Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

White House Press Briefing. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 31, 2016 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Up first, the Trump campaign on the attack. And the Clinton campaign fighting back over those newly discovered e-mails being reviewed right now by the FBI. All of this is playing out less than eight days and counting before the presidential election here in the United States.

Look at the -- at this. Live pictures coming in from Grand Rapids, Michigan right now. We're waiting for the start of a Donald Trump rally there. The Trump campaign has pounced on the discovery of more e-mails possibly related to the -- to Clinton's use of a private e- mail server.

The Clinton campaign is blasting the FBI director for disclosing the e-mail review just days before the presidential election. We're going to hear what Clinton has to say next hour. She has a rally set in Kent, Ohio. Another one this evening in Cincinnati.

Her running mate, Tim Kaine, is campaigning in North Carolina. Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, he's in Florida. All battleground states.

Our Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta is covering the Trump campaign for us. Our Justice Correspondent Evan Perez has the latest on the FBI investigation.

Jim, what is Trump's strategy now to capitalize on this e-mail issue?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right, Wolf. I think the strategy, at this point, is to reply all, to use an e-mail term, every chance that they get. Donald Trump, over the last couple of days, he's been -- he's been hitting this time and again.

You recall, it was in Las Vegas yesterday where he actually thanked Anthony Weiner, the former Congressman, for setting this all into motion.

And at the last couple of rallies, he has been saying that this is only Hillary Clinton's fault. She only has herself to blame. I'm talking to a campaign aide, Wolf, who tells me, in just the last few minutes, that Donald Trump will hit that message again today, trying to get the point across.

They feel like, inside the Trump campaign, that is critical, at this point. That this is not Jim Comey's fault. This is not the fault of the FBI director. This is the fault of Hillary Clinton who originally used that private e-mail server. The Trump campaign and Donald Trump will be saying, time and again, that she is to blame for all of this not the FBI director.

That's not going to be the only thing that Donald Trump is going to be talking about. He's going to be talking about Obamacare at this rally here in Grand Rapids. They thought that was the October surprise gift last week when it -- when it came out that premiums, under Obamacare, were going to go up more than 20 percent next year. But not all October surprises are created equal.

And also, Donald Trump will be hitting his economic message, I'm told by a campaign aide, pretty hard at this rally. They feel like that that message is tailor-made for states like Michigan where people were hard-hit during the great recession.

The question, of course, Wolf, is why is Donald Trump hitting states like Michigan, traditionally Democratic states? Republicans go for it every four years but it just doesn't work out. But they are seeing a tightening of this race inside the Trump campaign.

Obviously, our CNN poll of polls shows Hillary Clinton still leading by five percentage points. But it -- what they're saying inside the battleground states, looking at individual polls, is a tightening of the race.

And, really, Wolf, this e-mail controversy, this new FBI review of these e-mails that might be possibly linked to Hillary Clinton, there's just no telling, at this point, how that's going to shake out, from a polling standpoint.

And, of course, Donald Trump can't win if he just wins the states that Mitt Romney won four years ago. He has to flip some Democrat states and turn them red. And that is why he's hitting states like New Mexico, Michigan. And he'll be doing more of that later on this week -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Jim Acosta, thanks very much.

Evan Perez, update us on the actual investigation, the significance of the search warrant, for example, obtained by the Justice Department.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this -- the search warrant is very significant, simply because the FBI needs to be able to have -- needed to have the permission to be able to look at the thousands of e-mails that have now found on Anthony Weiner's computer.

Now, there's a lot of -- a lot of stuff that we do not know. In the end, whether this changes anything about the investigation that the FBI concluded back in July, when they decided that there were not enough -- there was not enough evidence to bring charges against Hillary Clinton.

We don't know whether this changes any of that. We don't know whether -- how many of these e-mails might be duplicates. They expect that maybe a lot of them will be.

