Judul : patrick stump weight loss
link : patrick stump weight loss
patrick stump weight loss
mr. earnest: goodafternoon, everybody. nice to see you decked outin your green today for st. patrick's day, atleast many of you. the press: as you. mr. earnest: i'm joiningthe fun, as well.
patrick stump weight loss, i do not have anything tosay at the top other than thank you for accommodatingmy schedule and shifting the briefing back a littlebit later today. i appreciate that.
my schedule has been even alittle more aggressive than usual today. the press: why? the press: anythingwe need to know? mr. earnest: stay tuned. stay tuned. the press: stay tuned. mr. earnest: there you go. the press: is someonegoing to walk out maybe?
mr. earnest: no, there'snothing like that. (laughter) at least notthat i know of. we'll see how it goes. the press: is benback there? okay, just checking. mr. earnest: darlene. the press: thank you. can you talk about what isthe practical effect of
secretary kerry'sdetermination that isil is committing genocideagainst christians and the yazidis and others? mr. earnest: well, obviouslyover the last few weeks, i've received a number ofquestions about this. i know that my colleagues atthe state department and other national securityagencies across the government have beenasked about this. what's happening in the --in iraq and in syria
is deeply troubling. we do see this extremistorganization targeting religious minorities. in their propaganda they'refeaturing evidence of trying to wipe out thesereligious minorities. and the president has talkedon a number of occasions about how this is deeplytroubling and is an affront to every person of faith. that's why the president hasordered military action
against isil in iraqand in syria. in some cases, there havebeen military actions that have been orderedspecifically to protect so there certainly is theexample of mount sinjar, which we've citedhere frequently, that there were yazidiswho were trapped on that mountain. isil fighters hadthem cornered, and those isil fighters werevowing to slaughter them.
there was also a lessprominent example of this, but an importantone, nonetheless, that there were isilfighters that were carrying out a siege in the iraqitown of amirli, where there were anestimated 13, 000 turkmen shia surroundedby isil fighters. and again, the unitedstates took military action to breakthat siege. so the united states has,on the orders of the
commander-in-chief, takensteps to try to protect religious minorities in thatregion of the world from being the victimsof violence at the hands of isil. and it's not just true ofyazidis and shia muslims, it's also trueof christians. and secretary kerryannounced today what i thought was apowerful speech, discussing how henow has judged,
assessed that isil isresponsible for genocide in this region of the world inareas under its control, particularly as it relatesto yazidi, christian, and shia populations. and this designation issignificant. it reflects the gravity ofthe situation there. and it's one that continuesto attract the attention not just of the united states,but it's also why the united states has been able tobuild a strong moral case
against isil, and build asubstantial international coalition of 66 nations todegrade and ultimately destroy that terroristorganization. the press: does it change --does the determination change anything onthe ground now, today or tomorrow, for anyof the people who are being persecuted or feelingpersecuted? mr. earnest: well, what itessentially indicates is that the united states willcooperate with independent
efforts toinvestigate genocide. there obviously is evidencethat's been collected, and we'll make sure thatthat evidence is preserved, and we'll assistin the effort, collecting and analyzingadditional evidence of atrocities to supportthat investigation. but that's the nextstep in the process, and the united states willbe supportive of it. the press: some groups wantthe administration to do
more, militarily,to fight isil. do you foresee thathappening at some point as a result of this? mr. earnest: well, thepresident is going to continue to rely on the goodadvice of his military commanders. some of that will obviouslybe related to the kind of military contributions thatother countries who are part of our coalitionmake to this effort.
the amount of militaryinvolvement in this region of the world has alreadybeen significant. more than 10,000 airstrikeshave been carried out against isil targets. about 40 percent of theproperty -- territory that isil controlled in iraqis area that is no longer under their control. the percentage is somewhatsmaller in syria. i think it's between10 and 20 percent.
but that's an indicationthat we have had some success in combining themilitary might of our coalition with theeffectiveness of fighters on the ground, fightingfor their own country. and that's an importantpart of our strategy. there are other elementsof our strategy, too, in terms of shuttingdown the flow of foreign fighters, making it harderfor isil to recruit fighters to their cause, andobviously making it harder
for isil to financetheir efforts. all those elements of ourstrategy have contributed to our successas well. but when it comes tomilitary action against isil, that militaryaction has been robust, it's made a difference,and it's been closely coordinated with fighters onthe ground that, ultimately, need to be responsiblefor fighting for their own country.
the press: the president washaving a conference call today on judgegarland's nomination. can you talk a little bitabout who he was talking to on the call and whatthe message was that he had for that? mr. earnest: well,the white house, leading up to the presidentmaking a decision about his supreme court nominee, hadengaged with a variety of organizations -- not justaround town but across the
country, and this was anopportunity for those organizations and theirmembers to hear directly from the president aboutwhy he made this choice. and i think the presidentobviously spent some time discussing how proud he isof the choice that he's made; how committed heis to the constitutional responsibility that he hasto make this choice; and how committed he is tomaking the case to congress that they should fulfilltheir constitutional duty as
well. so i didn't listenin on the call, but i would be surprised ifthere was anything that the president said onthe call that would have surprised you. the press: would you know ifhe asked them to do anything specific in this two-weekperiod that's coming up when the senate is on recess andmembers are going back to their districts, and you allare hoping that they'll hear
a lot of pushback from theirconstituents on this? mr. earnest: well, i don'tknow that the president had any specific asks --we'll look into that. but i think the presidentsent a pretty clear signal, though, that this ahigh priority of his, and he hoped that this wouldbe a priority that people all across thecountry would share. the press: and finally,just one more on this. there's been somespeculation that there
is some sort of a deal thatrepublicans signaled to the white house that if thepresident nominated garland, he would be confirmed --they would confirm him in a lame duck session if hillaryclinton wins the election. is there any sort of deal oragreement along those lines? mr. earnest: notthat i'm aware of. the truth is we do not thinkthat there is any good reason that anybody in thesenate can articulate for waiting until the lame duckto confirm a consensus
nominee to thesupreme court. there is no excuse. the only excuse weoccasionally hear from republicans is that politicsis getting in the way. well, i think mymessage to them is, don't let politics get inthe way of doing your job. i don't think the americanpeople are particularly understanding or sympatheticto republicans that they won't do their job becauseit's an election year.
in fact, in election years,that's actually when we have a tendency to pay the mostattention to whether or not our elected representatives,at the federal or state level, are doing their jobs. and right now, republicansare promising not to do their job, even though thepresident has given them a golden opportunity to riseabove politics. the president has putforward a nominee that republicans themselvessay would do a good job
on the court. senator hatch describedchief judge garland as a consensus nominee. that's why it shouldn't beparticularly difficult for republicans to putpolitics aside, put their constitutionalduty first, and follow the long-followedsteps of confirming the president's supreme courtnominee in a timely fashion. the press: does the whitehouse have a strategy to
soften senator mcconnell'sresolve on not holding any votes and not havingany hearings? mr. earnest: well, we'recertainly going to continue to make a forceful,principled case that that's whathe should do. fortunately, the whitehouse is not in a position of speaking aloneon this matter. we've obviously been quitepleased with the response among democrats in theunited states senate to the
president's decision tonominate chief judge garland. i think it is evidence thatsenator hatch was right when he described chief judgegarland as a consensus nominee, because we see somany democrats out there saying that he was a goodpick. what may be surprising tosome is that there are plenty of conservatives whohave had positive things to say about thepresident's nominee.
