Wolf Blitzer looks at politics, breaking news and international stories. historically, because a lot of our viewers will remember. when you and bob woodward were working on the watergate related stories, was president nixon as anxious publicly during your reporting as we now see this president being very anxious, deeply concerned about the mueller probe? >> first, i think what we're seeing is more than anxiety on the part of donald trump. we are seeing a president who is behaving and acting unhinged. nixon did not really publicly act unhinged, but i think we need to look at something larger. that is that in watergate, the system worked. the president of the united states did not publicly declare the press an enemy of the people and seek to undermine the first amendment and the very legitimacy of what the press did, though he did try to make our conduct an issue, or the issue in watergate, rather than his own conduct. can share my own personal perspective. i've certainly received my fair share of reporting on me personally that i know not to be fully accurate. so i've, you know, had some -- i have some sensitivity around why people have concerns and gripe, especially when they sort of feel targeted. but no, i do not feel that the media is the enemy of the people. >> all right. well, she's clearly taking a different stance than her dad, who does believe the so-called mainstream news media is the enemy of the american people. what's your reaction? >> my reaction is if she really believes what she says and believes it's important, she should get up there with her father, and she should say, if he won't do it with her loud and clear, i am holding a press conference myself to talk to the american people and say that this member of the family does not believe in suppression of the first amendment, that i do not believe in whipping up the kind of hysteria that president trump is in terms of making the media, quote, the enemy of the people. i don't believe in this approach to our democracy. let her say it loud and clear. i think this is a kind of ruse. if she really means it, she's had every opportunity to say it loud and clear. she has the platform to do it beyond a short interview with axios, such as we've seen there. indeed, i think that it may be the press who ought to be going to her now that she's said that and say, miss trump, we'd really like to sit down with you on this topic and explore it. i think it's a good story for us to pursue. >> i want you to stand by, carl. our chief white house correspondent jim acosta is over at the white house. he's getting ready for this briefing scheduled to begin any moment now. two brief in addition two dayin. sort of unusual. what are you hearing? >> reporter: well, the white house was receiving a lot of scrutiny for not holding a lot of briefings. they're no longer daily briefings. they're weekly briefings, on average. although, the last couple days we're having briefings. we'll have to see what happens in the next several minutes. perhaps the white house will have a guest or two to come out here today. maybe that's why they're having two briefings in a row. i think when sarah sanders begins to take questions here in the briefing room, she is going to be asked about what president trump's daughter ivanka trump said earlier this morning with mike allen. that is not only the president's daughter disagreeing with the president of the united states, it is an employee who works under the president. the president doesn't usually take too kindly to his subordinates going in another direction. so when ivanka trump says, no, the media are not the enemy of the people, i think that's very interesting. i suppose sarah sanders will be asked about that. at the same time, there are all kinds of other weighty issues about what rudy giuliani said yesterday with respect to the president and these legal options that they're apparently weighing behind the scenes, as to whether or not the president will sit down with robert mueller's team and answer questions about some of these areas they want to cover as we've been reporting. the mueller team is floating the possibility of whittling down some of these questions in order to entice the president's cooperation. i can tell you from talking to my own sources, sources that are familiar with these discussions that go on inside the president's legal team, that is something that has been advocated for a long time. it's been hotly debated for some time, that the president at the end of the day, wolf, if he wants to fully put this behind him, is going to have to sit down, according to some people inside the president's legal team, and answer some of these questions, whether they're via e-mail or in person or some combination of both. if the president does not do that, the feeling is that the president is just not going to fully put this behind him. i think obviously that's going to come up as well. wolf, there's a whole host of issues that sarah sanders will be asked about if she has an extended briefing. as we've seen before, on some of these occasions, especially when we have a couple briefings in a row during the week, sometimes you have an administration official coming out to talk about whatever subject the white house wants to talk about on any given day. so we may see that happen here as well. >> all right. jim acosta, stand by. i want our viewers to stand by. carl bernstein is still with us. we have our other analysts and reporters. we're all awaiting the start of this briefing moments away. we'll be right back. are you done yet? you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog! champion. ivanka trump breaking from the white house she serves. by the way, the briefing was scheduled for the top of the hour. we're still waiting for the start