- >> even the irs has acknowledged that some of this wrongdoing has happened. so the president and this administration could agree -- >> and i think you heard the president say yesterday, that if it turns out to be the case and again there's a lot of reporting, not all of it complimentary. >> he said there was irs personnel. which sounded like it was isolated. >> how could irs personnel be isolated. that could be the entire agency. he's basing -- jessica, he's basing -- >> is he concerned that there is a broader problem? >> he is concerned about every report he season this you can believe that he is concerned by that. that is why he looks forward to finding out what the i.g. report says. and then deciding what next steps need to be taken. and who needs to take them. and that's, you know, instead of rushing to conclusions or you know, perpetrating consequences

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

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

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

any knowledge or was involved in the targeting of tea party groups by the irs? >> yes. >> absolutely not? >> we found out about this, or at least the counsel's office was notified about this investigation, this potential activity very broadly just a few weeks ago. and beyond that, we have to, we learned about everything we know about this from what we see in your reports. so that's why we have to wait for the inspector-general's report. before we can assess, based on that and what it tells us, what we know and about what happened. and what didn't. and what action should be taken. and decide on what next steps should be taken. >> will anyone be fired over this? >> again we'll have to see what the report concludes and what else needs to be done to find out if necessary, whatbu if it were, there was a knowing effort

to target specific organizations. as conservative organizations, that would be youts rageous in the president's view. and there should be consequences. >> while you clearly can't comment on the justice department investigation, as a principle, does the president approve of the idea of prosecutors going through the personal phone records and work phone records of journalists and their editors? >> i appreciate the effort to generalize the question, but obviously that goes to the heart of the specific reporting on the case. ky dell you that the president believes the press as a rule needs to be, to have an unfettered ability to pursue investigative journalism. >> how can it be unfettered if you're worried about having your phone records subpoenaed? >> i can't respond to this in the specific. i am very understanding of the questions on this issue and appreciate the nature of the

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

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

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

out to be true, then you know, people should be held accountable and what that means in concrete action, we'll have to see based on the information and the facts that are gathered. principally, at least at first by the inspector general. so you heard from the president yesterday. you heard the outrage that he conveyed at the reports of this kind of activity. >> was it outrage or potential outrage? he said he was only going to be outraged if. >> i don't think you would want the president to be outraged on something that turned out not to be true. >> he apologized for part of it. >> don't we know that part of it is fact? >> i agree with that. and i think that that is was reflected in the tone and the nature of the comments you saw from the president. but on the broader issue here, about getting all the facts, it really is important, in our view, and the president's view, that we let the independent

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

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

who was responsible and taking the steps that we need to take to insure that our diplomats and our facilities are secure. that's what the president has been focused on. that's what you've seen in the report from the arb. the accountability review board. that was overseen by admiral mullen and ambassador pickering. and it's what you've seen in the president's insistence that the investigation led by the fbi into finding out who was responsible for the deaths of four americans reach a point where we can bring those responsible to justice. >> on the a.p. phone records, what prevents the president from picking up a phone, calling eric holder and asking him what happened? >> enormous, a great deal prevents the president from doing that. it would be wholly inappropriate for the president to involve himself in a criminal investigation, as jessica points out at least as reported involves leaks of information

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

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

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

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

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

president, he obviously has responsibilities as commander-in-chief to insure that classified information, that the nation's secrets, that is highly sensitive information, is not leaked, because the leaking of that information can endanger individuals as well as our overall national security. >> do you believe the third party should make that decision? i mean that's fine, as a candidate. he believed he said that the point of the press is sometimes to be a watch dog of the watch dog a little bit. and the judiciary branch is probably the appropriate place for them to make that determination. look, you guys will claim classified and it's not just you as an administration, any administration claims everything is somehow a national security leak can fall under the rubrics of that. but having a third party making the decision about is it truly going to endanger lives and truly going to do this. and you make your case in front of a third party. does the president support that

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

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

targeting turn out to be true. but we need to wait to see if that's in fact the case. and what the scope of it is before we make decisions about how to proceed. >> do you have any update about when you're going to, i know that republican senator bob corker of tennessee is saying he's been waitsing for an explanation on the ahmed karzai receiving cash payments from the c.i.a. and he's been confirming it and claiming it in afghanistan and senator corker was hoping for an explanation from the president and he says it's now been two letters and he hasn't gotten any explanation. >> i'm not aware of the letters i'll have to take the question. the specific story itself, you know, involves the c.i.a. and i'd have to refer you to them. but -- with regards to the letters, i'll let you know if -- if there's a response. >> jay? >> yes? >> you've used this formulation about the president's support for unfettered investigative reporting a number of times