i can give you acouple of examples. i just happen to have themright here. judge ken starr,who as the solicitor general, represented theunited states of america before the supreme court,somebody who knows a little something about the law,described chief judge garland as "superblyqualified to serve on our nation's highest court." we discussed the op-ed thatpresident george w. bush's
attorney general,alberto gonzalez, wrote, indicating that chief judgegarland deserves a vote, and urging the senate tofollow through on that. so i can understand ifleader mcconnell may not be particularly sympatheticto my point of view, but maybe somebody that hasthe legal expertise and the intellectual weight ofsomebody like judge starr or attorney general gonzalez --maybe they can prevail upon leader mcconnell to put theinterests of the united
states and the functioningof our justice system ahead of his more parochialpolitical concerns. the press: does the whitehouse see any cracks within the senate republicans? there's been some reportsabout senator grassley may be willing to seejudge garland in the next couple weeks. mr. earnest: well, judgegarland did have an opportunity to talkwith chairman grassley
yesterday onthe telephone. as is also customary, whitehouse staff had been in touch with a number ofoffices on capitol hill to begin arranging meetingsfor chief judge garland. as is customary, theycontacted leadership offices as well as members of thesenate judiciary committee. and in those staff-levelconversations, senator grassley's staffindicated to the white house that they'd be prepared toschedule a meeting after the
two-week recess thatthe senate will begin at the end of this week. that obviously issomething we believe is entirely appropriate. it certainly is i think themost basic expectation that people would have for asenate judiciary chairman when a consensus supremecourt nominee has been put forward. and so we're hopeful thatthat's something that will
be scheduled. i think the one thing --senator grassley, previously today, indicatedthat he mused out loud about whether or not somebody waslistening in on his phone call with chiefjudge garland. i can assure you that that,of course, is not true. but i would hope, despitepolitical differences, that chairman grassley willfulfill his responsibility and be able to work with thewhite house to at least
begin the process ofscheduling a meeting with chief judge garland. the press: and how does thepresident plan to stay involved next week during avery historic trip? mr. earnest: well, thepresident will continue to be engaged in this process. and i'll have a little bitmore detail about the president's schedulein latin america to discuss tomorrow.
but there will one or twoopportunities over the course of the five-day tripfor the president to take questions from all of you. so to the extent that all ofyou may continue to be interested in this story,maybe you'll have some questions for the president. and i'm sure the presidentwill be happy to answer them, even if those answersneed to also be subsequently translated into spanish.
let's move around. andrew. the press: just coming backto the point on genocide. you talked aboutindependent investigations. can you be a bitmore specific? are you talkingabout the icc? mr. earnest: well, theicc typically is the organization that wouldtake a look at this. and given the judgment thatsecretary kerry has made,
the united states would besupportive of that effort, both rhetorically but alsoin a tangible way as well. the united states willsupport efforts to collect, document, preserve andanalyze evidence of atrocities. and the united states willdo all we can to ensure that perpetrators of theseatrocities are held to account and broughtto justice. the press: and aquestion about yemen.
a saudi airstrike has killed119 people in a market. can you categoricallysay that u.s. targeting or refuelingassets weren't involved in this? mr. earnest: for anoperational question like this, i'd refer you to thedepartment of defense. we have expressed ourconcerns about the loss of innocentlife in yemen. the violence there that isplaguing that country has
caught too many innocentcivilians in the crossfire. and it is why we wouldwelcome, and do welcome, the statement fromcoalition spokesperson, saudi generalahmed al-asiri, who indicated today thatmajor operations in yemen are coming to an end, andthat the coalition will work on "long-term plans" tobring stability to the country. we have long made the casethat yemen is in dire need
of a political solution andthat that political solution needs to come assoon as possible. and that's why we'vecontinued to urge all parties to return tou.n.-facilitated peace talks so that we can build uponthe positive conversations that occurred backin december. we need to find a wayforward for those conversations to bring thefighting in yemen to an end. and we're going to continueto be supportive of that
process and continue to urgeall parties to participate constructively in it. the press: i take whatyou're saying about the coalition statement. but the saudis have offeredto wind down -- or said they're going to wind downthis conflict before, and then haven't reallyfollowed through. do you have any assurancesthat this time war really is coming to end,or slowing down?
mr. earnest: well, we'reobviously going to continue to monitor thesituation there. there are some initialreports of de-escalation along thesaudi-yemen border. and we're also pleased tosee coalition indications that they're working onefforts to deliver critically neededhumanitarian assistance to a number of yemenivillages along the saudi-yemen border.
so these are preliminaryindications. i would readilyacknowledge that, andrew. but we're going to continueto encourage all sides to engage in the kind ofdiplomatic conversations that could bring thefighting in that war-torn country to an end. ron. the press: on thegenocide issue, it sounds like nothingreally is going to change on
the ground in terms of thestrategy -- because as i heard from the statedepartment as well, it's the u.s. position that you've beenexecuting this war, this conflict, orwhatever it is, as if it were agenocide anyway. this is just aformal declaration. so nothing really changes. it's not like you have to --you don't feel like you have
to escalate anything to nowdeal with a genocide? mr. earnest: well,ron, quite frankly, we have been aware for sometime of isil targeting and we've taken action --significant actions to try to prevent it. and that includes efforts byisil fighters to target christians just becauseof their religion. so i'm not at all suggestingthat this judgment that's been reached by the statedepartment is somehow
unimportant. it is significant anytime you're talking about applying this label. but what's also true is thatrobust action has already been taken by the unitedstates and our coalition partners to try to protectthe religious minorities that we already know arebeing targeted by isil. the press: reporting onthe austin fundraiser, it sounds like the presidentdid endorse secretary
clinton, or said essentiallythat the race was going to come to an end soon; sandersis not going sustainable. is that a turning point? is that was he,in fact, said? mr. earnest: no, it's notwhat he, in fact, said. the press: well, what didhe say, for the record? mr. earnest: well, i wasthere for the fundraiser and i was there for thepart where this conversation occurred.
what i'll just say ingeneral is that president obama made a case that wouldbe familiar to all of you, which is that as democratsmove through this competitive primary process,we need to be mindful of the fact that our success innovember in electing a democratic president willdepend on the commitment and ability of the democraticparty to come together behind our nominee. and the president didnot indicate or specify
a preferencein the race. in fact, the presidentpointed out something that he's pointedout to all of you, which is that both of thedemocrats who are running because they havedemonstrated an understanding and acommitment to building on the progress that we've madethus far would be far better presidents than anybodythat's been put up on the republican side.
the press: sonothing has changed. he is still neutral,can't make up his mind, taking a -- mr. earnest: i did notsay that he couldn't make up his mind. the president hascast a ballot. the president hasvoted in the illinois democratic primary. the press: andhe voted for?
mr. earnest: we have notindicated that preference. but what we have said andwhat the president has said, both publicly and privately,is that he will have an important responsibilityin the summer and fall, once the nominationprocess has concluded, in bringing the partytogether and making sure that even after avigorous debate, which, the president, by the way,believes is really good for the party -- it was reallygood for the party in 2008
and this kind of competitionis good for sharpening the skills of the candidatesand exercising the organizational muscle ofthe democratic party. but once this processcomes to a conclusion, everybody in the democraticparty will understand the stakes of the debate, andgiven those stakes, will need to unify behindthe democratic party nominee to ensure that he or shecan win in november. the press: flint -- thehearings on the hill.
does the epa administratorstill have the fully confidence of the president? mr. earnest: absolutely. and i think that youhave seen the epa, at the direction ofadministrator mccarthy, take aggressive actionto ensure the health, wellbeing, and safetyof citizens in flint, but also citizens incommunities all across the country.