But here's what we do know. We do know that the FBI has spent several weeks looking at the computer. They looked at some of the metadata of some of the e-mails that they saw. And they found that there was reason to believe that some of those e-mails did go through Hillary Clinton's private server. That's one reason why they believe it might be pertinent to this investigation.

And here's another thing they know. They know that they -- from what they could see that there were some concerns that there might be some classified information on some of these e-mails. That's what's triggering this investigation.

[13:05:02] They're going to spend some time looking at these e-mails. They'll bring in other people to make sure they can determine whether or not there is, indeed, any classified information.

Again, there's a lot of work, yet, for the FBI to do. That's one reason why we're told that Jim Comey, the FBI Director, despite all the calls from Republicans and Democrats, to provide more information, is unlikely to provide anything more in the next few days. Simply because his agents are still doing a lot of work -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Evan Perez, thanks very much.

Let's bring in our panel. Our CNN Politics Editor Juana Summers is joining us. Molly Ball, Political Writer for "The Atlantic." Our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger is here. Our Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash, Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin and former FBI assistant director, Tom Fuentes, is CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst.

Gloria, how does the Clinton campaign handle this e-mail issue which has come up now a week and a day very, very strongly before the election?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, as you saw last Friday, she first came out and raised questions about what FBI director had done.

Now, they have had their surrogates, very powerfully and in large numbers, come out and complain about it, including former attorney general Eric Holder. Who, while he is a friend of Comey's, said that he made a huge mistake. That it was a stunning breach of protocol. That he shouldn't have stated his opinion about the case back in July. That was the original sin. And that he -- that what he did this time was wrong. The Justice Department needed to be more involved.

And as for Hillary, herself, what she is doing is continuing on the campaign trail. You will see it today, talking about Donald Trump as if this doesn't exist. As trying to disqualify him, as she does, as commander in chief on his temperament, calling him divisive and dangerous. Because she does better when she is talking about Donald Trump, not about herself.

So, the focus from her is going to continue to be on Trump and try to remind people why they don't trust him to be commander in chief. That's her job, but it's a multipronged strategy.

BLITZER: Jeffrey Toobin, is Eric Holder, who was the attorney general during the Obama administration, right?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is a -- unprecedented to have a -- the FBI speak out, throw a bomb in the middle of a presidential campaign 11 days out. You know, there is a basic principle in the Justice Department that in the period --

BLITZER: All right, hold on a moment, Jeff. It's the White House briefing. Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary, he's discussing this very issue right now. Let's listen in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- and that was not appropriate. Eric Holder says that was not the wrong decision of the attorney generals of both parties. The -- without getting into the content of the investigation which I know you can't discuss, does the president feel it was appropriate for Comey to make that public just days before the election?

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY (live): Well, Josh (ph), I anticipated so you -- where you wanted to start. I appreciate you noting that over the nearly two years now that I've been answering questions about Secretary Clinton's e-mail system, that I have made clear that the White House is going to be scrupulous about avoiding even the appearance of political interference in prosecutorial or investigative decisions.

And that is a posture that I won't change and is a posture that speaks to the kind of institutional responsibilities that are investigated -- that are vested here in the White House which is preserving the independence and integrity of independent investigations conducted by the Department of Justice.

Now, you raised a question about some of the decisions that have been made to communicate information about those investigations to the public. And what's true is -- Josh, is that I don't have any independent knowledge of how those decisions were made.

I don't know what factors were considered, dating all the way back to July, when director Comey announced the results of the investigation and spoke at length to the public about his decision not to prosecute Secretary Clinton. Included in that news conference were some rather harsh condemnations of the way that Secretary Clinton handled that situation.

Director Comey also testified before Congress, at some length on- camera under oath, and -- about the investigation. And some of that testimony provided fodder to Secretary Clinton's critics.

Over the course of the fall, we've seen the FBI move forward in providing other investigative information, 302 forms and other documents, to Congress. And the fact is, my lack of independent knowledge about that decision-making prevents me from weighing in.