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

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

opinion about reported developments in a criminal investigation currently under way at the department of justice. >> joining me here at the desk, kelly o'donnell, former white house press secretary and msnbc contributor, robert gibbs, both of you have been watching jay carney and we'll continue to monitor eric holder's news conference, so far he's talking about medicare fraud. and joining me also is elijah cummings, the top democrat on the house committee for oversight. what do you think congress needs to hear about two things, the "associated press" investigation by the justice department, which is being described by the a.p. as overly broad. 100 people. and also, the irs investigation? >> well, first of all, with regard to a.p., i think jay carney is absolutely right. and i listen to his interview so far. we've got as a lawyer, i can tell you when you got a criminal

investigation being conducted by the justice department, you got to be pretty careful. this is not a new argument for me, i'm making it my own committee when i think we've got over the balance of jeopardizing a criminal case. so i think we need to just wait and get some answers from attorney general holder. this is, and i, when i think about the case and what i've read so far, it does alarm me. i got to tell you, when you've got a grand jury, this these are grand jury subpoenas, and a judge overseeing that process. i know we at least have some kind of check and balance. so i think we're going to have to wait and see on that. with regard to irs, again we need the complete picture. and so the report is going to come out probably within the next 24 hours. we'll get a chance to see exactly the extent of it. a lot of people are saying well, they admit to it well we don't

know what they are admitted to. and how much of it, why it was done. and so we need to take a look, just wait and see, and we'll get those answers and then andrea. i think we'll be in a better position to address those issues. but i don't know how much more they can do at this juncture. >> well, robert gibbs is here, robert, you've been behind that podium in difficult situations. i'm not sure any more difficult than this, though. because on the face of it, the irs has acknowledged targeting conservative groups rather than all of those applying, admittedly after the citizens united case, a lot of applications. but that they were singling out the tea party and conservative groups. there is a real problem here. >> the problem and the problem is this -- the tenor of this briefing would be different if the president had spoken about this on saturday or sunday and not on monday. if the president had spoken on monday, less about losing patience for this, which is what

i do with my 9-year-old and used far more vivid language. and i think quite frankly come out and announced there would be a commission made up of a former, two former commissioners, irs commissioners, one appointed by a democrat, one appointed by a republican that said look we're going to deal, the irs is going to deal with how to deal with 501 c 4s, that have different political bent, based on what the administration is or isn't. and that's always going to be the case. so that law is going to be the purview of that law is going to be dependant on what that law says. and this commission should look at how to evaluate that law and how the oversight should be done correctly. that process can begin before we get this i.g.'s report. and i think they would have a much better way of talking about this story rather than simply kind of landing on the, well if this happened, then we'll look at it sounds exceedingly passive to me. >> kelly o'donnell, how chilling is it to journalists working on the hill, i think i have my own

answer. but you work there every day. >> i pick up my phone. >> and that is the phone that everyone uses, and did they clearly not go along with the guidelines of limiting the number of people with -- >> i can't speak to the law, because i'm not a lawyer. but as a journalist. i can say my biggest concern if i worked for the a.p. today, would any source call me back today, tomorrow and the foreseeable future. and the public should be concerned about any chilling effect on the ability to gather news, especially news, we're looking at what's unfolding in this press briefing about some very serious topics. you need the ability to gather the news without complicating factors. again not a lawyer, can't speak to the underlying investigation. but it is troubling how many personal phones also, those records being taken. that's of grave concern. and in the irs, what i'm hearing from talking to members and when i looked at the report we obtained over the weekend, that was a partial draft of the report that's coming out.

there was shorthand used, bolo, be on the lookout was a code for tea code for tea party, patriot, 9/12. this was embedded in the policy of what was happening at the irs. one of the issues i look at in terms of crisis communication, it is dribbling out. >> the attorney general is just now beginning to answer questions. let's go to the justice department. >> asking you to return those records and destroy all copies. will you consider doing so? >> if i can still remember all the questions i'm sure. i testified in june 2012 that i had been interviewed by the fbi in connection with this matter. and to avoid a potential, the appearance of a potential conflict of interest and to make sure the investigation was seen as independent. i recuse myself from this matter. we'll get to when that happened. it was early on in the investigation. this matter has therefore, there

after been conducted by the u.s. attorney here in washington under the supervision of the deputy attorney general. the deputy attorney general would have been the one to authorize the subpoena that went to the a.p. now i'm be familiar with all that went into the formulation of the subpoena. i was recused from that matter. i'm confident that the people involved in this investigation who i've known for a great many years and i've worked for a great many years followed all the justice department regulations and did things according to doj rules. so -- >> in the news gathering business, we would find this trouble. >> as i said, i don't know all that went into the formulation of the subpoena. this was a very serious, a very serious leak. and a very, very serious leak.

