The President:
Good afternoon.
This is the most wonderful
press conference of the year.
I've got a list of who's
been naughty and
nice to call on.
(laughter)
But let me first make a
couple of quick points,
and then I'll take
your questions.
Typically, I use this
yearend press conference
to review how far we've
come over the
course of the year.
Today, understandably, I'm
going to talk a little bit
about how far we've come
over the past eight years.
As I was preparing to take
office, the unemployment
rate was on its
way to 10 percent.
Today, it's at 4.6 percent
-- the lowest
in nearly a decade.
We've seen the longest
streak of job growth on
record, and wages have
grown faster over the past
few years than at any
time in the past 40.
When I came into office,
44 million people
were uninsured.
Today, we've covered more
than 20 million of them.
For the first time in our
history, more than 90
percent of Americans
are insured.
In fact, yesterday was
the biggest day ever
for HealthCare.gov.
More than 670,000
Americans signed up to get
covered, and more are
signing up by the day.
We've cut our dependence
on foreign oil by more
than half, doubled
production of renewable
energy, enacted the most
sweeping reforms since FDR
to protect consumers and
prevent a crisis on Wall
Street from punishing
Main Street ever again.
None of these actions
stifled growth,
as critics predicted.
Instead, the stock market
has nearly tripled.
Since I signed Obamacare
into law, our businesses
have added more than
15 million new jobs.
And the economy is
undoubtedly more durable
than it was in the days
when we relied on oil from
unstable nations and banks
took risky bets
with your money.
Add it all up, and last
year, the poverty rate
fell at the fastest rate
in almost 50 years, while
the median household
income grew at the
fastest rate on record.
In fact, income gains
were actually larger for
households at the bottom
and the middle than
for those at the top.
And we've done all this
while cutting our deficits
by nearly two-thirds
and protecting vital
investments that grow
the middle class.
In foreign policy, when I
came into office, we were
in the midst of two wars.
Now, nearly 180,000 troops
are down to 15,000.
Bin Laden, rather than
being at large, has been
taken off the battlefield,
along with thousands
of other terrorists.
Over the past eight years,
no foreign terrorist
organization has
successfully executed an
attack on our homeland
that was directed
from overseas.
Through diplomacy, we've
ensured that Iran cannot
obtain a nuclear weapon --
without going to
war with Iran.
We opened up a new chapter
with the people of Cuba.
And we brought nearly 200
nations together around a
climate agreement that
could very well save this
planet for our kids.
And almost every country
on Earth sees America as
stronger and more
respected today than they
did eight years ago.
In other words, by so many
measures, our country is
stronger and more
prosperous than it
was when we started.
That's a situation that
I'm proud to leave
for my successor.
And it's thanks to the
American people -- to the
hard work that you've put
in, the sacrifices you've
made for your families
and your communities, the
businesses that you
started or invested in,
the way you looked
out for one another.
And I could not be prouder
to be your President.
Of course, to tout this
progress doesn't mean that
we're not mindful of how
much more there is to do.
In this season in
particular, we're reminded
that there are people who
are still hungry, people
who are still homeless;
people who still have
trouble paying the bills
or finding work
after being laid off.
There are communities that
are still mourning those
who have been stolen
from us by senseless gun
violence, and parents who
still are wondering how
to protect their kids.
And after I leave office,
I intend to continue to
work with organizations
and citizens doing good
across the country on
these and other pressing
issues to build on the
progress that we've made.
Around the world, as well,
there are hotspots where
disputes have been
intractable, conflicts
have flared up, and people
-- innocent people are
suffering as a result.
And nowhere is this more
terribly true than
in the city of Aleppo.
For years, we've worked
to stop the civil war in
Syria and alleviate
human suffering.
It has been one of the
hardest issues that I've
faced as President.
The world, as we speak, is
united in horror at the
savage assault by the
Syrian regime and its
Russian and Iranian allies
on the city of Aleppo.
We have seen a deliberate
strategy of surrounding,
besieging, and starving
innocent civilians.
We've seen relentless
targeting of humanitarian
workers and medical
personnel; entire
neighborhoods reduced
to rubble and dust.
There are continuing
reports of civilians
being executed.
These are all horrific
violations of
international law.
Responsibility for this
brutality lies in one
place alone -- with the
Assad regime and its
allies Russia and Iran.
And this blood and these
atrocities are on their hands.
We all know what
needs to happen.
There needs to be an
impartial international
observer force in Aleppo
that can help coordinate
an orderly evacuation
through safe corridors.
There has to be full
access for humanitarian
aid, even as the United
States continues to be the
world's largest donor of
humanitarian aid
to the Syrian people.