[13:10:02] So, I anticipate that this is not the only question I'm going to get asked about this today. But I'll never -- I'll neither defend nor criticize what director Comey has decided to communicate to the public about this investigation.

What I will say is that the Department of Justice in our democracy is given expansive authority to conduct investigations. The Department of Justice is given subpoena power. They're allowed to compel witnesses to testify. They are able to collect evidence that's not readily available, necessarily. They're even allowed to impanel a grand jury. Those are substantial authorities.

It's important, in the mind of the president, that those authorities are tempered by an adherence to long-standing tradition and practice and norms that limit public discussion of facts that are collected in the context of those investigations.

And there are a variety of good reasons for that. And the president believes that it's important for those norms and traditions and guidelines to be followed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were they, in this case?

EARNEST: Well, again, I think you'd have to -- I know that there's been a lot of discussion about this. And by discussion, I mean a lot of public reporting based on a multitude of anonymous sources at the Department of Justice.

The president believes that it's -- that there are a set of significant institutional responsibilities that officials, at the Department of Justice and the FBI, must fulfill.

The good news is that the president believes that director Comey is a man of integrity. He's a man of principle. And he's a man of good character. That presumably is the reason that President Bush chose him to serve in a senior position at the Bush administration's Department of Justice.

These same character traits are what led a strong majority of Democratic and Republican senators to confirm him to this job. He's the traits that led the president to select him to be the director of the FBI.

And these are tough questions. And so, it's a good thing he's a man of integrity and character to take them on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You'll concede, I'm sure, that in the absence of any (INAUDIBLE) information about this, voters are left to essentially speculate about what might be involved in this, what the FBI might be looking at or not looking at, just before the election.

So, would the president, in the interests of people being able to not rely on anonymous sources, and the like, see the FBI release more information than Comey did in that very brief letter prior to Election Day about what's going on?

EARNEST: Josh, in the same way that I'll neither criticize nor defend director Comey's decisions about what to make public in the context of this investigation. That's because I just don't have independent knowledge of the decisions that are made to release this information.

And there are other people that have the luxury of being able to (INAUDIBLE), writing op-eds or serving as anonymous sources for reporters to weigh in with their own view. But when I'm standing here representing the institution of the presidency, I don't have that luxury.

And so, you know, in the same way that I'll neither defend nor criticize director Comey's decisions with regard to what to make public in the context in this investigation, I don't have any recommendations to make to him either, with regard to what information should be communicated to the public.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the past, including after the FBI announced that it was not proceeding with a recommendation to bring charges in this case, the White House did defend Comey, and you've defended him a number of times. So, is that a substantive shift in the language you're using today is that you won't defend or criticize him? The fact that you're not defending him, is that some signal to us that there is reason for the White House to maintain some additional distance here?

EARNEST: Well, I think, Josh, what I have observed in the past is that director Comey is a man of integrity. He's a man of principle. He's a man who is well regarded by senior officials in both parties. He's somebody who's served in a senior position in the -- in the Bush administration. And he's somebody who got strong bipartisan support when his nomination to be the director of the FBI was considered by the United States Senate.

So, all those things are true. They speak to his good character. And the president's assessment of his integrity and his character has not changed. For example, the president doesn't believe that director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election. The president doesn't believe that he's secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party.

[13:15:00] JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election. The president doesn't believe that he's secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party. He's in a tough spot. And he's the one who will be in a position to defend his actions in the face of significant criticism from a variety of legal experts, including individuals who served in senior Department of Justice positions in administrations that were led by presidents in both parties.

