Protecting the first family in the white house. He has full confidence in the professionals to do their job. April. Josh, i want to ask you a question. Is there concern within the white house that when the leaves, that there is a little bit more of a relaxed attitude, as when he goes to camp davis or somewhere else . I see what youre getting to, and i think this is a legitimate line of angry. Line of inquiry. The fact that the first family was not at home, did that have by bearing on the response the secret service to the breach of the perimeter . This is among the things that will be part of the review that in response toed the breach of the perimeter fence. I will reserve judgment here and refer to the experts youre taking a careful look at this. Again, to the extent that the secret service can release the results of this report, there will obviously be parts they cannot release, but to the extent they are able to do so, they will investigate that. Was the president told himself how the jumper successfully got in . President was briefed by officials at the white house. He received a detailed, in person briefing from the oval office. Is a subject about which the president expresses obvious concern. This is a topic he has spoken directly to the top officials of the secret service about. I read a statistic that there are about 10 jumpers a month. I dont think that is accurate. I would encourage you to go back and check. I am justng on saying that what i saw publicly is different than what you are conveying here. I would encourage you to check back with mr. Donovan because i am confident he will be as forthright with you as he can. And i want to make sure the information you are presenting to your readers is accurate. Here is the thing. We are having the conversation because we care about the details relevant to the president s security. Gate crawlers are different than individuals jumping the fence. I am sure mr. Donovan can give you a more detailed explanation than i can. It is his responsibility. But there are individuals who arrived at the white house to attend meetings with the president of the United States. Times a month there are individuals who arrived at the white house and dont attend meetings. That is different than jumping over the fence. [laughter] concern in this white house the from the there is aoday that problem within the secret service about communication, that the secret service who are working the events and working the house feel they cannot communicate with people and are now telling them in whispered calls or what have you to members on the hill . I will sayis that the administration is strongly supportive of the efforts of members of the secret service to get to the bottom of what happened. Broaderincludes a review of everything from security protocols to the technology deployed at the white house to even what kind of Communications Protocols exist between frontline officers and , secretior Officers Service has indicated that they are going to conduct a pretty review. In this when they get to the conclusion of the review, i think you can expect that at least some of the that canf that review me made public will be. So you and members of the public can evaluate and make conclusions from the data drawn. Did she offer her resignation . She did not. As to the question of what the secret service told the public, we want to pin it down. Nd be very specific [indiscernible] think that was an accurate full response do you . I would refer to the director of the secret service. She testified before Congress Today about this matter. The assailant got through the north portico doors, got through the white house into the east room and all the way to the south side of the white house. They made it all the way through the white house and was not apprehended at the north portico doors. I am just asking what seems like an obvious question. It is not accurate to say the gentleman was apprehended at the north portico doors. What is accurate is or what i am confident is accurate directorstimony of the of the secret service. She was under oath. She is committed to the Ongoing Investigation into what happened and what the response was to the specific and seven. What you are highlighting here is the inherent tension of the situation between the need for locking down fax and ensuring and disseminating information to the public about incidents that is in the public interest. There is inherent tension in this us and that is part of the of people like you to figure out what is accurate, what isnt, what should be reported, what shouldnt. And this is why or at least theighlights why, even in context of the questions i got from the podium last week about this incident that i declined to talk about specific facts related to the investigation. I have had conversations with senior officials to get to the bottom of what happened and then act as quickly as possible to disseminate Accurate Information on this matter that is the subject of public interest. Wered i understand you referring our questions to the secret service, which is entirely appropriate. It does not take an investigation to know that the man got all the way through the white house and was knocked down and apprehended at the door on the south side of the building, not at the front door. You dont need an investigation, and the secret service put out a statement. As reporters, we have to take that statement. The statement was in fact misleading and inaccurate. Youyou at the time that were referring questions to the secret service, did you know how inaccurate and misleading that statement was. Knew there was an Ongoing Investigation to determine what happened and that is why i was reluctant to comment on facts that are the subject of scrutiny enforcement by law officials in an Ongoing Investigation. We have an investigation by the secret service itself, by the u. S. Attorney into the conduct of mr. Gonzales who allegedly jumped the