of the briefing. we'll get there shortly. in the meantime, let's talk about the president's daughter and senior adviser. she told reporters just a few hours ago that her father's policy that separated families at the border has been the lowest point of her time. we'll have much more on that. but in the meantime, here's sarah sanders. >> safeguard our nation's elections. the president has made it clear that his administration will not tolerate foreign interference in our elections from my nation state or other dangerous actor. last year the president signed an executive order to strengthen and review the cybersecurity of our nation and its critical infrastructure. last week the president chaired a meeting of his national security council to address ongoing threats. he asked the officials standing next to me to brief the american people on the work being done to protect the integrity of our elections. efforts are under way to provide cybersecurity assistance to state and local authorities and actions to investigate, prosecute, and hold accountable those who illegally attempt to interfere in our political and electoral process. to address these matters further, i want to welcome director of national intelligence dan coats, fbi director christopher wray, director of the national security agency, general paul, and national security adviser ambassador john bolton to make some comments and take questions on this topic. as you all know, we've addressed what occurred during the 2016 election numerous times and rather extensively. the purpose of today's briefing is about what we are doing now and in the future to protect the integrity of our elections moving forward, and we ask you stay on that topic. in order to help this run smoothly, we'd also ask you direct your questions to a specific person. with that, i'll turn it over to ambassador bolton to make some comments. >> thank you very much, sarah. what we'd like to address today is election security in the 2018 election and in the future. the president has made it very clear, i think, what his priority is. we've had obviously a number of inquiries from congress on this, including a letter to me in the past couple days from five senators, signed by senator schumer and four others. i have responded to that letter today. we've made copies available to you. it forms a kind of framework for the briefing that the four heads of operating departments are going to give you here today. they are the ones who are implementing and operation operationalizing the policy we have developed. there are other agencies involved, but these are the four primary ones. i think it's important that we address the question of the president's involvement in this, his leadership, his determination to prevent russian and other foreign influence in elections. we meet on this constantly. the senior staff here at the white house, we meet with the heads of the different agencies involved. we discuss it quite regularly. in my tenure as national security adviser, we've had two full national security council meeting chaired by the president. as i say, countless other discussions as well. since january 2017, the president has taken decisive action to defend our election systems from meddling and interference. this includes measures to heighten the security and resilience of election systems and processes, to confront russian and other foreign malign influence in the united states, to confront such aggression through international action, and to reinforce a strong sanctions regime. now, as you know, elections are administered by state and local governments, so the federal role is to assist them. we'll be addressing that through the comments of the heads of the operating agencies. i might also say by way of introduction that many federal government actions to protect elections in the united states such as those implemented by the intelligence community or law enforcement agencies are necessarily sensitive and highly classified. we do not wish to make the efforts of our adversaries any easier through injudicious public disclosures. nonetheless, we have offered to do briefings to members of congress in secure facilities. so what i'd like to do here, as sarah said, is turn the briefing over to the people whose agencies have this responsibility. we'll start off with director of national intelligence dan coats. he'll be followed by the secretary of homeland security, kirstjen nielsen. she'll be followed by christopher wray. then finally, the director of the national security agency, general paul nakasone. dan? >> as director of national intelligence, i would like the american people to know that the intelligence community and all of its agencies are postured to identify threats of all kinds against the united states. the president has specifically directed us to make the matter of election meddling and securing our election process a top priority, and we have done that and are doing that and will continue to do so. we have incorporated the lessons learned from the 2016 election and implemented a broad spectrum of actions to share more information across the federal government as well as with state and local governments and also with the public and the private sector. the intelligence community continues to be concerned about the threats of upcoming u.s. elections, both the midterms and the presidential elections of 2020. in regards to russian involvement in the midterm elections, we continue to see a pervasive messaging campaign by russia to try to weaken and divide the united states. these efforts are not exclusive to this election or future elections but certainly cover issues relevant to the election. we also know the russians tried to hack into and steal information from candidates and government officials