And, beyond that, there
needs to be a broader
ceasefire that can serve
as the basis for a
political rather than
a military solution.
That's what the United
States is going to
continue to push for, both
with our partners and
through multilateral
institutions like the U.N.
Regretfully, but
unsurprisingly, Russia has
repeatedly blocked the
Security Council from
taking action
on these issues.
So we're going to keep
pressing the Security
Council to help improve
the delivery of
humanitarian aid to those
who are in such desperate
need, and to ensure
accountability, including
continuing to monitor any
potential use of
chemical weapons in Syria.
And we're going to
work in the U.N.
General Assembly as well,
both on accountability
and to advance a
political settlement.
Because it should be clear
that although you may
achieve tactical
victories, over the long
term the Assad regime
cannot slaughter
its way to legitimacy.
That's why we'll continue
to press for a transition
to a more representative
government.
And that's why the world
must not avert our eyes to
the terrible events
that are unfolding.
The Syrian regime and its
Russian and Iranian allies
are trying to
obfuscate the truth.
The world should
not be fooled.
And the world
will not forget.
So even in a season where
the incredible blessings
that we know as Americans
are all around us, even as
we enjoy family and
friends and are reminded
of how lucky we are, we
should also be reminded
that to be an American
involves bearing
burdens and meeting
obligations to others.
American values and
American ideals are what
will lead the way to a
safer and more prosperous
2017, both here
and abroad.
And by the way, few embody
those values and ideals
like our brave men and
women in uniform
and their families.
So I just want to close by
wishing all of them a very
Merry Christmas and
a Happy New Year.
With that, I will
take some questions.
And I'm going to start
with Josh Lederman, of AP.
The Press: Thank
you, Mr. President.
There's a perception that
you're letting President
Putin get away with
interfering in the U.S.
election, and that a
response that nobody knows
about or a lookback
review just won't cut it.
Are you prepared to call
out President Putin by
name for ordering
this hacking?
And do you agree with what
Hillary Clinton now says,
that the hacking
was actually partly
responsible for her loss?
And is your
administration's open
quarreling with Trump and
his team on this
issue tarnishing the smooth
transition of power that
you have promised?
The President: Well, first
of all, with respect to
the transition, I think
they would be the first to
acknowledge that we have
done everything we can to
make sure that they are
successful as I promised.
And that will continue.
And it's just been a few
days since I last talked
to the President-elect
about a whole range
of transition issues.
That cooperation is
going to continue.
There hasn't been a
lot of squabbling.
What we've simply said is
the facts, which are that,
based on uniform
intelligence assessments,
the Russians were
responsible for hacking
the DNC, and that, as
a consequence, it is
important for us to review
all elements of that and
make sure that we are
preventing that kind of
interference through
cyberattacks in the future.
That should be a
bipartisan issue; that
shouldn't be a
partisan issue.
And my hope is that the
President-elect is going
to similarly be concerned
with making sure that we
don't have potential
foreign influence in
our election process.
I don't think any
American wants that.
And that shouldn't be a
source of an argument.
I think that part of the
challenge is that it gets
caught up in the carryover
from election season.
And I think it is very
important for us to
distinguish between the
politics of the election
and the need for us, as
a country, both from a
national security
perspective but also in
terms of the integrity of
our election system and
our democracy, to make
sure that we don't create
a political football here.
Now, with respect to how
this thing unfolded last
year, let's just go
through the facts
pretty quickly.
At the beginning of the
summer, we're alerted to
the possibility that the
DNC has been hacked, and I
immediately order law
enforcement as well as our
intelligence teams to find
out everything about it,
investigate it thoroughly,
to brief the potential
victims of this hacking,
to brief on a bipartisan
basis the leaders of both
the House and the Senate
and the relevant
intelligence committees.
And once we had clarity
and certainty around what,
in fact, had happened, we
publicly announced that,
in fact, Russia had
hacked into the DNC.
And at that time, we did
not attribute motives or
any interpretations of
why they had done so.
We didn't discuss what the
effects of it might be.
We simply let people know
-- the public know, just
as we had let members of
Congress know --
that this had happened.
And as a consequence, all
of you wrote a lot of
stories about both what
had happened, and then you
interpreted why that might
have happened and what
effect it was going to
have on the election outcomes.
We did not.
And the reason we did
not was because in this
hyper-partisan atmosphere,
at a time when my primary
concern was making sure
that the integrity of the
election process was not
in any way damaged, at a
time when anything that
was said by me or anybody
in the White House would
immediately be seen
through a partisan lens, I
wanted to make sure that
everybody understood we
were playing this thing
straight -- that we
weren't trying to
advantage one side or
another, but what we were
trying to do was let
people know that this had
taken place, and so if you
started seeing effects on
the election, if you were
trying to measure why this
was happening and how
you should consume the
information that was being
leaked, that you might
want to take this
into account.