fence, by the secret service into the response by the secret service to the breach of the perimeter fence. There is a whole confluence of conducting a thorough review of this matter, so it is not surprising that given those different viewpoints and the chaotic nature of what allegedly occurred that there andt be some conflict pieces of information out there. And it is in the interest of this white house and my office to work closely with agencies and with secret service in this case to disseminate, as soon as possible, Accurate Information about what exactly occurred. And that explains my own hesitant to comment on facts that are still under investigation. Two more things. When the president was briefed right after this happened during farweekend, did he know how into the white house the person got . He has had a couple of conversations about this. There have been conversations between white house officials and the secret service. Sitpresident had his own down last week. There have been conversations. Hat have taken place did he know how serious this was . I am not in a position to detail the content of the. Onversations is there ever an excuse to mislead the public for a security reason . If telling the truth would jeopardize security . Is it ever ok to Say Something that is misleading or not true in fact telling the full truth would jeopardize security . Youre asking a hypothetical question and a tricky one but i will try to give you my best answer. I have worked at the white house for six years and i have never encountered a scenario in which i felt it was ok to mislead you or the public for any reason including security. There are situations where information is not disclosed because we need to protect the president , white house personnel or people operating around the years, it in my six have never encountered a situation where i felt it was appropriate to mislead anybody for any reason, including security. It sounds like the president may not have known how far the individual got into the white when he initially said he had full confidence in the. Ecret service can you tell us if he had been briefed on at least that much when he said i have full confidence in the secret service . He did receive a briefing in the immediate aftermath of the breach of perimeter and he received a couple of updates over the course of the weekend about what had transpired at the white house while he was on his way to camp david. Hethe end of last week received a briefing from the director of the secret service. I am not in a position to detail the content of those briefings, but i can tell you that throughout the process, and it is still true today, that the president retained his full confidence in the men and women of the secret service. I understand you saying this the kind of situation you have not seen where information was not fully disseminated when it was available. You just said a minute ago you had not seen a situation like this where information was not disseminated. Now, john asked a hypothetical situation about whether it would be appropriate to Say Something that was not true to try to protect security interest. Answer aitant to hypothetical impart for some of the reasons you are highlighting, so let me try to clarify what i was trying to say. I have not encountered a situation where i concluded it was appropriate to mislead anybody, journalists or members of the public, for any reason whatsoever, even security reasons. Has anyone given an explanation for why this wasnt disseminated when it was known . I understand the context of your question a little more clearly now. I think with this situation is that when you are dealing with the chaotic situation where many different people are trying to get to the bottom of what happened and lots of different people have a perspective on what occurred, literally and philosophically, conflicting facts can emerge. Of actings the risk thekly to try to balance priorities, one, the need to be as transparent as possible with the public about what you know. The second is to ensure that information has been verified, thoroughly vetted, investigated, and the facts have been locked down before that information is distributed. And that is a difficult business. What i know is that the director of the secret service testified under oath before Congress Today to communicate in her Opening Statement what the latest information about what she understood transpired here at the white house. What were the conflicting facts . Joe, i would refer to the secret service, who may be able to provide some additional. Nsight has the president talked to the individual who actually tackled the jumper in the white house . Frankly, i dont know the answer to that. You have repeatedly referred to the secret service for answers. And i think this just explained why. And they have over time given us information that is does not contain all of the facts. For example, he was unarmed. 12 hours later, they told us he was unarmed. Does it concern you that you are to folks who are giving us information that is inaccurate . We are trying to give you information that is accurate as tan as possible. One priority is to get you information quickly. The other priority is to make sure that the information has been thoroughly vetted and verified and that the facts are locked down. There is inherent tension in those competing priorities. That tension is only amplified when you are dealing with the situation as chaotic as what transpired at the white house. What that does is highlights why it is so important for this thorough investigation to be , and it is why i have been personally reluctant to delve into the facts of what occurred because it is up to Law Enforcement officials to thoroughly interview all the individuals they may have come across in the situation that have perspective or can provide insight into what occurred. In some cases it is eyewitness accounts. In some cases it is what was