alike. we're aware that russia is not the only country that has an interest in trying to influence our domestic political environment. we know there are others who have the capability and may be considering influenced activities. as such, we will continue to monitor and warn of any such efforts. i am committed to making sure that the intelligence community is working together in integrating across organizations and missions and seeking greater transparency with the public. the odni has instituted a broad spectrum of actions covering collection, analysis, reporting, education, and partnerships, all designed to provide the best threat assessments to federal, state, and local officials as well as to the public and private sector when necessary. for example, my office leads the interagency working group now meeting weekly as a push towards november with department of justice, fbi, department of homeland security, cia, and nsa inclusive of regional cyber and counterintelligence experts, all focused on ensuring election safety. the intelligence community's focus right now is persistent support to the fbi, to the department of homeland security, and other agencies in their election responsibilities, and my office is ensuring these organizations receive timely and proactive intelligence community support. >> good afternoon. thank you, all, for joining us. i want to start by briefly mentioning that on tuesday dhs hosted the first national cybersecurity summit. this brought together government, industry leaders, and academia to discuss opportunities to join forces to counter threats to our nation's critical infrastructure. i want to thank all of those who joined us from academia, government, and the private sector, all who participated, and those who signed up to concrete actions to confront cybersecurity challenges. across every critical infrastructure sector from energy to financial services to transportation to communication and so many others, a single attack can have widespread and cascading consequences. i look forward to working with the nation's leading minds in the digital realm as we stand up the national risk management center. but it's not just risks to our prosperity, privacy, and infrastructure we have to worry about. that's why we're here today. our democracy itself is in the crosshairs. free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy, and it has become clear that they are the target of our adversaries who seek as the dni just said to sow discord and undermine our way of life. i fully share the community intelligence's assessments and past efforts and those today to interfere with our election and of the current threat. our adversaries have shown they have the willingness and capability to interfere in our elections. dhs has and continues to work closely with state and local election officials throughout the country by offering a range of services to help identify weaknesses in their election systems. whether it's offering no cost, voluntary technical assistance, or sharing best practices for securing online voter registration databases or providing technical advice on rans ransomware and destructive malware, our department stands ready to provide tailored support based on each jurisdiction's unique needs. this is another example where one size does not fit all. i'm pleased to inform you that to date, all 50 states, the district of columbia, and over 900 local governments have partnered with dhs in order to bolster the resilience of the nation's election infrastructure. various states also have organic capabilities and are engaging with the private sector and academia to improve the security of elections. election infrastructure is not a destination. it requires aggressive and ongoing vigilance. everyone must play their role to ensure that every vote is counted and is counted correctly. all of us up here today, members of congress, state and local election officials and the public. as all of us up here today gain new insights into potential adversaries and campaigns, we are committed to providing our partners with the government's best intelligence and information available. the progress we have made is real, and the nation's elections are more resilient today because of the work we're all doing. we must continue to ensure that our democracy is protected. thank you for being here, and i'll turn it over to director wray. >> good afternoon, everybody. last fall after i became director, i stood up a new foreign influence task force at the fbi, which was designed to identify and counteract the full range of maligned foreign influence operations targeting our democratic institutions and our values. the task force now brings together across the waterfront of fbi expertise. so we're talking counterintelligence, cyber, criminal, and even counterterrorism. designed to root out and respond to foreign influence operations. for their part, our adversaries' influence operations have encompassed a wide range of activities. so just like we have a multidisciplinary response, that's because the threat is multidisciplinary. so just a few examples of some of the things we've seen over the past. targeting u.s. officials and other u.s. persons through traditional intelligence trade craft, criminal efforts to suppress voting and provide illegal campaign financing, cyber attacks against voting infrastructure along with computer intrusions, targeting elected officials and others, and a whole slew of other kinds of influence like both overtly and covertly manipulating news stories, spreading disinformation, leveraging economic resource, and escalating divisive issues. but it's important to understand this is note just an election cycle threat. our adversaries are trying to undermine our country on a persistent and regular