that epa continues to bedeeply involved in testing the water supply there andoffering scientific and technical expertise andadvice to local officials as they try to rectifythe problems there. the press: you're talkingabout now, right? mr. earnest: yes. the press: because there wasa long period where i think your explanation was thatthe epa couldn't do anything, it was theresponsibility of the state
authorities to act first. is that correct? am i correct? mr. earnest: well, yes, butyou just asked me whether or not we had confidence inthe leadership of the administrator of the epa,and i'm describing to you all of the steps that havebeen taken to safeguard the water supply not just inflint but in communities all across the country.
the epa administrator senta letter to governors, coast to coast, saying thatthey need to clarify exactly how they are implementingthe lead and copper rule to make sure that nothing hasfallen through the cracks and that if there is someinattention to these important rules andenforcing them, that the epa will beprepared to act to plug those gaps, to make surethat we can protect the water supply of communitiesacross the country.
she understands how seriousthis is, and the truth is, when you take a look at therecord that she has compiled just in her few years as theadministrator of the epa, there's a strong case tomake that the united states of america has never had abetter administrator of the environmental protectionagency than gina mccarthy. the press: and what's theadministration's position on the governor? there have been callsfor him to resign.
mr. earnest: well, what wehave indicated is that, obviously, the citizensand voters of the state of michigan are going to haveto decide who they want to lead their state. and, frankly, this isanother example of where we can't let our partisandifferences with governor snyder interfere with ourability to respond to an urgency situation in acommunity of about 100, 000 people in michigan.
and that's why you've seenthe federal government mobilize significantresources from fema to provide water filters and todistribute bottled water. that's why you've seen hhsannounce significant grant funding to enhance healthcare and medical assistance in this community. you've also seen commitmentsto expand educational opportunities, head startcenters in that community who's dealingwith this crisis.
and we've done all of that,despite the fact that the governor from the state ofmichigan represents a different political party. this is too importantfor politics. the press: so, overall, thepresident is satisfied with the response to date? mr. earnest: well,i think overall, the president recognizesthat what happened in flint was a tragedy, and this issomething that is going to
have long-term consequencesfor the health and well-being of many,many families there. and it is incumbentupon state, local and federal officialsto mobilize necessary resources to try to meetthese needs and fix what was so badly broken. and that includes needingadditional action from congress to appropriate thenecessary resources so that some of the significantinfrastructure flaws can
be addressed as well. atsushi, how are you? the press: good. thank you so much. let me ask about asia,specifically on north korea. the president signed anexecutive order yesterday to put fresh sanctions againstnorth korean companies and individuals in korean miningcorporations and banking corporations.
and in terms of theimplementation of the sanctions, as we all know,the coordination with chinese is essential. so my question is, theunited states government, the administration hasalready launched a consultation with china interms of the implementation of the sanctions? mr. earnest: that'sa good question. we have talked since we sawthe north korea nuclear test
and the subsequenttest of ballistic missiletechnology there. we've acknowledged that oursuccess in applying additional pressure on thenorth korean government would depend upon theeffective cooperation of chinese authorities. the reason for that is thatchina has a rather unique relationship withnorth korea. the north korean economyis more dependent on the
chinese economythan any other. the relations between thenorth korean government and the chinese government aremore integrated than north korea'sgovernment-to-government relationship with any othercountry in the world. and mobilizing an effectiveinternational response would require effectivecooperation with chinese officials. and that's what we havesucceeded in obtaining.
and that is why we havebeen able to put in place sanctions against northkorea that go far beyond sanctions that we put inplace against north korea in the past. so this will applyadditional pressure not just to the north koreangovernment but also to the ruling elitein north korea. many members of the rulingelite enjoy rather luxurious lifestyles that seems inquite stark contrast to the
suffering of thevast majority of the north korean population. that is a direct result ofpolicy -- immoral policy decisions that are made bythe north korean government. and we have looked for waysthat we could apply sanctions to maximize theimpact they would have on the north korean rulingelite that is, after all, making the kinds ofdecisions that are destabilizing thebroader region.
the press: i believethat the u.s. unilateral sanctions thatthe president signed last month required the presidentto investigate any person and entity and individual ifthere is a suspicion to have a transaction -- atransaction with north korea. so is it fair to say if anyperson could have illicit transaction with this entityor individual which has been designated yesterday, andthis entity would also be punished, including achinese company or chinese
national institution, is itfair to say that that party would also be sanctioned? mr. earnest: well, you'reasking a very technical question -- it's anentirely legitimate one. but my colleagues at thetreasury department can help you understand exactly whatsort of penalties are associated with violatingthese sanctions. but i think the basic cruxof your question is one that i can affirmatively answer,which is that the successful
implementation of thesesanctions will require the united states, chinese andother countries in the region to coordinateeffectively to enforce them. and how exactly they'reenforced and what sort of penalties are associatedwith violating these sanctions are questionsthat my colleagues at the treasury departmentcan answer. the press: last one. you know, i believe thatchinese president xi jinping
would visit this town laterthis month for nuclear security summit. will the presidentmeet in person with president xi jinping? and i believe if they meet,president obama will raise concerns on southchina sea issue, and how president obamaraise concerns -- or do you think unitedstates has to take another fresh action againstthese issues?
mr. earnest: the nuclearsecurity summit will convene here in washington, d.c.at the end of this month. we do anticipate that anumber of world leaders will travel to the united statesto continue working on this priority that presidentobama identified early in his first term. i don't have specificconfirmation yet about who will be attendingthe summit, but as we have moreinformation about that
we'll let you know. i suspect that means thepresident will spend some time meeting with some ofthe world leaders who are here, but we'll keep youposted on when those meetings get set up. colleen. the press: i want to ask youabout a report that cuba is going to return fourdissidents to the u.s. did the white house knowthat this was happening,
and was this a requirementahead of the president visiting cuba? mr. earnest: colleen, theunited states has been advocating with the cubansfor quite some time the release of politicalprisoners inside of cuba. so obviously if the reportsare true -- i'm not in a position to confirm them-- if they are true, that obviously would be astep that we would welcome. but i don't have anyinformation about where
those individuals mighttravel, if anywhere, outside of cuba. the press: but is thisnecessary to happen before the president goes to cuba? mr. earnest: well,we have been, both before the trip to cubawas announced and after, have been continuing to urgethe cuban government to more effectively respect andprotect the universal human rights of their citizens.
that includes freeing fromprison those who are jailed for no other reason thantheir political views. the press: and onone other subject, gallup said last week thatpresident obama had a 50-percent approval rating,which was his highest in almost three years. and i'm curious what youattribute that to. why do you think hisapproval ratings are going up at this time?
mr. earnest: well, itcertainly is possible that in comparison to some of therepublican candidates, that president obama startsto look pretty good. (laughter) i might be biasedin making that judgment, but it's possible that thatindividual poll might be some evidence of that. but, look, setting aside thepoll numbers -- they're going to go up and they'regoing to go down -- the president's -- a largeportion of the president's
success in office has beenpredicated on his ability to not try to tailor hisindividual actions or statements based onday-to-day movements in the polls. many of the most significantsuccesses that we have had have relied upon presidentobama's ability to look beyond just one day'smovement in the polls or one 24-hour news cycle, butrather to chart a longer course by setting long-termgoals and ensuring that our
eyes are fixed upon thosegoals over the horizon. and that is what allowed usto do things like complete an international agreementto prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weaponor secure an international climate agreement thatresulted in nearly 200 countries making acommitment to reduce their carbon pollution. but there are evendomestic things, too, that would fitthis category.