on the radio. Confident that the secret service will, consistent with their priority to provide information to the public about this matter, release the facts that can be released, understanding, of course, that some information, because it relates directly to the safety and security of the white house and the president , will have to remain confidential. But there is interest in what exactly transpired. You sought testimony under oath today and i think you will continue to see that moving forward up to and including when the secret Service Releases the details of the Ongoing Investigation. But we have not been getting fully accurate and clear information so far. That is something you will be easier to address once the investigation is concluded. It is the testimony of the director of the secret service has been getting updated on the investigation that is underway. Is committed to being as transparent as possible about what she has learned. She has demonstrated her. Ommitment to this , you stood year ago at the podium and told us iraq he forces were confronting a coordinated network that was attacks. Arry out it turns out the Intelligence Community had warned this white house about isil. What we talked about for some time was the Nations National security infrastructure that is charged with protecting our interests all around the globe. We have been concerned about extremist threats emanating from syria. President mething the talked about a year and a half ago along with the king of jordan. Both men talked about the threats to their country due to the destabilizing influences of extremist organizations. Dire situations were created by the ongoing situations there and there was concern about extremists trying to capitalize on that chaotic environment. The president said on 60 minutes that i did not really get a heads up from the Intelligence Community. But he said it in a News Conference a year and a half ago. Which is it . The president was referring to was specifically a comment from director clapper that has been repeated on a couple of occasions that it is very difficult to assess the will of the Iraqi Security their to fight for country. There is reason to believe that will falter a little bit excessive political circumstances inside the country , but what was also clear is that the United States had been ramping up our assistance, that there were helicopters and missiles transferred to the security forces, that i so has been designated by the state department as a foreign terrorist organization, that there were other steps that had been taken to try to confront posed by isil. What ultimately was true and what the president said in the context of his 60 minutes interview was that everybody underestimated the speed and capability issa would demonstrate in overrunning Iraqi Security forces and taking over a large chunk of territory inside the nation of iraq. But a Senior Intelligence officials said they did issue these warnings. But the white house just didnt pay attention. Not a big priority. It sounds a lot different, what the Intelligence Community is saying and what this white house is saying. The leader of the Intelligence Community today put out a message that directly the individual quoted in the new york times. What director clapper said is i am proud of the work the Intelligence Community has done to monitor, assess, and call attention to the community of isil. As he said previously, predicting the will to fight is inherently difficult, and despite all we know about the and iraqies of isil security forces, there is no one who could have predicted the ease with which forces captured territory in iraq. That is consistent with what director clapper has been saying for some time and what the president said in his 60 minutes interview. Responsible the person responsible for making sure the president has the intelligence he needs to take care of the Nation Security is confident the president got the information he needed. To what he pointed out is that there are no intelligence tools that could have evicted could have predicted the ability to defend against isil. We asked a couple of weeks ago about the president s Daily Briefing and whether or not the president , as long as a year ago , was warned about the growing from isil. I in the interest of public this ,losure Public Disclosure why not share with the public what you did know a year ago . I dont think it certainly would not be my decision whether elements ofclassify one of the most closely held intelligence documents in the u. S. Government. What i can say is that the president has on a number of how importantrved it is to communicate with the American Public, with congress, and our partners in congress, for the benefit of our National Security to make sure we are protecting the American Public, our interests around the globe, and the homeland. The president is committed to ,eing as forthright as possible given the obvious constraints, about the threats that we face, and i dont think that will the most declassifying closely held documents in the u. S. Government. I want to switch to india. Were there any agreements signed today . Funny you should ask. There were a number of things that were discussed. We will have some specific information released by it via email later today. I can give you some headlines. Night. D have dinner last it was an opportunity for them to get to know one another. It was the first time they had met in person. They shared their opinions on government and democracy. They discussed their vision for the u. S. India strategic relationship Going Forward including the role of u. S. Technology and government. A number of deliverables, and you will see some of the details about that in a joint statement we will release soon. Anything important about military sales . The joint discussion includes a new partnership with india, a partnership on clean energy and tomate change, an agreement establish an indo