basis whether it's election season or not. there's a clear distinction between on the one hand activities that threaten the security and integrity of our election systems and on the other hand the broader threat of influence operations designed to manipulate and influence our voters and their opinions. with our partners, we're trying to counteract both threats. we have three pillars to our operational strategy. the first pillar is our investigations and our operations. and for a variety of reasons, which i hope are obvious, including operational sensitivities, i'm not going to be able to describe the full extent of those efforts, but i will tell you our foreign influence task force works with fbi personnel in all 56 fbi field offices and even as we speak, we've got open investigations with a foreign influence nexus spanning field offices, fbi field offices across the country. so make no mistake, the scope of this foreign influence threat is both broad and deep. second pillar, i said there were three, the second is focus on information sharing and intelligence sharing. we're working closely with our partners in the intelligence community and in the federal government, as well as with our state and local partners to establish a common operating picture. just last week as an example, we disseminated a list to our state and local law enforcement partners of various foreign influence indicators for them to be on the lookout for. things like malicious cyber activity, social abnormalities and foreign propaganda activities. the idea is to marshal additional eyes and ears in the fight. we're also working with our international partners to exchange intelligence and strategies for combatting the threat because this is, after all, a shared threat. the third pillar of our approach is based on our strong relationships with the private sector. technology companies have a front line responsibility to secure their own networks, products, and platforms, but we're doing our part by providing actionable intelligence to better enable them to address abuse of their platforms by foreign actors. so this year we've met with top social media companies and technology companies several times. we've given them classified briefings. we've shared specific threat indicators and account information and a variety of other pieces of information so they can better monitor their own platforms. the reality is it's going to take all of us working together to hold the field because this threat is not going away. as i have said consistently, russia attempted to interfere with the last election and continues to engage in maligned influence operations to this day. this is a threat we need to take extremely seriously and to tackle and respond to with fierce determination and focus. and together with our partners, both those here and some of the other partners we've talked about, i'm confident that we can protect the integrity of our democratic institutions and maintain public confidence in our electoral process. thank you. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for joining us this afternoon. i appreciate the leadership and support from the president, the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence. i believe our mandate is clear. as part of its mission to defend the nation, the department of defense is providing intelligence, information support, and technical expertise to the department of homeland security for use by state and local officials to prevent foreign interference in our elections. this is a vital mission for us and the nation. it draws on our deep experience and expertise in continuing work in this area. our support has been ongoing and will continue through the midterm elections. we're also providing intelligence and information leads to the federal bureau of investigation on foreign adversaries who are attempting to sow discord and division within the american public. this information is shared with appropriate entities to alert them of malicious cyber actors. u.s. cyber command and the national security agency are tracking a wide range of foreign cyber adversaries and are prepared to conduct operations against those actors attempting to undermine our nation's midterm elections. these type of operations are sensitive and require confidentiality for success. i won't discuss the specifics, except to state that our forces are well trained, ready, and very capable. i have complete confidence in the forces under my command. we will work in conjunction with other elements of our government to ensure we bring the full power of our nation to bear on any foreign power that attempts to interfere in our democratic processes. i'll turn it back over to the moderator. >> thank you. as i said at the beginning, if we could stay on topic and also if you could when asking a question, direct it to a specific person. as always, after we finish this part of the briefing, i'll be back to answer other questions on news of the day. john, go ahead. >> director coats, if i could direct a question to you. >> sure. >> let me take you back, if i could, to helsinki. the president seemed to indicate he may believe vladimir putin when he says he didn't have any influence in the 2016 election. what is your belief about the russian government involvement in meddling in 2016? and if as you say russia continues to try to influence our electoral process, does that mean that nothing much came of the meeting with putin, or is it other government actors who are involved? >> well, in relationship to the 2016 election, of course none of us were in office at that particular time, but both the president, the vice president, i think everyone on this stage has acknowledged the fact that the ica was a correct assessment of what happened in 2016. we have