the president took -- madesome significant and politically unpopulardecisions very early in his presidency to rescuethe auto industry. and because ofthose policies, american workers and autocompanies and entrepreneurs and innovators were given anopportunity to lead a resurrection of theamerican auto industry, and we now see,seven years later, that the americanauto industry
is stronger than ever. they are selling more cars-- they are producing and selling more cars than ever. and, again, if we had justbeen focused on what was the politically popular decisionback in february and march of 2009, the president wouldnot have thrown the american auto industry the kind oflifeline that they needed. and as a result ofthat decision, again, which was politicallyunpopular at the time,
that laid the groundwork fora dramatic resurgence in not just the american autoindustry but the american manufacturingsector as a whole. stephanie. the press: does the whitehouse believe that the -- or the president,rather, believe that the longer bernie sandersstays in the race, the more likely hillaryclinton would have trouble defeating the gop nominee?
mr. earnest: no. i've drawn this parallelon a couple of occasions, and i think it isappropriate. in 2008, there were manypeople who were concerned on the democratic side that theprimary context between then senator obama and thensenator clinton was going to last much longer thanmost people expected. and many democrats wereconcerned about the potential impact that thiscould have on the ability of
democrats to win the generalelection in november, 2008. instead, what we saw is thatboth candidates steadily improved their performancein the debates and on the campaign trail, and in theirstump speeches. and what we also saw is wesaw that both campaigns were also able to hone theirorganizational skills. both campaigns werechallenged to build political operations instates that democrats had not traditionallycompeted for.
the best example i have ofthis is that there was a competitive democraticprimary in indiana in may of 2008. and a lot of democratswere thinking, we're in really bad shape ifwe're still fighting in may of 2008, especially if we'refighting over democratic votes in indiana. but what that actuallyallowed both campaigns to do was to build really strongpolitical organizations in
that state. and what that resulted in --it resulted in a strong democratic politicalorganization that was in place for the generalelection in 2008 and the democratic candidate forpresident, barack obama, won the state of indianafor the first time in quite some time. that was animportant victory, and i think it is theclearest example of how a
longer-than-expected primarycontest can actually make a candidate and a partyorganization much stronger thananticipated. the press: one more. does the president -- hashe mentioned anything about the adamlaroche story? one of hisfavorite teams. they came to him and toldhim his son is kind of hanging out a little bittoo much in the clubhouse.
has he made anymention of that? mr. earnest: ihaven't talked to him about that story. i had a chance to read it alittle bit earlier today. i noted that mr. larochesaid that his decision to retire was unrelatedto that request from the general manager. but obviously, i think,if nothing else, it says something prettypowerful about the
relationship betweenmr. laroche and his son. and as a relatively newfather myself with a son, i hope that i can builda similarly strong relationship like that. michelle. the press: josh, we heardsenator reid today saying that some republicans arebeing willing now to meet with nomineegarland, are caving, that there are cracksshowing that it's a
breakthrough, even. i mean, would you go so faras to say that that seems like that big of a deal thatthey're just willing to meet with him at this point? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthe observation that i would make as recently as a weekor so ago -- the vast majority, if notall senators, were saying that they wouldnot even meet with the president's nominee andwould never consider a vote
on the president's nominee. after the president's eleveno'clock announcement yesterday, before i couldeven get my lunch we had republicans out there sayingthat they were ready to meet with him and couldimagine voting for him in a lame duck session. so that's clearly not nearlyas far as the constitution suggests they should go ingiving fair consideration to the president's nominee.
but i do think it representstangible movement in a positive direction from thepreviously unreasonable obstructionist position thatrepublicans have adopted. the press: do you thinksome of that might be, though -- if they still saythat the endgame is to meet with garland to let him knowthat they don't think now is the right time to do this,that it's maybe just to save face for the time being orto appear that they're giving him at leastsome, i don't know,
gentlemanly consideration ifthey're not considering him ultimately forthe position? mr. earnest: well, theseindividual senators are going to have to ultimatelymake up their mind about whether or not they arewilling to fulfill their constitutional duty, or ifthey're just going to use politics as an excuseto not do their job. that's the simple question. and we'll have a prettyclear way to evaluate this
because the senate does atleast some of their most important work in public. we'll have a way to tell. are they holding hearings? is the committeetaking a vote? is the floor of the unitedstates senate the venue for every member of the unitedstates senate to weigh in, or not? and we'll be able to judge.
the press: yesterday, youseemed pretty reluctant to -- i mean, you weren'tasked to place odds on it. but you didn't seem towant to go so far as to say, you think that thiswill ultimately happen, that he will ultimatelybe confirmed. but the chief of staff todayon cnn made it pretty clear that he felt that isexactly what would happen. so is that just adifference of opinion within the white house?
or is there kind of a shiftnow towards more confidence that this is actuallygoing to make it all the way through? mr. earnest: well, ofcourse the white house is confident. we certainly are confidentthat the nominee that we have put forward meritsconsideration by the united states senate. the good news is, there area lot of republicans who
agree with us, includingrepublicans who still serve in the senate -- includingseven republicans in the senate who voted forhim the last time that he was up for confirmation. so we are confident that heis somebody who deserves fair consideration. and look, if they do, heabsolutely will be confirmed to a lifetime appointmenton the supreme court. there's no doubtabout that.
so that is why i think thatyou see a lot of confidence from the white housein the path that we have laid out here. the press: so you also haveconfidence that he will actually be confirmed? mr. earnest: i dohave confidence. i mean, i'm not going tostand up here and make predictions about sort ofwhat the percentage is. but there is no doubtthat he deserves fair
consideration. and if given fairconsideration, he will be confirmed. and i'm confident in that. the press: okay. all right,that's fine. on the call todaywith progressives, the people on the call wereurged to get involved and to make their voices heard.
so what does thatreally mean? what does the white housewant these people to be physically doingas this evolves? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthe president has a lot of passion for this issue and ithink that was on display in the rose garden yesterdayand i think that was evident in the message thathe delivered on the conference call today. and the president is hopingthat people across the
country who sharehis passion, who believe that the --an appointment to the supreme court shouldtranscend politics, that the senate shouldfulfill its constitutional duty, and if people sharethe president's passion on this issue then they shouldmake their voices heard, and they can do that in avariety of ways. and that's whatwe'll obviously -- the press: what doesthe white house
feel would be effective? so you state your caseevery single day, so there could be millionsof americans out there who feel the same way --what do you want those people to be doing? mr. earnest: well, weobviously believe that people should beengaged in the process. they should sort ofunderstand exactly what the stakes are.
and if they feel stronglyabout it in the same way that the president does,they should make their voices heard in public. we would stronglysupport that. and if that means contactingtheir member of congress or contacting an organizationthat is interested in this issue, then, again, wewould encourage them to be engaged inthe process. the press: so you wantpeople out there to be
calling theserepublican senators? mr. earnest: well, thatcertainly is one option that is available to people. but, ultimately, people aregoing to have to decide for themselves whatthey want to do to make theirvoices heard. mark. the press: josh, cani come back to cuba? speaker ryan spoke out aboutthe president's trip today
and specifically about someof the steps that have been taken in the last few weeks-- ease travel and trade restrictions, and such. he said perhaps thepresident needs reminding that this is a major humanrights abuser that he's going to visit, andspecifically that these deals are going to furtherlegitimize and even benefit the cuban government. what's yourresponse to that?
mr. earnest: well, i thinkmy response to that is just simply that the policy thatspeaker ryan ostensibly supports that was in placebefore president obama announced a changein his policy was a policy that failed. that policy had been inplace for more than five decades, and it had notbrought about any of the kinds of changes thatwe would like to see on the island of cuba.
