PFEIFFER: No, what -- what the email -- the email showed three things. I think this is very important because they undermine all of the allegations that Republicans have been making for months about this. First, the emails show that all of the drafts of the talking points include -- written by the CIA include reference to -- to the influence of a protest here. Second, references to al-Qaeda and terrorism were not taken out by the White House as Republicans have asserted, but taken out by the CIA.
And third, it shows that everyone here was trying to get it right the best we could, and that the primary driving objective for the White House, the CIA and the State Department was to ensure we did nothing that -- that interfered with the investigation of the people who did this.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it also does show that the -- that the changes were more extensive than changing the word mission -- consulate to diplomatic facility?
PFEIFFER: But what they do -- what they absolutely show beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the Republican allegation that the White House, the State Department, someone else changed the CIA's assessment for political reasons, that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false. And so hopefully we can put this all behind us, and I -- frankly I think that many of the Republicans who have been talking about this, now that they have seen the emails, owes Ambassador Rice an apology for the things they said about her in the wake of the attack.
STEPHANOPOULOS: An apology for what?
PFEIFFER: For -- they -- for accusing her of misleading the country. For saying that she didn't -- that -- that somehow we were -- that she was involved in some sort of political whitewash of what happened there. What she said is what the intelligence community believed at the time. And when we got further information, we told the American people what that was. That's how people know what happened here.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, as -- as you look forward in trying to get the rest of the president's agenda through the Congress in the remaining three and a half years he has in office, you've seen the harsh words from Republican leaders calling -- talking about the arrogance of the White House, the culture of intimidation according to Senator Marco Rubio, and Dan Balz in the Washington Post, respected political writer points out that this is leading to a growing trust of government deficit. I want to show you. It's an article he's got in the paper today and he writes that, whatever else happens as a result of the multiple controversies that have engulfed the administration, one thing is clear, President Obama has failed to meet one of the most important goals he set out when he was elected, which is to demonstrate that activist government could also be smart government.
Have all of the revelations this week -- it sure appears that they have driven trust in government even further down. How does the president turn that round?