subsequently made the determination to make this a top priority, that it doesn't happen again, and we're throwing everything at it. we will have and will be discussing that here today. relative to my discussions with the president on whatever issue it is, those -- i do not go public with that. i don't think that's the proper thing to do. so our focus here today is simply to tell the american people we acknowledge the threat. it is real. it is continuing. and we're doing everything we can to have a legitimate election that the american people can have trust in. in addition to that, it goes beyond the elections. it goes to russia's intent to undermine our democratic values, drive a wedge between our allies, and do a number of other nefarious things. we are looking at that also, but today we are here to talk about the elections coming up and what we're doing, ensuring the american people -- >> both you and director wray said that russia continues to try to meddle in our elections. >> they do. >> and influence voters. are we talking about rogue russian individuals, or are we talking about the kremlin? >> i think both and even add to that. russia has used numerous ways in which they want to influence through media, social media, through bots, through actors that they hire, through proxies, all of the above and potentially more. i can't go into deep details. but it's pervasive. it is ongoing with the intent to achieve their intent, and that is drive a wedge and undermine our democratic values. >> i have a question for director wray. thank you. the special counsel, robert mueller, has indicted more than 20 russian officials based on work by the fbi for meddling in the 2016 election. the president has tweeted that that investigation by the special counsel is a hoax and should be shut down. i know you've said that you don't believe it is a hoax, but why would the american people believe what you're saying about the fbi when the president says that the investigation by the special counsel is a hoax and when the press secretary yesterday said that there was a lot of corruption within the fbi? do you have any response to those statements coming from the white house? >> i can assure the american people that the men and women of the fbi, starting from the director all the way on down, are going to follow our oath and do our jobs. >> i have a question for director coats. director coats, how would you characterize the current russian efforts to meddle in the 2018 election relative to 2016? is it more intense? do you see those efforts focused on a particular party? and in general, is the pace of those operations in any way relative to 2014, 2012, or is it more intense? >> relative to what we have seen for the midterm elections, it is not the kind of robust campaign that we assessed in the 2016 election. we know that through decades, russia has tried to use its propaganda and methods to sow discord in america. however, they stepped up their game big time in 2016. we have not seen that kind of robust effort from them so far. as i mentioned publicly just a few weeks ago, we're only one keyboard click away from finding out something that we don't -- haven't seen up to this particular point in time. but right now we have not seen that. >> to follow up, sir, do you see it directed to any particular party? this current 2018 and effort, is there any particular effort that's benefitting from current 2018 russian efforts? >> what we see is the russians are looking for every opportunity, regardless of party, regardless of whether or not it applies to the election to continue their pervasive efforts to undermine our fundamental values. >> jeff. >> also for director coats. in the run-up to -- >> i'll try to get them all. >> perhaps ambassador bolton can weigh in as well. in the run-up to the helsinki summit, u.s. officials, nato ambassadors to russia said that the president would raise the issue of the malign activity with president putin. he didn't discuss that, at least at the press conference. you're saying today that the president has directed you to make the issue of election meddling a priority. how do you explain the disconnect between what you are saying, his advisers, and what the president has said about this issue? >> i'm not in a position to either understand fully or talk about what happened in helsinki. i'll turn it over to the national security director here to address that question. >> yeah, the issue was discussed, and in fact president putin said, i thought at the press conference but certainly in the expanded bilateral meeting when the two leaders got together with their senior advisers, president putin said the first issue that president trump raised was election meddling. >> i guess the question is, at the press conference, the president didn't highlight any of the malign activities that you have and that his advisers have. so should americans believe that he is listening to your advice or that he's going his own way when he's having meetings like he did with the president of russia? >> i think the president has made it abundantly clear to everybody who has responsibility in this area that he cares deeply about it and that he expects them to do their jobs to their fullest ability and that he supports them fully. >> i believe this it either for director coats or director wray. i'll let you choose. since social media was brought up, there's a recent case with facebook, how they just shut down some 32 accounts believed potentially to be from russia. can you give us an idea, is that a large amount? is that kind of the tip of the iceberg? and generally speaking, with these social media companies, facebook, twitter, instagram, how much have they progressed or have they not progressed in what you would like to see in terms of