And that's exactly how we
should have handled it.
Imagine if we had
done the opposite.
It would have become
immediately just one
more political scrum.
And part of the goal here
was to make sure that we
did not do the work of
the leakers for them by
raising more and more
questions about the
integrity of the election
right before the election
was taking place -- at a
time, by the way, when the
President-elect himself
was raising questions
about the integrity
of the election.
And, finally, I think it's
worth pointing out that
the information
was already out.
It was in the hands of
WikiLeaks, so that was
going to come out
no matter what.
What I was concerned
about, in particular, was
making sure that that
wasn't compounded by
potential hacking that
could hamper vote
counting, affect the
actual election
process itself.
And so in early September,
when I saw President Putin
in China, I felt that the
most effective way to
ensure that that didn't
happen was to talk to him
directly and tell him to
cut it out, and there were
going to be some serious
consequences if he didn't.
And, in fact, we did not
see further tampering of
the election process.
But the leaks through
WikiLeaks had
already occurred.
So when I look back in
terms of how we handled
it, I think we handled it
the way it should
have been handled.
We allowed law enforcement
and the intelligence
community to do its
job without
political influence.
We briefed all relevant
parties involved in terms
of what was taking place.
When we had a consensus
around what had happened,
we announced it -- not
through the White House,
not through me, but rather
through the intelligence
communities that had
actually carried out
these investigations.
And then we allowed you
and the American public to
make an assessment as to
how to weigh that going
into the election.
And the truth is, is that
there was nobody here who
didn't have some sense of
what kind of
effect it might have.
I'm finding it a little
curious that everybody is
suddenly acting surprised
that this looked like it
was disadvantaging Hillary
Clinton because you guys
wrote about it every day.
Every single leak.
About every little juicy
tidbit of political gossip
-- including John
Podesta's risotto recipe.
This was an obsession
that dominated
the news coverage.
So I do think it's worth
us reflecting how it is
that a presidential
election of such
importance, of such
moment, with so many big
issues at stake and such
a contrast between the
candidates, came to be
dominated by a
bunch of these leaks.
What is it about our
political system that made
us vulnerable to these
kinds of potential
manipulations -- which, as
I've said publicly before,
were not particularly
sophisticated.
This was not some
elaborate, complicated
espionage scheme.
They hacked into some
Democratic Party emails
that contained pretty
routine stuff, some of
it embarrassing or
uncomfortable, because I
suspect that if any of
us got our emails hacked
into, there might be some
things that we wouldn't
want suddenly appearing
on the front page of a
newspaper or a telecast,
even if there wasn't
anything particularly
illegal or
controversial about it.
And then it just took off.
And that concerns me.
And it should
concern all of us.
But the truth of the
matter is, is that
everybody had
the information.
It was out there.
And we handled it the
way we should have.
Now, moving forward, I
think there are a
couple of issues that
this raises.
Number one is just the
constant challenge that we
are going to have with
cybersecurity throughout
our economy and
throughout our society.
We are a digitalized
culture, and there is
hacking going on
every single day.
There's not a company,
there's not a major
organization, there's not
a financial institution,
there's not a branch of
our government where
somebody is not going to
be phishing for something
or trying to penetrate, or
put in a virus or malware.
And this is why for the
last eight years, I've
been obsessed with how do
we continually upgrade
our cybersecurity systems.
And this particular
concern around Russian
hacking is part of a
broader set of concerns
about how do we deal with
cyber issues being used in
ways that can affect our
infrastructure, affect the
stability of our financial
systems, and affect the
integrity of our
institutions, like
our election process.
I just received a couple
weeks back -- it wasn't
widely reported on
-- a report from our
cybersecurity commission
that outlines a whole
range of strategies to
do a better job on this.
But it's difficult,
because it's not all
housed -- the target of
cyberattacks is not one
entity but it's widely
dispersed, and a lot of it
is private, like the DNC.
It's not a branch
of government.
We can't tell
people what to do.
What we can do is inform
them, get best practices.
What we can also do is to,
on a bilateral basis, warn
other countries against
these kinds of attacks.
And we've done
that in the past.
So just as I told Russia
to stop it, and indicated
there will be consequences
when they do it, the
Chinese have, in the past,
engaged in cyberattacks
directed at our companies
to steal trade secrets and
proprietary technology.
And I had to have the same
conversation with Prime
Minister -- or with
President Xi, and what
we've seen is some
evidence that they have
reduced -- but not
completely eliminated --
these activities, partly
because they can use cutouts.