But, you know, that kind of - that I'm just not going to be in a position to, frankly, either defend or criticize decisions that he'd made with what to regard - with regard to what to communicate in public. That is separate, Josh, from the kind of prosecutorial and investigative decisions that are made by the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is their institutional responsibility, to make those decisions about investigations and prosecutions independent of any sort of political interference and I will defend their right to do that. In fact, it's their responsibility. QUESTION: This decision aside, is it concerning at all to the White

House that you have the Justice Department and the FBI basically griping at each other in some form of public or semipublic fashion? I mean they obviously have to work very closely together to keep the country safe. Is there an issue there that needs to be resolved so that the Justice Department isn't accusing the FBI of not following proper procedures?

EARNEST: Well, Josh, you've heard me discuss the president's view of Director Comey's integrity and character. Let me just tell you that the president's got a lot of confidence in the attorney general of the United States, Loretta Lynch, to run that department. And she is somebody who spent decades as a career prosecutor. She's not new to any of this. A lot of that work was done when she was the head of the eastern district of New York, the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of New York. That is a - a position where these kinds of decisions are closely scrutinized by the media that's based in the largest city in our country. So she's used to this kind of pressure. And the president's got complete confidence in her ability to handle this situation responsibly and consistent with the institutional responsibilities that are vested with the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: And on other question on a - a topic that I know is difficult to talk about for another reason. The president's half- brother, Malik Obama, has published an op-ed, I suppose, in a New York newspaper essentially airing a list of grievances against the president, saying he wasn't - he hasn't sufficiently supported his family in Kenya, didn't send condolences after his half-brother's son - or children passed away. And he sends by saying, you know, I will - I will not be humiliated anymore. Does the president have any thoughts about that op-ed or about the fact that this family issue is playing out so publicly?

EARNEST: Josh, I have to admit that I have not seen the op-ed that you're referring to. You know, if we have an official reaction to it, I'll - I can follow up with you. I spoke to the president about the series of questions that you started the briefing with, but I did not - I had not read the op-ed, so I did not ask him about this one, but will follow-up with you.

QUESTION: Thanks, Josh.

EARNEST: OK.

Iesha (ph).

QUESTION: Thanks.

Going back to the FBI. You said that you don't have enough, or the White House does not have enough independent information to either criticize or - or to come out with a position on Comey's letter. But then I guess what - what do you say to the American people if the White House doesn't have enough information to decide whether the letter was appropriate or not? Seemingly the American people are then left with questions about what to believe. There are lots of criticism right now from both sides, or lots of calls from both sides of the aisle asking Director Comey to release more information. Do you feel that the American people don't have a right to more information about this probe? I mean they are going to the voting booths right now and next Tuesday.

EARNEST: Well, look, Iesha, this is an entirely legitimate question for you to ask and I think these are the kinds of questions that are being carefully considered at the Department of Justice right now. And given the institutional responsibilities that are vested here at the White House, it - you know, I just don't have a recommendation to make. It's important for them to make these decisions consistent with their - let me be more precise here. It's important for officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI to make these decisions consistent with their institutional responsibilities.

[13:20:06] And as I made reference to earlier, those officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI are given expansive authority and expansive powers to intrude on the privacy of private citizens. And that authority is tempered by longstanding traditions and norms and guidelines that largely avoid extensive public discussion of those investigations.

Let me give you an example that I think will resonate with all of you based on your day to day responsibilities here at the White House. It is not uncommon for you, when you call the Department of Justice, asking them to even confirm that there's an investigation ongoing for them to decline to do that. Typically when you report about the fact that there's an ongoing investigation, that's not based on official confirmation you've received from an official at the Department of Justice. It's based on confirmation you've received from an anonymous official at the Department of Justice who's not willing to speak publicly about the case because it would be improper for them to do so. That, I think in a way that we all - in a way that reflects the reality of the world that we all work in on a day-to-day basis, I think that underscores the sensitivity of discussing this information.