progression from 2016 and identifying the threat? >> so first, i'm not going to discuss any specific ongoing investigation, but what i will tell you is that activity of the sort you're describing is a good reflection of the fact that we have to have a public/private partnership in this particular threat. that's why when i talked about our three pillars, we're spending so much of our effort trying to engage with the social media and technology companies because there is a very important role for them to play in terms of monitoring and in effect policing their own platform. what we have to have happen, which started happening in a way that's much more robust, much more robust than before the 2016 election, we're sharing with them actionable intelligence in a way that wasn't happening before. we understand better what they need. they're sharing information back with us based on what they find. there are things they can do on their platforms voluntarily, in terms of terms of use and things like that, that the government doesn't have a role in. in turn, we learn things from them and can use that to have our investigations be more effective. i think progress is being made. we got to keep getting better on it and staying on the balls of our feet. >> ambassador bolton, in your letter you talk about ordering the closure of the consulates in san francisco and seattle. these are two tech hubs. what happened there that led you to do that? >> well, i'm not going to discuss the background of that decision, which actually occurred before i came to this job. but the purpose of expelling the russian individuals that were expelled was to send a signal to russia that their conduct in conducting a chemical weapons attack in great britain was unacceptable. this was a mode of retaliation designed to show that we will not tolerate that kind of activity on the territory of the united states or any of our allies. we expelled a lot of the people who we think had knowledge of it or had other activities in the united states that we considered unacceptable. >> this, i guess, would be for maybe secretary nielsen or mr. wray. the meddling campaign seemed to fall into two broad categories, the sort of information campaign which challenged the information upon which americans use to make their determinations, and then the more physical interferences into the machinery of voting, tabulation of voting, the voter rolls, the machinery that the states run. can you guys describe what you're seeing specifically in the run up to this coming election in both of those areas? do you worry more about one than the other? are there specific threats that maybe you can't even talk about but that you can say there have been specific threats in both of those categories? and how should americans process that, where we're going to go to the polls in a few months. should people be confident that when they pull the lever, they're secure? >> well, i think we've said this fairly consistently, that in the context of 2018, we are not yet seeing the same kind of efforts to specifically target election infrastructure, you know, voter registration databases in particular. what we are seeing are the malign influence operations, in effect information warfare, that we've talked about. that's a 24/7, 365 days a year phenomenon that doesn't turn necessarily on whether or not we're in the middle of an election season or not. but as director coats said, any moment is just a moment before, you know, the dial can be turned up one, much as we saw in 2016. again, not in terms of affecting the vote count, but in terms of potential penetration of voter registration databases or something like that. and that in turn can be a vehicle for them to try to sow discord or undermine confidence. we have to make sure we're pushing back on it, which is what we're doing. >> so just to add, the way that we're splitting it, we're all partnering together, but your question just shows a little bit of the division of labor. dhs is focused on the election infrastructure in support of state and locals that have the primary responsibility. we support the fbi's efforts in countering foreign influence. with respect to the infrastructure piece, we have seen a willingness and a capability on the part of the russians. so we're working very closely with state and locals to ensure that we're prepared this time around. part of that is encouraging states to have auditability. so to get to that one part of your question, whatever happens, we want to assure americans the day after that their vote was counted and it was counted correctly. so regardless of what might happen, we will be prepared, but we also want to make sure we have that auditability. >> secretary nielsen, would a government shutdown affect any of these efforts? >> what we have done, as you know, is in 2017 dhs designated election infrastructure a critical infrastructure subsector. so we prioritize efforts. any state that requests a vulnerability assessment, a hunt team, best practices, hygiene scans, et cetera, we'll continue to prioritize within our budget. so thank you. >> we'll take one last question. >> this is for the director and for the general. can you unpack a little bit more about what you said there? you said there was -- the question for the director. can you give us a better sense of who specifically has been targeted? we know at least two senators have said they've been targeted by hacking or by people impersonating government officials. is it members of the senate, members of the house? is it democratic and republican campaigns? and then a separate question for the general. >> we follow a procedure that's been agreed on some time ago in terms of when we see this type of information, it is processed through the leadership of the respective