One of the problems with
the Internet and cyber
issues is that there's not
always a return address,
and by the time you catch
up to it, attributing what
happened to a particular
government can be
difficult, not always
provable in court even
though our intelligence
communities can
make an assessment.
What we've also tried to
do is to start creating
some international norms
about this to prevent some
sort of cyber arms race,
because we obviously have
offensive capabilities
as well as
defensive capabilities.
And my approach is not
a situation in which
everybody is worse
off because folks are
constantly attacking each
other back and forth, but
putting some guardrails
around the behavior of
nation-states, including
our adversaries, just so
that they understand that
whatever they do to us
we can potentially
do to them.
We do have some special
challenges, because
oftentimes our economy is
more digitalized, it is
more vulnerable, partly
because we're a wealthier
nation and we're more
wired than some of these
other countries.
And we have a more open
society, and engage in
less control and
censorship over what
happens over the Internet,
which is also part of what
makes us special.
Last point -- and the
reason I'm going on here
is because I know that
you guys have a lot of
questions about this, and
I haven't addressed all of
you directly about it.
With respect to response,
my principal goal leading
up to the election was
making sure that the
election itself went off
without a hitch, that it
was not tarnished, and
that it did not feed any
sense in the public that
somehow tampering had
taken place with the
actual process of voting.
And we accomplished that.
That does not mean that we
are not going to respond.
It simply meant that we
had a set of priorities
leading up to the election
that were of
the utmost importance.
Our goal continues to be
to send a clear message to
Russia or others not to do
this to us, because
we can do stuff to you.
But it is also important
for us to do that
in a thoughtful,
methodical way.
Some of it we do publicly.
Some of it we will do in
a way that they know, but
not everybody will.
And I know that there have
been folks out there who
suggest somehow that if we
went out there and made
big announcements, and
thumped our chests about a
bunch of stuff, that
somehow that would
potentially spook
the Russians.
But keep in mind that we
already have enormous
numbers of sanctions
against the Russians.
The relationship between
us and Russia has
deteriorated, sadly,
significantly over the
last several years.
And so how we approach an
appropriate response that
increases costs for them
for behavior like this in
the future, but does not
create problems for us, is
something that's worth
taking the time to think
through and figure out.
And that's exactly
what we've done.
So at a point in time
where we've taken certain
actions that we can
divulge publically,
we will do so.
There are times where the
message will go -- will be
directly received by
the Russians
and not publicized.
And I should point out, by
the way, part of why the
Russians have been
effective on this is
because they don't go
around announcing
what they're doing.
It's not like Putin is
going around the world
publically saying, look
what we did,
wasn't that clever?
He denies it.
So the idea that somehow
public shaming is going to
be effective I think
doesn't read the
thought process in
Russia very well.
Okay?
The Press: Did Clinton
lose because of the hacking?
The President: I'm going
to let all the political
pundits in this town have
a long discussion about
what happened
in the election.
It was a fascinating
election, so I'm sure
there are going to be a
lot of books written about it.
I've said what I think
is important for the
Democratic Party going
forward rather than try to
parse every aspect
of the election.
And I've said before, I
couldn't be prouder of
Secretary Clinton, her
outstanding service.
I thinks she's worked
tirelessly on behalf of
the American people, and
I don't think she was
treated fairly
during the election.
I think the coverage of
her and the issues
was troubling.
But having said that, what
I've been most focused on
-- appropriate for the
fact that I'm not going to
be a politician in about,
what is it, 32 days?
31?
The Press: Thirty-four.
The President:
Thirty four?
(laughter)
But what I've said is, is
that I can maybe give some
counsel and advice to
the Democratic Party.
And I think that that the
thing we have to spend the
most time on -- because
it's the thing we have the
most control over -- is
how do we make sure that
we are showing up in
places where I think
Democratic policies are
needed, where they are
helping, where they are
making a difference, but
where people feel as if
they're not being heard
and where Democrats are
characterized as coastal,
liberal, latte-sipping,
politically-correct,
out-of-touch folks.
We have to be in
those communities.
And I've seen that when we
are in those communities,
it makes a difference.
That's how I
became President.
I became a U.S.
senator not just because
I had a strong base in
Chicago, but because I was
driving around downstate
Illinois and going to fish
frys and sitting in VFW
halls and talking
to farmers.
And I didn't win every one
of their votes, but they
got a sense of what I was
talking about, what I
cared about, that I was
for working people, that I
was for the middle class,
that the reason I was
interested in
strengthening unions, and
raising the minimum
wage, and rebuilding our
infrastructure, and making
sure that parents had
decent childcare and
family leave was because
my own family's history
wasn't that different from
theirs, even if I looked
a little bit different.
Same thing in Iowa.