the president has decidedit's time for a different approach, and it's time foran approach that involves greater engagement betweenthe united states and cuba, both onpeople-to-people level, but also on a level --on an economic level. and that that greaterengagement, which is, by the way, stronglysupported by an overwhelming majority of cuban citizens,is one that we believe will eventually lead to the kindsof changes in cuba that
we would like to see. more importantly, it willlead to the kinds of changes that the cuban peoplewould like to see. and that's why we'veimplemented these changes. the press: i also want toask about the meeting with the dissidents that'spart of the president's itinerary. i know you said thatyou'll be able to choose who comes to it.
so does that specificallymean that the white house had a list ofpeople it invited, and every single person onthat list will be able to come to that meeting? mr. earnest: well, what itmeans is it means that we will be the ones thatdo the inviting, and it means that the unitedstates will not be checking with the cuban government inadvance to determine if they're okay with usinviting that individual to
participate in the meeting. we'll be issuingthe invites, and the president will bemaking the decision about with whom he meets, and thatwill be done without any interference by thecuban government. and we will, as themeeting gets closer, be able to talk to youabout who exactly will participate. the press: iunderstand that.
does that mean that you haveassurances from the cuban government that whoeveryou invite can come? mr. earnest: well, we'renot talking to the cuban government about our list. and we're going to make theinvites based on who we believe the president shouldinteract with and the president is looking forwardto this opportunity. i think it sends a prettystrong signal about the commitment and priority thathe has placed on a respect
for basic human rights,including people who have different political viewsthan the government. on turkey, josh, youtalked about turkey last week as well. and just today, afteryou talked about zaman newspaper, the biggestnewspaper seized. today, there's an indictmentat the second best-selling newspaper's owner, nowask for 23 years of jail sentence.
my first question -- i'vegot two questions -- my first question is, do youthink nato ally, u.s. friend, is, underpresident obama's watch, losing its democraticcharacter? mr. earnest: well, let mestart by saying that turkey is a nato ally, and theunited states takes our obligations to ournato allies seriously. and the nation of turkey inthe last several weeks has been plagued byterrorist activity,
including violenceperpetrated by terrorists against innocent civilians. and the united states standswith our nato ally in turkey as they confrontthose terrorists. we also stand with them asthey assert their right to defend themselves. and we have also found iteffective and valuable to our counter-isil effort tobe able to draw upon the important contributionsthat turkey has made.
turkey has made progress insealing the border between turkey and syria. that has had a tangibleimpact on the ability of isil to move foreignfighters from around the world to syria. so that's a positive thing. we have also secured anagreement from turkey to allow the united states andcoalition aircraft to use military facilities andairbases inside of turkey to
more efficiently and moreeffectively carry out military operations againstisil targets in syria. all of that is positiveand important. at the same time, the unitedstates continues to be troubled by the turkishgovernment's use of appointed trustees to shutdown or interfere with the editorial operations ofmedia outlets that are sometimes criticalto government. court-ordered supervision ofa media company's finances
and operations should notprompt changes to the newsroom or to anews organization's editorial policies. we call on the turkishgovernment to ensure full respect for due processand equal treatment under the law. and in a democratic society,critical opinions should be encouraged,not silenced. so we urge turkishauthorities to ensure their
actions uphold theuniversal, democratic values enshrinedin turkey's constitution, including freedom of speech,freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press. the press: and one more. you just talked aboutfreedom of speech. there is a petitionsigned by 1, 100 academics in turkey,including some of the u.s. -- dissidents from u.s.
as well. and now hundreds of theseacademics are under trial. some of them gotfired, suspended. and 700 or 600 of them areunder investigation just because theysigned the letter. so my question is, sincepresident erdogan is scheduled to come towashington, d.c. -- i think it's notconfirmed -- if he comes, or if in ankara, doyou think the u.s.
needs to raise these humanrights issues with ankara more forcefully, consideringwe know that president obama did not raise these issuesin recent meetings in antalya or paris? mr. earnest: well, let mejust say generally that the obama administration hasfollowed in the footsteps of previous administrationshere in the united states of advocating for universalhuman rights around the world.
and president obamaroutinely, in his meetings withleaders around the world, continues to impress uponthose leaders how much of a priority we place onrespecting basic universal human rights, includingfreedom of the press, freedom of speech, andfreedom of assembly. these are priorities for theunited states both in terms of them being closely heldvalues here at home, but also in terms of the waythat we advocate for those
values around the world. so in our conversationsacross the government, with our turkishcounterparts, it is not at all uncommonfor us to continue to advocate for those valuesand continue to urge the turkish government to do abetter job of respecting those basic human rights. now, we have frequentconversations with the turkish government becausewe are able to effectively
coordinate with them on arange of issues, particularly issues that arecritical to u.s. national security. and we value thatcoordination and our ability to cooperate with the turks,particularly when it comes to our counter-isilcooperation. but that does not in any waylessen our commitment to standing up for the kinds ofuniversal human rights that we believe should beprotected not just here in
the united states but aroundthe world, particularly inside theborders of some of our closest allies. april. the press: josh, acouple of questions. i want to go back to flintand something that ron had asked you about thecalls for the government to step down. is there some kind ofunwritten rule or a written
rule that you never askedfor someone to resign or elected officials to resign? i'm just asking because thathas been brought to you before about otherelected officials. mr. earnest: if there'san unwritten rule, no one has evercommunicated it to me. off the top of my head, idon't think i can recall a situation in which i calledon somebody to resign from here.
but i wouldn't rulethat out, i guess. i guess it will justdepend on if i wake up on the wrong side ofthe bed one morning. the press: theday is young. mr. earnest: i'll just bedemanding resignation letters everywhere. the press: i'masking because -- mr. earnest: but no, i don'tbelieve that i've done that at this point.
the press: i'm askingbecause we've asked you in the past, and most recentlywith rahm emanuel. and i just wondered if therewas some kind of rule that you guys had here. now, on that subject,congressman elijah cummings is calling for him, thegovernor of michigan to step down because of "graverevelations" that they found after listening to thegovernor's testimony. he called him anabsentee governor,
and he saw signs andhe ignored them. with that, is there anyblame to be laid on the governor of michigan whenit comes to this long, ongoing issue wherethere is going to be, some are saying, a lostgeneration because of this poison that wasin the water? mr. earnest: well, look, anytime you have a problem that is this significant, thatoccurs on the watch of state and local officials,accountability is important.
and there is an ongoinginvestigation -- i believe more than one -- to look atexactly what happened and what led to thissignificant failure. so i've tried to avoidweighing in on aspects of that investigation thatcould be perceived as interfering with it. but obviously,accountability is important, particularly when we'retalking about the health and wellbeing of thousandsof american citizens.
the press: what'sthe gravity of this whole situation? where does the blame lie? even beyond, yes, there'san investigation, but from what we'veseen -- we've heard people have been sick. i mean, there are medicalreports that children are going to have problems downthe road, long-term effects. you still have a waterissue still there.
mr. earnest: well, april, iguess this is part of what the investigation islooking to uncover, is to determine how weactually got to this point. what i will tellyou, i guess, to try to answer yourquestion is the president certainly feels aresponsibility to ensure that government resourcesare mobilized to assist those who have been harmed. and that's why you've seen asignificant commitment of
resources on the part ofthe federal government -- everything from the deliveryof bottled water and water filters to stepped-uphealth care services. all of that the presidentfeels is a responsibility of the federal government. ultimately, it's state andlocal officials, though, who have to make some of thepolicy decisions to rectify the situation. there certainly areadditional resources that
can and should beappropriated by congress so the federal government cansupport the improvement and overhaul of theinfrastructure inside of flint. so there certainly is animportant role for the federal government to playto try to address the situation and try toassist those who have been harmed by it. but when it comes to whoexactly made a mistake,
and what are the mistakesthey've made so we can avoid them other places, thatcontinues to be under investigation. the press: another subject-- judge merrick garland. if you can give us a littlebit of insight or as much insight as you can as to theconversations with him about the uphill battle. i mean, i know he knew goingin that this was going to be an uphill battle, butcan you talk about the
conversations here at thewhite house about what would be needed toconvince senators, how he would have to put hiselbow in this a little bit more, and how you guysmight help him -- just talk tous about that. mr. earnest: well, chiefjudge garland has been around for a long time. and he has seen thatquestions about confirming a supremecourt nominee are tough.