i've been a prosecutor since 1976. and i have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three. the most serious leaks that i've ever seen. it put the american people at risk. that is not hyperbole. it put the american people at risk. trying to determine who is responsible for that required very aggressive action. i'm sure that the subpoena as formulated based on the people that i know, i don't know about the facts but based on the people that i know, that i think subpoena was done in conformance with doj regs. >> they said they found out about it after the fact. after the records were taken. why was no attempt made to seek the voluntary cooperation? >> you're getting into matters that are beyond my knowledge. i was recused in the matter so i don't know. >> are you comfortable with that approach? ordinarily wouldn't protocol require that you would approach

for voluntary cooperation? >> i don't know what the circumstances were here. so how things are done in a particular investigation after being dictated by the facts and i don't have the knowledge of those facts. >> the real underlying question, the policy of the administration when it comes to the ability of the media to cover the news. i think the question is given the fact that this news organization was not given an opportunity to try to quash this in court, it leaves us in the position of wondering whether the administration has somehow decided policywise that it is going to go after us. >> that's not the policy of this administration. if you will remember in 2009 when i was going through my confirmation hearings, i testified in favor of a reporter shield law.

we as an administration took a position in favor of such a law. didn't get the necessary support up on the hill. it is something this administration still thinks would be appropriate. we've investigated on the base i of the facts, not as a result of a policy to get the press or to do anything of that nature. the facts in the law have dictated our actions in that regard. >> you said it is not hyperbole. if it is with the hand of the government, why was there any risk to americans when that information came out? >> i can't answer that question. >> toward the beginning of the investigation, perhaps we can get for you the exact date. i don't know when that was. but as i said, it was because i was one of the people who had knowledge of this matter.

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

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

to the a.p. letter. i don't know if it has been made available yet but that has a number of factual assertions in it. that contradict some of the assertions that were made by the letter that came from the a.p. i would refer you to that with regard to the response to that question. >> the a.p. story, the irs story, guantanamo, there is a growing sense that this administration's record on civil liberties has not lived up to the promises that you and others made beginning in 2008. and the criticisms of the past administrations. looking broadly at this administration's civil liberties record, are you disappointed and why hasn't more been done? >> i'm proud of what we have done. the policies that we put in place with regard to let's say, the war on terror. we decided that certain

interrogations techniques would not be used. we have been i think very aggressive in our enforcement of the civil rights laws. there have been a whole host of things that this administration has done, this justice department in particular that are consistent with what i think the president campaigned on and what we promised at the beginning of this administration. >> the practices changed during the last administration. the president signed the executive orders that effectively just continued what already happened. there are so many other examples where people are disappointed in this administration. [ inaudible ] on the left and the right. do you need to change course? >> [ inaudible ]. >> no, no, we're not. this administration has put a real value on the rule of law and our values as americans. i think the actions that we have taken are consistent with both.

if one looks at in a dispassionate way what we have done in a whole variety of areas, i found a more abundant civil rights division. that is a division now that has brought record numbers of cases, protected record numbers of people i would take issue with regard to how we have conducted the war on terror and with regard to interrogation policies. there were changes made by this administration. a repudiation of the opinions that existed when we came into office. we're about, i think, changes that were consistent with as i said, what the president campaigned on and what we talked about early on. >> expressed some concern about lack of transparency with regard to the administration's drone program. what are you going to do about it? >> we are in the process of speaking to that.

i made a promise that i think will be kept. by me and the president in a relatively short period of time. we have a rollout that will be happening relatively soon. >> the phone records and the a.p. case, the notification spoke to phone records because the justice department's internal regulation speaks to phone records them don't speak to e-mail records. based on your briefings, either at the time or now that it has all come out, can you say whether journalists' e-mail records including contents of e-mail records that may have been older than six months were accessed as part of this investigation? >> again, you would have to refer to the letter that the deputy attorney general prepared. it actually is i think from what i understand, i've only seen it in drafts. it is pretty specific about, to times, dates