And so the question is,
how do we rebuild that
party as a whole so that
there's not a county in
any state -- I don't care
how red -- that we don't
have a presence and we're
not making the argument.
Because I think we have
the better argument.
But that requires
a lot of work.
It's been something that
I've been able to do
successfully in
my own campaigns.
It is not something I've
been able to transfer to
candidates in midterms and
sort of build a sustaining
organization around.
That's something that I
would have liked to have
done more of, but it's
kind of hard to do when
you're also dealing with a
whole bunch of issues here
in the White House.
And that doesn't mean,
though, that it can't be done.
And I think there are
going to be a lot of
talented folks out there,
a lot of progressives who
share my values who are
going to be leading the
charge in the
years to come.
Michelle Kosinski of CNN.
The Press: Thank you.
So this week we heard
Hillary Clinton talk about
how she thinks that the
FBI Director's most recent
announcement made a
difference in the outcome
of the election.
And we also just heard
in an op-ed her campaign
chairman talk about
something being deeply
broken within the FBI.
He talked about thinking
that the investigation
early on was lackadaisical
in his words.
So what do you think
about those comments?
Do you think there's
any truth to them?
Do you think there's a
danger there that they're
calling into question the
integrity of institutions
in a similar way that
Donald Trump's team has done?
And the second part to
that is that Donald
Trump's team repeatedly
-- I guess, giving the
indication that the
investigation of the
Russian hack, as well as
the retaliation, might not
be such a priority once
he's in office, so what do
you think the
risk is there?
And are you going to talk
to him directly about some
of those comments he made?
The President: Well, on
the latter point, as I
said before, the
transition from election
season to governance
season is not always smooth.
It's bumpy.
There are still feelings
that are raw out there.
There are people who are
still thinking about
how things unfolded.
And I get all that.
But when Donald Trump
takes the Oath of Office
and is sworn as the 45th
President of the United
States, then he's got
a different set of
responsibilities
and considerations.
And I've said this before:
I think there is a
sobering process when you
walk into the Oval Office.
And I haven't shared
previously private
conversations I've had
with the President-elect.
I will say that they have
been cordial and, in some
cases, have involved
me making some pretty
specific suggestions
about how to ensure that
regardless of our obvious
deep disagreements about
policy, maybe I can
transmit some thoughts
about maintaining the
effectiveness, integrity,
cohesion of the office,
of various
democratic institutions.
And he has listened.
I can't say that he will
end up implementing, but
the conversations
themselves have been
cordial as opposed to
defensive in any way.
And I will always make
myself available to him,
just as previous
Presidents have made
themselves available to
me as issues come up.
With respect to the FBI, I
will tell you, I've had a
chance to know a lot
of FBI agents, I know
Director Comey, and they
take their job seriously,
they work really hard,
they help keep us safe and
save a lot of lives.
And it is always a
challenge for law
enforcement when there's
an intersection between
the work that they are
doing and the
political system.
It's one of the
difficulties of
democracy, generally.
We have a system where we
want our law enforcement
investigators and our
prosecutors to be free
from politics, to be
independent, to play it
straight, but sometimes
that involves
investigations that
touch on politics.
And particularly in this
hyper-partisan environment
that we've been in,
everything is suspect,
everything you do
one way or the other.
One thing that I have done
is to be pretty scrupulous
about not wading into
investigation decisions or
prosecution decisions,
or decisions not to prosecute.
I have tried to be really
strict in my own behavior
about preserving the
independence of law
enforcement, free from
my own judgments and
political assessments,
in some cases.
And I don't know why
it would stop now.
Mike Dorning of Bloomberg.
The Press: Thank
you, Mr. President.
On Aleppo, your views that
what happens there is the
responsibility of the
Russian government, the
Iranian government, the
Assad regime are
pretty well aired.
But do you, as President
of the United States,
leader of the free world,
feel any personal moral
responsibility now at the
end of your presidency for
the carnage that we're all
watching in Aleppo, which
I'm sure disturbs you --
which you said disturbs you?
And, secondly, also on
Aleppo, you've again made
clear your practical
disagreements with the
idea of safe zones.
And President-elect Trump
has, throughout his
campaign, and he said
again last night that he
wants to create
safe zones in Syria.
Do you feel like, in this
transition, you need to
help him toward
implementing that?
Or was that not something
that you should be doing?
The President: Mike, I
always feel responsible.
I felt responsible when
kids were being
shot by snipers.
I felt responsible when
millions of people
had been displaced.
I feel responsible for
murder and slaughter
that's taken place in
South Sudan that's not
being reported on partly
because there's not as
much social media being
generated from there.
There are places around
the world where horrible
things are happening, and
because of my office,
because I'm President of
the United States,
I feel responsible.