this is supposed to bea rigorous process. there should be a debate. there should be hearings inwhich senators from both sides of the aisle areasking probing questions of the nominee, inquiring abouttheir record and inquiring about the way they believethat a supreme court justice should do his or her job. and those are difficult,nuanced questions, but those are questions thatshould be asked and those
are questions thatshould be answered. and so chief judge garlandis not at all surprised that when he agreed to be thepresident's nominee that he was signing up foran arduous task. but the kind ofresponsibility that we give to someone who getsa lifetime appointment on the supreme court issignificant, and that's why it'sappropriate for the senate to play this importantrole of asking some
pretty tough questions. the press: was there anyadvice from this white house to garland to tell him howto handle this different process, the processthe people are refusing to offer him? did this white houseoffer him any advice? look, all confirmationbattles are tough. and it's supposedto be that way. i guess our point is senaterepublicans should go
through the process. right now they're saying,we're not going to do our job, we're not going toask him tough questions, we're not even goingto meet with him. that's inappropriate, andthat indicates a willingness on the part of republicansto put politics ahead of their constitutional duties. and i don't think that'ssomething that most americans are willingto stand for.
the press: next question. i understand that there wasa meeting today on the hill. many african americanleaders who support the president are still veryangry about the fact that there was not an africanamerican named as the nominee for this position. could you talk to us aboutthe meeting -- who was there, what was it? was it a terse meeting?
can you give us informationon this meeting today? mr. earnest: well, april,i'm sorry to disappoint you, but i can tell you thatvalerie jarrett did spend some time with members ofthe congressional black caucus up on capitol hill,and everyone who attended that meeting indicated theirstrong support for the president's nominee. and that's not a surprise;we're seeing that from other leaders in the civilrights community.
there were some commentsfrom former attorney general holder that i would callto your attention. mr. holder said,"he is a person, " -- referring to chiefjudge garland -- "i think who has worked hard tokeep communities safe, bring dangerouscriminals to justice. he's also a person whoshowed compassion. he comes fromhumble beginnings. he's a person who lefta pretty prestigious
partnership herein washington, d.c. to work in the u.s. attorney's office thati ultimately headed, and got down here, workedwith people in this community to make themand to keep them safe. that's why," mr.holder went on to say, "that he's a guy who i thinkis eminently qualified." and he observed, as ihave on many occasions, that no one has takenany shots at him.
but mr. holder isnot the only person. we saw some comments in anews release from wade henderson, who leads theleadership conference on civil and human rights. and he was pretty direct. he said, "chief judgegarland is the most well-prepared supreme courtnominee in generations." and he went on to say that"we will mobilize our massive network of civilrights advocates,
legal scholars and everydaypeople who care about democracy and ourconstitution to make sure that the senatedoes its job." we obviously are pleased tosee that chief judge garland is getting such strongsupport from leaders in the civil rights community. he deserves it. the press: the president hadthe meeting yesterday with the leaders right after heleft the rose garden in the
roosevelt room, and then whyhave to go to capitol hill today to talk tothe leaders? i mean, can you tell me why? i mean, if they weren'tangry about this? mr. earnest: i guess whati'm telling you is that everybody that valerie metwith today -- that included a number of cbc members --expressed their strong support for the president'sdecision to put forward and they share thepresident's confidence that
he would serve this countrywith honor and distinction on the supreme court. so we were obviouslygratified by that response, but that response isby no means unique. we're seeing that kind ofstrong support from a variety of corners in thecivil rights community. and that support isquite well-justified. kevin. the press: thanks, josh.
just to follow up onwhat april was asking, was the meeting set up justto sort of bridge the gap in case there were any bruisedfeelings based on this election of chiefjudge garland? mr. earnest: well, i knowthat ms. jarrett regularly interacts withmembers of the congressionalblack caucus. i don't know what else wason her agenda when she traveled up thereto visit with them,
but obviously given the newsand obviously given the significance of thisdecision and the significance of therepublican refusal to even consider this nomination,this was something that was discussed extensivelyin the meeting. the press: let me alsoask you about something senator chuckschumer said today. he said, "in refusing toeven give chief judge garland an up or down vote,republicans are essentially
saying that we would rathertake our chances with a trump nomination or witha clinton nomination to the high court. what's yourreaction to that? mr. earnest: well, i dothink that it definitely leads republicans, atleast rhetorically, into a box canyon. they're suggesting thatsomehow a president trump, whom they vowed to runattack ads against to
prevent him from beingelected president, or a presidenthillary clinton, whom they have made no bonesabout the fact that they do not support, would do abetter job of appointing supreme court justicesthan president obama, despite the fact that manyrepublicans currently serving in the senatehave twice supported president obama'sappointments to the supreme court, and despite thefact that president obama,
to fill this third vacancy,has put forward somebody that even republicansthemselves acknowledge is a consensus nominee. their argument, to put itbluntly, makes no sense. and i haven't really heardanybody try to explain it, but i think, going back tomichelle's question, i think this is why yousee some confidence in the white house today. we're not seeing a coherentexplanation on the part of
republicans for whythey have taken such an unreasonable position toeven consider the nomination of chief judge garland. in fact, there's quitea strong argument for why they should do so. the press: but there areconcerns about his positions on abortion, about hispositions on the second amendment in particular. so you can understandwhy there might be some
hesitance amongconservatives about his candidacy. mr. earnest: again,senator hatch is certainly a conservative. i think he describedhimself that way, and i think most otherpeople would describe him that way, too. and he described chief judgegarland as a consensus nominee and somebody thathe strongly supports.
i think the otherpoint, kevin, though, is this is why weshould have hearings. so if people want to raisethese kinds of concerns and they want to ask chief judgegarland about his writings on these topics, that'san entirely legitimate line of inquiry. that's exactly whywe have hearings. and i'm not just suggestingthat republicans should be able to ask these questions.
i'm suggesting that chiefjudge garland should appear in public oncamera under oath, and spend hours answeringthose questions. he has an obligationto do that. he's preparedto do that. and i think when he does, hewill demonstrate the kind of wisdom and judgment andcommitment to the law that we would expect fromsomebody who's going to be given a responsibility assignificant as serving on
the supreme court. i want to follow up onthe conversations about administrator mccarthy. is it your feeling or is itthe white house's feeling that she's done everythingright in the circumstance as it relates to what hashappened in flint, michigan? mr. earnest: well, ithink in some ways, for her performance, i'dask you to ask her. she obviously is in aposition to best assess what
decisions that she made, andif there are some things that she wishes shehad done differently, then you should askher about that. what i will tell youis that she has acted aggressively todo two things. the first is to make surewe're mobilizing the kind of scientific and technicaladvice that's needed to restore as quickly aspossible a clean water supply in flint.