Now, the other thing I think that's important to consider here, is there is a tendency to say, with regard to this letter that was written on Friday, to say, well, Congress is independent, and they have their own independent oversight responsibilities to exercise over the Department of Justice. Well, let me say a couple things about that. The first is, the kinds of norms and traditions that limit the public disclosure of investigations don't supersede the oversight responsibilities or requests that are submitted by members of Congress. And the reason for that is simple. Congress is indeed independent of the executive branch, but they're far from impartial. Congress is made up of 535 politicians, Democrats and Republicans, and we've already seen, just in the last 72 hours, the kind of risk that's associated with communicating to them sensitive information. There's one senior Republican official who is already indicated - well, who had previously endorsed the Republican nominee for president, who let it slip that his party was considering impeaching President Clinton even before she's been elected, if she's elected.

That's, I think, is a pretty clear indication that Congress is not at all impartial. And, you know, that's why many of these norms, longstanding norms, that apply even when we're not talking about someone famous and even when we're not talking about an election being a week and a half away, that should apply. And the president believes that these norms are important and worth upholding.

QUESTION: So the president believes these norms are worth upholding, but it seems like in this case Comey - these letters - or that's what people are saying is that these norms weren't upheld. We're talking about an ongoing investigation because a letter was sent. So I guess I'm - I'm trying to parse out. So - so where does the White House stand on that - on just as a general issue, having an ongoing investigation that is now being discussed?

EARNEST: And, look, this is, this goes to the fact that because we have worked to shield this investigation, given the politically sensitive nature of it, well, frankly, even if it weren't politically sensitive, you know, we would go to great lengths, we would be scrupulous about insulating that independent investigation from the - from even the appearance of political interference.

So I don't have any independent knowledge of the investigation or the kinds of decisions that led Director Comey to take the steps that he did to communicate some of this investigation, or some of the material relevant to this investigation, to the Congress and to the public. So, again, I'm not in a position to either defend or criticize that decision. That's - that's - that's something that officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI have to do.

QUESTION: So, Senator Reid said that the FBI has some explosive information regarding Trump and Russian ties, and there's some - and basically he's accusing the FBI of having a double standard and not releasing information like that. And he and other lawmakers have called for the FBI to release that information. Dose the White House have any position on that? Are you concerned that now you have - you have more kind of accusations going around about FBI probes?

[13:25:24] EARNEST: Look, as I - as I mentioned before, you know, the White House has not been briefed on the investigation that the Department of Justice and the FBI were conducting into Secretary Clinton's e-mail system. The White House has not been briefed on even the existence of any investigation into the activities or habits of the Republican nominee. These are all questions that should be directed to the Department of Justice and to the FBI.

OK.

(INAUDIBLE).

QUESTION: Thanks, Josh.

Going back to Senator Reid's letter. He basically accused the FBI director of potentially violating the Hatch Act and you've said that you believe that Director Comey is a man of integrity and in the letter that Senator Reid sent, he said that he once believed that Director Comey was a principled servient and he now no longer believes that. So what is your reaction to that letter and do you agree with Senator Reid on this? EARNEST: Well, questions about the application of the Hatch Act should

be directed to the Office of Special Counsel. This is an independent agency that is filled with attorneys and investigators who, among their responsibilities, are investigating potential violations of the Hatch Act. But, again, you'll have to talk to them to even confirm the existence of an investigation, let alone learn more about what they have concluded.

You know, with regard to Director Comey, as I said at the top, the president believes that he's a man of integrity. He's a man of character. He's a man of principle. And he's got a very different job. And those character traits that I just described will serve him well as he works through the difficult challenges that he faces over the course of his job.

QUESTION: You said you -

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, there he is, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, speaking about the FBI director, James Comey's decisions, very controversial decision, to go ahead and notify Congress that his office has been investigating e-mails that were on the computer belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner. The White House press secretary repeatedly saying he's neither going to defend nor criticize Comey's decision. He's in a tough spot, he said. He is a man of integrity. At the same time he said, there are longstanding - longstanding traditions in the Justice Department, in the law enforcement community to be followed. There is institutional responsibilities, presumably referring to this tradition that within 60 days of an election you're not supposed to go out and make these kinds of statements.