I ask myself every single
day, is there something I
could do that would
save lives and make a
difference and spare some
child who doesn't
deserve to suffer.
So that's a
starting point.
There's not a moment
during the course of this
presidency where I haven't
felt some responsibility.
That's true, by the way,
for our own country.
When I came into office
and people were losing
their jobs and losing
their homes and losing
their pensions, I felt
responsible, and I would
go home at night and I
would ask myself, was
there something better
that I could do or smarter
that I could be that would
make a difference in their
lives, that would relieve
their suffering and
relieve their hardship.
So with respect to Syria,
what I have consistently
done is taken the best
course that I can to try
to end the civil war while
having also to take into
account the long-term
national security
interests of the
United States.
And throughout this
process, based on hours of
meetings, if you tallied
it up, days or weeks of
meetings where we went
through every option in
painful detail, with maps,
and we had our military,
and we had our aid
agencies, and we had our
diplomatic teams, and
sometimes we'd bring in
outsiders who were critics
of ours -- whenever we
went through it, the
challenge was that, short
of putting large
numbers of U.S.
troops on the ground,
uninvited, without any
international law mandate,
without sufficient support
from Congress, at a time
when we still had troops
in Afghanistan and we
still had troops in Iraq,
and we had just gone
through over a decade of
war and spent trillions
of dollars, and when the
opposition on the ground
was not cohesive enough to
necessarily govern a
country, and you had a
military superpower in
Russia prepared to do
whatever it took to keeps
its client-state involved,
and you had a regional
military power in Iran
that saw their own vital
strategic interests at
stake and were willing to
send in as many of their
people or proxies to
support the regime -- that
in that circumstance,
unless we were all in and
willing to take over
Syria, we were going to
have problems, and that
everything else was
tempting because we wanted
to do something and it
sounded like the right
thing to do, but it was
going to be impossible
to do this on the cheap.
And in that circumstance,
I have to make a decision
as President of the United
States as to what is
best -- I'm sorry,
what's going on?
Somebody's not
feeling good?
All right.
Why don't we have -- we've
got -- we can get our
doctors back
there to help out.
Does somebody want to go
to my doctor's office and
just have them -- all
right -- where was I?
The Press: Doing
it on the cheap.
The President: So we
couldn't do it on the cheap.
Now, it may be --
Can somebody help out
please and get
Doc Jackson in here?
Is somebody
grabbing our doctor?
The Press: Thank you,
Mr. President, for stopping.
The President: Of course.
In the meantime, just
give her a little room.
The doctor will be
here in a second.
You guys know where the
doctor's office is?
Just go through
the Palm doors.
It's right next
to the Map Room.
There he is.
All right, there's
Doc Jackson.
He's all right.
Okay.
The doctor is
in the house.
The Press: You were saying
you couldn't do it
on the cheap.
The President: And I don't
mean that -- I mean that
with all sincerity.
I understand the impulse
to want to do something.
But ultimately, what I've
had to do is to think
about what can we sustain,
what is realistic.
And my first priority has
to be what's the right
thing to do for America.
And it has been our view
that the best thing to do
has been to provide some
support to the moderate
opposition so that they
could sustain themselves,
and that we wouldn't
see anti-Assad regime
sentiments just pouring
into al Nusra and al Qaeda
or ISIL; that we engaged
our international partners
in order to put pressure
on all the parties
involved, and to try to
resolve this through
diplomatic and
political means.
I cannot claim that
we've been successful.
And so that's something
that, as is true with a
lot of issues and problems
around the world,
I have to go to bed
with every night.
But I continue to believe
that it was the right
approach, given what
realistically we could get
done absent a decision, as
I said, to go in a much
more significant way.
And that, I think, would
not have been sustainable
or good for the American
people because we had a
whole host of other
obligations that we also
had to meet, wars we had
already started and that
were not yet finished.
With respect to the issue
of safe zones, it is a
continued problem.
A continued challenge with
safe zones is if you're
setting up those zones on
Syrian territory, then
that requires some force
that is willing to
maintain that territory
in the absence of consent
from the Syrian government
and, now, the Russians or
the Iranians.
So it may be that with
Aleppo's tragic situation
unfolding, that in the
short term, if we can get
more of the tens of
thousands who are still
trapped there out, that so
long as the world's eyes
are on them and they are
feeling pressure, the
regime and Russia
concludes that they are
willing to find some
arrangement, perhaps in
coordination with Turkey,
whereby those
people can be safe.
Even that will probably be
temporary, but at least it
solves a short-term issue
that's going to arise.