the other thing that she hasdone is she has reached out to governors from coast tocoast to be crystal clear about what exactly they needto do to enforce the lead and copper rule to make surethat what happened in flint doesn't happen again. and she has vowed that ifstate and local officials who do have primaryresponsibility fail to fulfill their constitutional-- or fail to fulfill their responsibility, that the epawill not hesitate to step in
and act to protect thesafety and wellbeing of the american people. the press: but hasthe rule changed? because if i remember,at least the way it was described to me byyou, it was, well, the state has an obligationto sort of make a decision, the epa gets informationbased on testing, and they might say, well,you've got an issue but it's a state's call.
i'm just wondering, has theprocess changed along with the rhetoric, which isnow saying, hey, listen, we're committed tochange, we're going to do things differently? has there beensomething substantive that i'm not aware of? mr. earnest: i'm not awareif there's been a specific rule change that'sbeen initiated. i think what the letterwas intended to do --
and i think it has done-- it has removed any ambiguity within the rule abouthow it can and should be enforced, and what the epawill do if it's not. and i think part of theproblem here is that there was some ambiguityabout that, but that ambiguity has beenremoved because of the decisive actions that aretaken by administrator mccarthy. the press: josh, onthat same topic, you said askadministrator mccarthy,
who actually testified todayand said that the epa should have done more tohead off the crisis. but she repeatedly said shedid not have the authority. so you've saidyou're confident in her abilities now. are you confident that nowthe epa has the authority and the foresight in orderto head off another crisis like this, outside of flint? mr. earnest: well, if she isasking congress for
additional authority, then ihope they'll listen to her because she knows whatshe's talking about. and if that's whatshe's asking for, that's what she should get. what i'm saying is that inresponse to this crisis situation, she took decisiveaction to make sure that in flint they had access to thescientific and technical advice they need tocorrect the problems in the water supply.
and i understand thatthey've been working assiduously to do that. but look, i think herconcern that immediately popped to mind is notdissimilar from the kind of concerns i think poppedinto the minds of many of us, which is that if it'shappening in flint, is it happeningsomewhere else. the press: right. mr. earnest: and that'swhy she sent a letter to
governors all across thecountry and said, look, this is what we're goingto do to make sure that drinking supplies, watersupplies across the country are adequately tested. and if there are concernsabout the safety of the water supply, theseare the steps that we can and should take. and to the extent that thereis any ambiguity about the way that that rule shouldbe enforced in the past,
her letter removesthat ambiguity. the press: but as of --i understand she can ask for more authority, andit's up to congress. but as a federal agency,does this building have confidence that the epa canprotect all those other communities fromthis happening? mr. earnest: well, thereare obviously steps that she can take. but look, i would -- shecan speak to this more
effectively thananyone else. if she's saying that sheneeds more authority from the united states congressto better protect the health and safety of theamerican people, then i don't understandwhy congress wouldn't give it to her. the press: but that'ssaying then that there is reason not tobe confident. mr. earnest: well, ithink kevin was asking
me more a questionabout her performance as the epa administrator. the press: right, butconfidence now that you can prevent another flintelsewhere in the country. mr. earnest: well, again,she has taken steps, and i'm confident thatshe is using all of the authority that she has. but she is in the bestposition to assess whether or not she needs additionalauthority to assure all of
us that our drinkingwater remains clean. so again, i'dcheck with her. the press: may i askyou, as well, on -- genocide is asignificant historical marker to put down there. president clintonhad rwanda. president bush had sudan. now this administration whohas laid out atrocities prevention as a nationalsecurity concern and a
priority has genocide on itswatch, ongoing genocide. what is the administration'sreaction to that? because that goes inthe history books. mr. earnest: yes, and ithink this is a reaction that you can measure datingback to the summer of 2014 when the president orderedmilitary action against isil fighters that were targetingreligious minorities only because of theirreligious views. the press: but itdidn't stop then,
and many massacrescontinued well after that interventionin august. mr. earnest: yes, but whathas also happened is that you've seen more than10,000 airstrikes be taken against isil targets. you have seen progress beingmade by local fighters on the ground, driving isil outof territory that they've previously held. you've seen the presidentorder special operations
raids against high-valueisil targets, some of whom were actuallyinvolved in hostage taking and in victimizingreligious minorities. you've seen a coordinatedeffort to try to shut down isil's financing, some ofwhich included taking religious minorities hostageand selling them for ransom. you have seen theadministration work effectively with theinternational community to try to confront isil'sability to radicalize and
recruit individualsfrom around the world. so our response herehas been robust. and there has never been anattempt on the part of the administration to try todownplay the significance of these atrocities. we have taken them seriouslyfrom the beginning. and i think because of howserious we think they are, that's why the presidenthas ordered such a robust response.
the press: but what you'redescribing is part of the campaign to degrade anddestroy and ultimately defeat isil as aterrorist organization. historians, theholocaust museum, which has been followingthis and documenting it, would also say, look, therewas a different mission between stopping world warii and winning the war and preventing the massextermination of jews. and there was great regretthat more wasn't done.
you've had presidentsfollowing that -- recently president clintonsaying, i wish i had done more in rwanda. given that and given theacknowledgement that these things are two differentissues -- ending a war, winning a war, and defeatinga terrorist groups and stopping genocide -- doesthe administration feel that it could be doing more? not just these air campaignsyou've talked about and
those choices here and thereto intervene to stop mass atrocities when you can. mr. earnest: well, again, iused those -- those are only two examples that i cited,both at mount sinjar and amerli, because those areconcrete examples of the united states military notjust using our military power, but also ourmoral authority to save individuals who are beingtargeted just because of their religious views.
and look, i think there isan aspect of your question that i -- the premise ofyour question that i disagree with, atleast a little bit, at least in part. degrading and ultimatelydestroying isil is the best way for us to prevent themfrom carrying out these kinds of atrocities. it's not the only way, butit the most effective way for us to definitivelyensure that these terrorists
aren't terrorizing religiousminorities just because of what we've also acknowledgedis that there is at the root of all of this apolitical problem that needs tobe addressed. and there is no denying ordownplaying the significance of political leadersspeaking out and setting the tone for a political climatethat ensures that people aren't targeted just becauseof their religious views, or that they'renot marginalized,
that they're notvictimized because of their religious views. and that certainly is partof our effort to bring about a political transitioninside of syria. it's to bring about apolitical leadership inside of syria that will reflectthe will and ambition of the syrian people, but also makesure that syria can be governed in a way thatrepresents the diversity of its population.
the press: but when you saidthere was significant legal implications when mycolleagues asked you about that the other day, whatare the significant legal implications, ifthere are any, for military actions thatare being carried out now? are you going to targetdifferently fighters who have more than 3,000 sexslaves in their possession? something an airstrikecouldn't really prevent? are you going to do thingsto intervene on the ground
to prevent incidents of massrape or mass slaughter? i mean, tactically speaking,it's not something that airstrikes alone can do. so what is the next step? mr. earnest: so let me takeapart these two things. i think i've tried todescribe that airstrikes are certainly the most visibleand in some ways among the most impactful aspects ofour campaign against isil, but there are a whole bunchof other things that we have
done to degrade andultimately destroy that organization. we have supportedfighters on the ground. we have sought to shutdown their financing, counter their ability tomove foreign fighters into the country, and countertheir ability to try to radicalize people aroundthe world to their cause. we have supported thefledgling political government - politicalleadership inside of iraq.