I was talking to Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey, it comes on the heels of the former - the former attorney general, Eric Holder, who served in the Obama administration, saying that Comey has committed a serious error with potentially severe implications. A stunning breach of protocol.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: And perhaps more importantly Larry Thompson, the former deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft in the George W. Bush administration. What's striking about the reaction to Comey's letter on Friday is that it's not just Democrats attacking it, because this norm that Josh Earnest was talking about is something that really is ingrained at the Department of Justice, which is that you stay out of elections. That is something that is really - I mean even a lowly assistant U.S. attorney like me, when we were investigating members of the city council or state representatives, I mean low-level political officials who are always under investigation by the Justice Department, is that you stay away from the election time. And the idea that Director Comey would do this when he didn't even have any specific evidence against Hillary Clinton, when he just said that there were these e-mails out there and we don't know what their significance is, I think that has set off a backlash that transcends just Democratic officials.

BLITZER: Well, Tom Fuentes, you served in the FBI the entire career. You got to the rank of assistant FBI director. What's your reaction to what we just heard from the White House and we heard from these other officials?

TOM FUENTES, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, what I'd like to hear the former Department of Justice officials comment on is, this really started when Bill Clinton boarded Loretta Lynch's airplane a matter of a few days before the interview of the FBI of his wife, the main subject of the e-mail investigation. And that meeting lasted more than 30 minutes. So it had to be more than, hello, how are you? See you later. They had some kind of a discussion.

[13:15:00] JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election. The president doesn't believe that he's secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party. He's in a tough spot. And he's the one who will be in a position to defend his actions in the face of significant criticism from a variety of legal experts, including individuals who served in senior Department of Justice positions in administrations that were led by presidents in both parties.

But, you know, that kind of - that I'm just not going to be in a position to, frankly, either defend or criticize decisions that he'd made with what to regard - with regard to what to communicate in public. That is separate, Josh, from the kind of prosecutorial and investigative decisions that are made by the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is their institutional responsibility, to make those decisions about investigations and prosecutions independent of any sort of political interference and I will defend their right to do that. In fact, it's their responsibility.

QUESTION: This decision aside, is it concerning at all to the White House that you have the Justice Department and the FBI basically griping at each other in some form of public or semipublic fashion? I mean they obviously have to work very closely together to keep the country safe. Is there an issue there that needs to be resolved so that the Justice Department isn't accusing the FBI of not following proper procedures?

EARNEST: Well, Josh, you've heard me discuss the president's view of Director Comey's integrity and character. Let me just tell you that the president's got a lot of confidence in the attorney general of the United States, Loretta Lynch, to run that department. And she is somebody who spent decades as a career prosecutor. She's not new to any of this. A lot of that work was done when she was the head of the eastern district of New York, the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of New York. That is a - a position where these kinds of decisions are closely scrutinized by the media that's based in the largest city in our country. So she's used to this kind of pressure. And the president's got complete confidence in her ability to handle this situation responsibly and consistent with the institutional responsibilities that are vested with the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: And on other question on a - a topic that I know is difficult to talk about for another reason. The president's half- brother, Malik Obama, has published an op-ed, I suppose, in a New York newspaper essentially airing a list of grievances against the president, saying he wasn't - he hasn't sufficiently supported his family in Kenya, didn't send condolences after his half-brother's son - or children passed away. And he sends by saying, you know, I will - I will not be humiliated anymore. Does the president have any thoughts about that op-ed or about the fact that this family issue is playing out so publicly?

EARNEST: Josh, I have to admit that I have not seen the op-ed that you're referring to. You know, if we have an official reaction to it, I'll - I can follow up with you. I spoke to the president about the series of questions that you started the briefing with, but I did not - I had not read the op-ed, so I did not ask him about this one, but will follow-up with you.