Unfortunately, we're not
even there yet, because
right now we have Russians
and Assad claiming that
basically all the innocent
civilians who were trapped
in Aleppo are out
when international
organizations,
humanitarian organizations
who know better and who
are on the ground have
said unequivocally that
there are still tens of
thousands who are trapped
and prepared to leave
under pretty much
any conditions.
And so right now, our
biggest priority is to
continue to put pressure
wherever we can to
try to get them out.
The Press:
Notwithstanding --
The President: I can't
have too much --
The Press: On the second
question, your intentions
are well aired, but do
you feel responsibility
notwithstanding a move in
that direction or help
President-elect Trump
move in that direction?
The President: I will
help President Trump --
President-elect Trump
with any advice, counsel,
information that we can
provide so that he, once
he's sworn in, can
make a decision.
Between now and then,
these are decisions that I
have to make based on the
consultations I have with
our military and the
people who have been
working this
every single day.
Peter Alexander.
The Press: Mr. President,
thank you very much.
Can you, given all the
intelligence that we have
now heard, assure the
public that this was, once
and for all, a free
and fair election?
And specifically on
Russia, do you feel any
obligation now, as they've
been insisting that this
isn't the case, to show
the proof, as it were --
they say put your money
where your mouth is and
declassify some of the
intelligence, some of the
evidence that exists?
And more broadly, as it
relates to Donald Trump on
this very topic, are
you concerned about his
relationship with Vladimir
Putin, especially given
some of the recent Cabinet
picks, including his
selection for Secretary of
State, Rex Tillerson, who
toasted Putin with
champagne over
oil deals together?
Thank you.
The President: I may be
getting older, because
these multipart questions,
I start losing track.
(laughter)
I can assure the public
that there was not the
kind of tampering with the
voting process that was of
concern and will continue
to be of concern going
forward; that the votes
that were cast were
counted, they were
counted appropriately.
We have not seen evidence
of machines
being tampered with.
So that assurance
I can provide.
That doesn't mean that
we find every single
potential probe of every
single voting machine all
across the country, but we
paid a lot of attention to it.
We worked with state
officials, et cetera, and
we feel confident that
that didn't occur and that
the votes were cast
and they were counted.
So that's on that point.
What was the second one?
The Press: The
second one was
about declassification.
The President:
Declassification.
Look, we will provide
evidence that we can
safely provide that does
not compromise
sources and methods.
But I'll be honest with
you, when you're talking
about cybersecurity, a
lot of it is classified.
And we're not going to
provide it because the way
we catch folks is by
knowing certain things
about them that they may
not want us to know, and
if we're going to monitor
this stuff effectively
going forward, we don't
want them to
know that we know.
So this is one of those
situations where unless
the American people
genuinely think that the
professionals in the
CIA, the FBI, our
entire intelligence
infrastructure -- many of
whom, by the way,
served in previous
administrations and who
are Republicans -- are
less trustworthy than the
Russians, then people
should pay attention to
what our intelligence
agencies have to say.
This is part of what I
meant when I said that
we've got to think about
what's happening to our
political culture here.
The Russians can't change
us or significantly weaken us.
They are a
smaller country.
They are a weaker country.
Their economy doesn't
produce anything that
anybody wants to buy,
except oil and gas and arms.
They don't innovate.
But they can impact us if
we lose track of who we are.
They can impact us if
we abandon our values.
Mr. Putin can weaken us,
just like he's trying to
weaken Europe, if we start
buying into notions that
it's okay to intimidate
the press, or lock up
dissidents, or
discriminate against
people because of their
faith or what they look like.
And what I worry about
more than anything is the
degree to which, because
of the fierceness of the
partisan battle, you start
to see certain folks in
the Republican Party and
Republican voters suddenly
finding a government and
individuals who stand
contrary to everything
that we stand for as being
okay because that's how
much we dislike Democrats.
I mean, think about it.
Some of the people who
historically have been
very critical of me for
engaging with the Russians
and having conversations
with them also endorsed
the President-elect, even
as he was saying that we
should stop sanctioning
Russia and being tough on
them, and work together
with them against
our common enemies.
He was very complimentary
of Mr. Putin personally.
That wasn't news.
The President-elect during
the campaign said so.
And some folks who had
made a career out of being
anti-Russian didn't
say anything about it.
And then after the
election, suddenly they're
asking, well, why didn't
you tell us that maybe the
Russians were trying
to help our candidate?
Well, come on.
There was a survey, some
of you saw, where -- now,
this is just one poll, but
a pretty credible source
-- 37 percent of
Republican voters
approve of Putin.
Over a third of Republican
voters approve of Vladimir
Putin, the former
head of the KGB.
Ronald Reagan would
roll over in his grave.
And how did that happen?