chamber, senate chamber. and then disseminated down to the individual member who was targeted. so we have taken that action. that is in place, but i'm not in a position right now to release those names. >> would you support legislation imposing sanctions on russia now that you're saying they have, in fact, interfered? >> we already had some of those, a lot of sanctions in place. i would support any efforts that we can collectively put together to send a signal to russia that there's a cost -- a price to pay for what they're doing, and if we want to have any kind of relationship whatsoever in dealing with things of mutual interest, the russians have to stop doing what they're doing or it's simply not going to happen. >> and general, have you been ordered at all to, or authorized to conduct any offensive cyber operations in response to this? >> so my guidance and the direction from the president and secretary of defense is very clear. we're not going to accept meddling in the elections. it's very unambiguous. >> will there be additional sanctions for the 13 russians indicted? >> thank you, all, very much. we appreciate you being here today. we'll take a couple more questions on other topics today. jill, go ahead. >> thank you. i want to ask about the president's tweet on north korea. he was addressing kim jong-un. he said, quote, i look forward to seeing you soon. are there plans in place right now? any discussion about a second meeting? also, he said he received a letter from kim. what did the letter say, and did it address any of the reports that appear to show that kim is not actually working towards denuclearization? >> that's a lot of questions rolled into one. i'll try to address each one. if i miss something, i'm sure you'll point it out. he did receive a letter. i believe he received it on august 1st. there is not a second meeting that is currently locked in or finalized. certainly open to that discussion, but there isn't a meeting planned. we have responded to chairman kim's letter, the president has. that letter will be delivered shortly. beyond that, i can't get into any further details. >> did he address the concerns? >> i can say the letters addressed their commitment from their joint statement that was made at the singapore summit. they're going to continue working together towards complete and total denuclearization. i can't go any further than what i just told you. >> ivanka trump maid two stae statement this morning. she said the immediate why are not the enemy of the people and also called family separation at the border a low point. what does the president think of those statements? >> certainly the president himself has stated he doesn't like the idea of family separation. i don't think anybody does. we also don't like the idea of open borders. we don't like the idea of allowing people into our country if we don't know who they are, where they're going, and why they're coming. the president wants to secure our borders, which is why he has asked congress to fix the law. we haven't we haven't been unclear what our position is here. we want to secure the borders. we want to change the law. it's congress' job to do that. we want them particularly to democrats to stop playing political games and step up and do their jobs. the president is rightfully frustrated. 90% of the coverage on him is negative despite the fact that the economy is booming. isis is on the run. american leadership is being reasserted around the world. just this week the media refused to cover his remarks in florida highlighting remarks on workforce. the governor of the state joined with dozens of business across the state of florida to announce thousands of new jobs. that may not be news in washington, d.c. but i can assure you it's news in the state of florida that people that didn't have a job before this president took office had a better opportunity and an opportunity to move forward. that's real news and something that people in the state of florida and across this country appreciate and that was ignored. not only that before a journalist on cnn claimed that the president hadn't taken questions in over a week despite the fact that same journalist in a live shot from the two and two press conference that the president had with the prime minister of italy with minutes after make that accusation. this is understandable for the president to be frustrated. >> i want to ask you about the conference call that took place yesterday involving u.s.-china trade relations. is there a timeline as to when or if president may pull the trigger and impose harsher sanctions on china or tariffs on china? >> we're continuing to monitor that process and when we have an announcement on that we'll certainly let you know. >> is the goal at the end of the day to get china back to the negotiating table the way they were at the negotiating table with american trade officials just a few months ago? >> the goat at the end of the day is to end the one fair trade practices that china has engaged in for decades and that the administrations before this president have ignored. jonathan. >> returning to the question of election security. the president has said other people also may have been involved in the efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. do any of the people we saw up there, any forensic evidence the intelligence community that there were others besides russia that were involved in election immediate snlg -- meddling? >> there are others that are considering making attempts in 2018, which is what our focus is, moving forward. as you know, none of us were here in 2016 but we're here now and individuals that were standing up here just moments ago the focus and full weight of the government asked by the president and directed by the