QUESTION: Thanks, Josh.

EARNEST: OK.

Iesha (ph).

QUESTION: Thanks.

Going back to the FBI. You said that you don't have enough, or the White House does not have enough independent information to either criticize or - or to come out with a position on Comey's letter. But then I guess what - what do you say to the American people if the White House doesn't have enough information to decide whether the letter was appropriate or not? Seemingly the American people are then left with questions about what to believe. There are lots of criticism right now from both sides, or lots of calls from both sides of the aisle asking Director Comey to release more information. Do you feel that the American people don't have a right to more information about this probe? I mean they are going to the voting booths right now and next Tuesday.

EARNEST: Well, look, Iesha, this is an entirely legitimate question for you to ask and I think these are the kinds of questions that are being carefully considered at the Department of Justice right now. And given the institutional responsibilities that are vested here at the White House, it - you know, I just don't have a recommendation to make. It's important for them to make these decisions consistent with their - let me be more precise here. It's important for officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI to make these decisions consistent with their institutional responsibilities.

[13:20:06] And as I made reference to earlier, those officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI are given expansive authority and expansive powers to intrude on the privacy of private citizens. And that authority is tempered by longstanding traditions and norms and guidelines that largely avoid extensive public discussion of those investigations.

Let me give you an example that I think will resonate with all of you based on your day to day responsibilities here at the White House. It is not uncommon for you, when you call the Department of Justice, asking them to even confirm that there's an investigation ongoing for them to decline to do that. Typically when you report about the fact that there's an ongoing investigation, that's not based on official confirmation you've received from an official at the Department of Justice. It's based on confirmation you've received from an anonymous official at the Department of Justice who's not willing to speak publicly about the case because it would be improper for them to do so. That, I think in a way that we all - in a way that reflects the reality of the world that we all work in on a day-to-day basis, I think that underscores the sensitivity of discussing this information.

Now, the other thing I think that's important to consider here, is there is a tendency to say, with regard to this letter that was written on Friday, to say, well, Congress is independent, and they have their own independent oversight responsibilities to exercise over the Department of Justice. Well, let me say a couple things about that. The first is, the kinds of norms and traditions that limit the public disclosure of investigations don't supersede the oversight responsibilities or requests that are submitted by members of Congress. And the reason for that is simple. Congress is indeed independent of the executive branch, but they're far from impartial. Congress is made up of 535 politicians, Democrats and Republicans, and we've already seen, just in the last 72 hours, the kind of risk that's associated with communicating to them sensitive information. There's one senior Republican official who is already indicated - well, who had previously endorsed the Republican nominee for president, who let it slip that his party was considering impeaching President Clinton even before she's been elected, if she's elected.

That's, I think, is a pretty clear indication that Congress is not at all impartial. And, you know, that's why many of these norms, longstanding norms, that apply even when we're not talking about someone famous and even when we're not talking about an election being a week and a half away, that should apply. And the president believes that these norms are important and worth upholding.

QUESTION: So the president believes these norms are worth upholding, but it seems like in this case Comey - these letters - or that's what people are saying is that these norms weren't upheld. We're talking about an ongoing investigation because a letter was sent. So I guess I'm - I'm trying to parse out. So - so where does the White House stand on that - on just as a general issue, having an ongoing investigation that is now being discussed?

EARNEST: And, look, this is, this goes to the fact that because we have worked to shield this investigation, given the politically sensitive nature of it, well, frankly, even if it weren't politically sensitive, you know, we would go to great lengths, we would be scrupulous about insulating that independent investigation from the - from even the appearance of political interference.

So I don't have any independent knowledge of the investigation or the kinds of decisions that led Director Comey to take the steps that he did to communicate some of this investigation, or some of the material relevant to this investigation, to the Congress and to the public. So, again, I'm not in a position to either defend or criticize that decision. That's - that's - that's something that officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI have to do. QUESTION: So, Senator Reid said that the FBI has some explosive

information regarding Trump and Russian ties, and there's some - and basically he's accusing the FBI of having a double standard and not releasing information like that. And he and other lawmakers have called for the FBI to release that information. Dose the White House have any position on that? Are you concerned that now you have - you have more kind of accusations going around about FBI probes?