prime minister abadi hasmade important steps in unifying that country andgoverning that country in a way that they canconfront this extremist terrorist organization. so there's a lot that wehave done to degrade and ultimately destroy isil thatdoes make it harder for isil to carry out these kindsof abhorrent atrocities. this is something that wetake seriously and this judgment from the statedepartment reflects just how
serious this situation is. the press: so justto button it up, you believe that theadministration has succeeded in its mission to activelyprevent atrocities? mr. earnest: well, there isno doubt that there are atrocities that have beenprevented because of actions that this administration hastaken and that this president has ordered --there's no denying that. but our work is not going tobe done and isil will
continue to be a danger tothe region and to religious minorities in the region aslong as they continue to exist. and that's why the presidentis determined to lead an international coalition todegrade and destroy them. juliet. the press: just to go backbriefly to the austin fundraiser and thepresident's comments. in the new york times'account of his remarks,
it said that the presidenttalked specifically about the issue of authenticity;that while clinton might not come across to voters withthe same level of authenticity assenator sanders, that shouldn't be the onlycriteria under which voters judge the democraticcandidates. since you were there, couldyou illuminate how accurate that is as a description ofwhat the president conveyed to the group?
mr. earnest: i'm not goingto get into the president's private comments. i recognize that there aresome people who have talked about those privatecomments, but i'm not going to do thatfrom here. the president has made aforceful case, frankly, about the kind of campaignthat senator sanders has run. and the president has notedthat senator sanders
deserves a lot of credit forthe passion that he has inspired among democratsall across the country. and senator sanders istalking about deeply held views and doing it in a waythat deeply resonates with people, and that's atestament to his skills as a leader and as a politician,and as somebody who has got his values inthe right place. the president has alsotalked about secretary clinton and herleadership abilities,
and the way that she hasdrawn her own passionate following. the historic nature of hercandidacy certainly has something to do with it, butso does her track record of fighting for the kinds ofvalues and advancing the kinds of values thatdemocrats have long championed. that's why the presidentfeels especially fortunate to be in a party that canactually be proud of its
presidential candidates, anddoesn't have to spend all its time trying to figureout a way to put distance between his party'scandidates. we find that republicanleaders in washington, d.c. spend a lot oftime doing that. and the truth is theyhaven't done it enough, because even in those timeswhen they do try to put some distance between themselvesand their leading presidential candidate, theycontinue to insist that
they'll support him if he istheir party's nominee for president. and for the life of me, idon't understand how they reconcile those views. and i think there are a lotof americans who are also scratching their headswhen they hear those declarations, too. i'm not the only one. anita.
the press: i actually wasgoing to ask about the same thing. you said you won't comment,but the new york times story says the white houseconfirmed it. your response now indicatesyou're not confirming it but you're not denyingit, either. if they're not true, whatthey're saying the president said, wouldn't you just saythey're not true? mr. earnest: well, i'm doingmy best to help you cover
this story but i'm not goingto be in a position to walk through every statement as iremember it from five days ago. the press: if you let thepool in to every event, then we wouldn't have toask. mr. earnest: good news,anita -- the pool was there for the beginning. the press: not for thesecomments, though. mr. earnest: that's correct.
(laughter) but allowing thepool into an event that is hosted in a private homerepresents an advance for transparency that theprevious administration didn't respect. the press: let me ask youanother quick question. yesterday you mentioned acouple or few of the republican senators that ithink were either meeting -- you can clarify this -- oragreeing to talk on the phone with judge garland.
can you tell us whatthe update is? do you have a number ofrepublican senators that have met with him or agreedto meet with him? mr. earnest: well, so thereare two meetings that he's doing today. he's meeting with senatorleahy i believe at 2:30 p.m., and then senatorreid at 4:00 p.m. today. he'll do those meetings upon capitol hill.
and i don't know if thereare additional meetings that have been scheduledat this point, but we'll try to keep you inthe loop on that. chief judge garland did havean opportunity to make some phone calls yesterday. one of those phone calls wasplaced to chairman grassley. and in conjunctionwith that phone, there was a conversationbetween white house staff and members of chairmangrassley's staff about
arranging a meeting. and that's what we'reworking to do after the recess. and look, i anticipate thatthere will be additional meetings. and the comments that icited yesterday were just public comments fromindividual members of the senate who are republican,who, to varying degrees, indicated a willingness tohave a conversation with
so senator ayotte, senatorcollins, senator flake, senator portman, senatorkirk, senator inhofe, senator grassley and senatorcochran -- what many of those people have in commonis they actually voted for his confirmation to thed.c. circuit court of appeals back in 1997. but we certainly willbe in touch, if we haven't already, withall these offices to set up those meetings.
olivier, i'll give youthe last one. the press: on keepingwith tradition, i'm going to ask you two. following up on mark'squestion about the dissident meeting in cuba, are any ofthe dissidents that the president would like to meetwith currently in government custody? mr. earnest: i'll behonest, olivier, i haven't seen the list ofpeople that the president is
planning to meet with. but we can have thatdiscussion once we put out the list of people that thepresident is planning to meet with. the press: and thenfollowing up on darlene and margaret on thegenocide question, i guess the way i wouldphrase it is, can you identify an aspectof the american military campaign against the islamicstate that will change as a
result of thisdetermination? mr. earnest: well, i wasasked this question quite a bit in advance of the workthat was being done at the state department on this. and i indicated that evenwithout that state department decisionhaving been made, the president had orderedrobust military action. and that's because weacknowledged, even without a formalannouncement from the state
department, that religiousminorities in iraq and in syria were beingtargeted by isil. and that was an affront onall people of faith -- or an affront to allpeople of faith. and the president orderedaction to try to stop it. and those actions willcontinue unabated, and they would continuewhether or not there was an announcement and a prettypowerful speech from the secretary of statetoday or not.
the press: thatsounds like a no. but when you talk aboutcooperating with independent investigations onthe ground, i can envision a scenario inwhich maybe that means having american troops spendmore time on the ground to collect evidence ofatrocities than they currently are, building moreof a case and supporting those efforts differently. but i'm not hearingyou say that.
so i'm trying to get atwhether there's any concrete change here. and i've heard you say inresponse to a bunch of colleagues, basically no. mr. earnest: well, i don'tknow if there will be additional requests thatare made of u.s. military personnel to beinvolved in this effort. you can check with thedepartment of defense about that.
obviously, there are a bunchof resources that we can bring to bear on this. and we will be supportive --strongly supportive of an independent internationaleffort to hold those accountable for carrying outatrocities like we see in iraq and in syria. george, this isst. patrick's day. i feel like i should notpass over you today. so i'll give youthe final one.
the press: and actually, itinvolves st. patrick's day. i'd like to get yourreaction to two statements made since gerry adams wasblocked from entering the white house on tuesday. mr. adams said that "some inthis administration treat sinn fã©in differently," andsuggested they'd like to relegate sinn fã©in to theback of the bus. and then congressmanbrendan boyle asked, "is there something sinistergoing on at the white house
other than the security?" mr. earnest: there is nopolicy decision that related to the difficulty thatmr. adams encountered at the white house gate. this is probably notdifferent than difficulty that all of you haveencountered at the white house gate on oneoccasion or another. i think the secret servicespoke to this and indicated that there was a mistakethat they worked to rectify,
but they weren't about torectify it in sufficient time, based on mr.adams's judgment. the press: was there anycontact between the white house and sinn fã©inor adams about it? mr. earnest: i don't knowwhether or not there's been a subsequent conversationto apologize. i saw that thesecret service, at least in onepublished report, did indicate that theyregretted what had happened
and offered him an apology. i don't know if that wasjust a public statement or if they'd reached out tohim personally. but i can assure you therewas no policy decision to in any way inhibit his abilityto participate in tuesday's festivities. thanks, everybody. we'll see you tomorrow.
Demikianlah Artikel patrick stump weight loss
Anda sekarang membaca artikel patrick stump weight loss dengan alamat link https://quickweightlosstipsmethod.blogspot.com/2017/05/patrick-stump-weight-loss.html
0 Response to "patrick stump weight loss"
Posting Komentar