president is to protect the election infrastructure in 2018 and moving forward and that's exactly what we're going to do. i can't get in specific details but our intelligence show there are a number of others that are looking at and considering engaging particularly in 2018. >> trying to help democrats you suggested the russians would be helping democrats in the mid-term elections. is there any evidence whatsoever that democrats, russians are trying to help democrats? >> i think you can see just from what took place over in the facebook, i know director wray wasn't at liberty to speak to specifics but a number of them were anti-president trump and that's certainly isn't helping republicans. john. >> i want to respond because the rule that was proposed by the administration today, the two states attorney general said they will sue this administration. this is part of their complaint. they say freezing or weakening the standards put the health of our children and seniors at risk. it increases the rising cost of climate change for our states. the administration's response would be what? >> that the reporting that we're reversing obama era fuel efficiency standards in preempting the tougher california standards is simply false. what the pepa released was a proposed rule not a final rule. the notice asked for comments on the range of options. we're simply opening it up for a comment period and make a final decision at the end of that. >> from 10% to 25% -- >> i'm sorry. >> on the move of 10% to 25% on tariffs what was the thing that made the president say this is what i want to do it. >> the president will hold china's feet to the fire and stop the unfair trade practices. >> going back to election security the other night in tampa the president mentioned voter i.d. for elections. going forward, is the administration looking at proposing a voter i.d. law or pushing a voter i.d. law? >> i'm sorry what was the last part of your question. >> the administration as part of this election security push also looking to do a voter i.d. law to push something like that through congress. >> we're looking into everything we can to protect the 2018 elections, the integrity of those elections and moving on beyond 2018 to 2020 and after. we haven't made a final decision but certainly looking at every option available to us. it's not unreasonable. if i return something to a department store, if i have to cash a check i have to show my i.d. to do those things. it's not outrageous if you have to vote to decide on your leaders for the state and local government would be that you show an i.d. jim? >> i want to follow up on a question. she asked you about ivanka trump's statement that the press is not the enemy of the people. she asked you whether or not the press is the enemy of the people. you read off a laundry list of your concerns about the press and then things that you feel were misreported built you did not say that the press is not the enemy of the people. i think it would be a good thing if you were to state right here at this briefing that the press, the people who are gathered in this room right now, doing their jobs every day, asking questions of officials like the ones you brought forward earlier are not the enemy of the people. i think we deserve that. >> the president has made his position known. i also think it's ironic -- i'm trying to answer your question. i politely waited and i called on you even after you interrupted me when i called on your colleague. >> if you would not mind me having a followup. >> it's ironic, jim, that not only you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lowered the level of conversation in this country. repeatedly, repeatedly the media restarts personal attacks without any content other to incite anger. the media has attacked me repeatedly, said i should be harassed as a life sentence. i.c.e. officials are not welcomed in their place of worship. when i was hosted by the correspondence association you brought up a comedian to attack me. as far as i know i'm the first press secretary in the history of the united states that's required secret service protection. the media continues to ratchet up the verbal assault against the president and everyone in this administration and certainly we have a role to play but the media has to role to play for the discourse in this country as well. >> if i may followup. you did not say in the course of those remarks that you just made that the press is not the enemy of the people. are we to take it from what you just said, we all get put through the wringer, we all get put through the meat grinder in this town and you're not an exception and i'm sorry that happened to you. i wish that did not happen. for the sake of this room, for the people in this room, this democracy, this country, all the people around the world are watching what you are saying and the white house for the united states of america, the president of the united states should not refer to us as enemy of the people. his own daughter acknowledges that and all i'm asking is you acknowledge that right here and right now. >> i appreciate your passion. i share it. i've address this question. i've addressed my personal feelings. i'm here to speak on behalf of the president. he's made statements clear. >> the national archives told the senate judiciary committee today that they can't finish up the document collection regarding brett kavanaugh until october. that's later than the timetable that you guys, senate republicans are hoping for. any comment on that or any potential assistance that the white house can give the archives in facilitating that. >> we want to be as helpful as possible to turn over documents. several senators said there's over a million pages of documents to review including