[13:25:24] EARNEST: Look, as I - as I mentioned before, you know, the White House has not been briefed on the investigation that the Department of Justice and the FBI were conducting into Secretary Clinton's e-mail system. The White House has not been briefed on even the existence of any investigation into the activities or habits of the Republican nominee. These are all questions that should be directed to the Department of Justice and to the FBI.

OK.

(INAUDIBLE).

QUESTION: Thanks, Josh.

Going back to Senator Reid's letter. He basically accused the FBI director of potentially violating the Hatch Act and you've said that you believe that Director Comey is a man of integrity and in the letter that Senator Reid sent, he said that he once believed that Director Comey was a principled servient and he now no longer believes that. So what is your reaction to that letter and do you agree with Senator Reid on this?

EARNEST: Well, questions about the application of the Hatch Act should be directed to the Office of Special Counsel. This is an independent agency that is filled with attorneys and investigators who, among their responsibilities, are investigating potential violations of the Hatch Act. But, again, you'll have to talk to them to even confirm the existence of an investigation, let alone learn more about what they have concluded.

You know, with regard to Director Comey, as I said at the top, the president believes that he's a man of integrity. He's a man of character. He's a man of principle. And he's got a very different job. And those character traits that I just described will serve him well as he works through the difficult challenges that he faces over the course of his job.

QUESTION: You said you -

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, there he is, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, speaking about the FBI director, James Comey's decisions, very controversial decision, to go ahead and notify Congress that his office has been investigating e-mails that were on the computer belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner. The White House press secretary repeatedly saying he's neither going to defend nor criticize Comey's decision. He's in a tough spot, he said. He is a man of integrity. At the same time he said, there are longstanding - longstanding traditions in the Justice Department, in the law enforcement community to be followed. There is institutional responsibilities, presumably referring to this tradition that within 60 days of an election you're not supposed to go out and make these kinds of statements.

I was talking to Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey, it comes on the heels of the former - the former attorney general, Eric Holder, who served in the Obama administration, saying that Comey has committed a serious error with potentially severe implications. A stunning breach of protocol.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: And perhaps more importantly Larry Thompson, the former deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft in the George W. Bush administration. What's striking about the reaction to Comey's letter on Friday is that it's not just Democrats attacking it, because this norm that Josh Earnest was talking about is something that really is ingrained at the Department of Justice, which is that you stay out of elections. That is something that is really - I mean even a lowly assistant U.S. attorney like me, when we were investigating members of the city council or state representatives, I mean low-level political officials who are always under investigation by the Justice Department, is that you stay away from the election time. And the idea that Director Comey would do this when he didn't even have any specific evidence against Hillary Clinton, when he just said that there were these e-mails out there and we don't know what their significance is, I think that has set off a backlash that transcends just Democratic officials.

BLITZER: Well, Tom Fuentes, you served in the FBI the entire career. You got to the rank of assistant FBI director. What's your reaction to what we just heard from the White House and we heard from these other officials?

TOM FUENTES, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, what I'd like to hear the former Department of Justice officials comment on is, this really started when Bill Clinton boarded Loretta Lynch's airplane a matter of a few days before the interview of the FBI of his wife, the main subject of the e-mail investigation. And that meeting lasted more than 30 minutes. So it had to be more than, hello, how are you? See you later. They had some kind of a discussion. They say golf and children, grandchildren, but it was a more than 30-minute meeting, which was completely inappropriate.

[13:30:05] When the attorney general was confronted with the fact that it was inappropriate, she makes the announcement - she doesn't say, I'm recusing myself from the Clinton case and my deputy