It happened in part
because, for too long,
everything that happens
in this town, everything
that's said is seen
through the lens of "does
this help or hurt us
relative to Democrats,
or relative to
President Obama?"
And unless that changes,
we're going to continue to
be vulnerable to foreign
influence, because we've
lost track of what it is
that we're about and
what we stand for.
With respect to the
President-elect's
appointments, it is his
prerogative, as I've
always said, for him to
appoint who he thinks can
best carry out his foreign
policy or his domestic policy.
It is up to the Senate
to advise and consent.
There will be plenty of
time for members of the
Senate to go through
the record of all his
appointees and determine
whether or not they're
appropriate for the job.
Martha Raddatz.
The Press: Mr. President,
I want to talk about
Vladimir Putin again.
Just to be clear, do you
believe Vladimir Putin
himself authorized
the hack?
And do you believe he
authorized that to
help Donald Trump?
And on the intelligence,
one of the things Donald
Trump cites is Saddam
Hussein and the weapons of
mass destruction, and that
they were never found.
Can you say,
unequivocally, that this
was not China, that this
was not a 400-pound guy
sitting on his bed,
as Donald Trump says?
And do these types of
tweets and kinds of
statements from Donald
Trump embolden the Russians?
The President: When the
report comes out, before I
leave office, that will
have drawn together
all the threads.
And so I don't want to
step on their work
ahead of time.
What I can tell you is
that the intelligence that
I have seen gives me
great confidence in their
assessment that the
Russians carried
out this hack.
The Press: Which hack?
The President: The hack of
the DNC and the hack of
John Podesta.
Now, the -- but again, I
think this is exactly why
I want the report out, so
that everybody
can review it.
And this has been briefed,
and the evidence in closed
session has been provided
on a bipartisan basis --
not just to me, it's been
provided to the leaders of
the House and the Senate,
and the chairman and
ranking members of the
relevant committees.
And I think that what
you've already seen is, at
least some of the folks
who have seen the evidence
don't dispute, I think,
the basic assessment
that the Russians
carried this out.
The Press: But
specifically, can
you not say that --
The President: Well,
Martha, I think what I
want to make sure of
is that I give the
intelligence community the
chance to gather
all the information.
But I'd make a larger
point, which is, not much
happens in Russia
without Vladimir Putin.
This is a pretty
hierarchical operation.
Last I checked, there's
not a lot of debate and
democratic deliberation,
particularly when it comes
to policies directed
at the United States.
We have said, and I
will confirm, that this
happened at the highest
levels of the
Russian government.
And I will let you make
that determination as to
whether there are
high-level Russian
officials who go off rogue
and decide to
tamper with the U.S.
election process without
Vladimir Putin
knowing about it.
The Press: So I wouldn't
be wrong in saying the
President thinks Vladimir
Putin authorized the hack?
The President: Martha,
I've given you what I'm
going to give you.
What was your
second question?
The Press: Do the tweets
and do the statements by
Donald Trump
embolden Russia?
The President: As I said
before, I think that the
President-elect is still
in transition mode from
campaign to governance.
I think he hasn't gotten
his whole team together yet.
He still has campaign
spokespersons sort of
filling in and appearing
on cable shows.
And there's just a whole
different attitude and
vibe when you're not in
power as when you're in power.
So rather than me sort
of characterize the
appropriateness or
inappropriateness of what
he's doing at the moment,
I think what we have to
see is how will the
President-elect operate,
and how will his team
operate, when they've been
fully briefed on all these
issues, they have their
hands on all the levers of
government, and they've
got to start
making decisions.
One way I do believe that
the President-elect can
approach this that would
be unifying is to say that
we welcome a bipartisan,
independent process that
gives the American people
an assurance not only that
votes are counted
properly, that the
elections are fair and
free, but that we have
learned lessons about how
Internet propaganda from
foreign countries can
be released into the
political bloodstream and
that we've got
strategies to deal with it
for the future.
The more this can be
nonpartisan, the better
served the American people
are going to be, which is
why I made the point
earlier -- and I'm going
to keep on repeating this
point: Our vulnerability
to Russia or any other
foreign power is directly
related to how divided,
partisan, dysfunctional
our political process is.
That's the thing that
makes us vulnerable.
If fake news that's being
released by some foreign
government is almost
identical to reports that
are being issued through
partisan news venues, then
it's not surprising that
that foreign propaganda
will have a greater
effect, because it doesn't
seem that far-fetched
compared to some of the
other stuff that folks
are hearing from
domestic propagandists.
To the extent that our
political dialogue is such
where everything is under
suspicion, everybody is
corrupt and everybody is
doing things for partisan
reasons, and all of our
institutions are full of
malevolent actors -- if
that's the storyline
that's being put out there
by whatever party is out
of power, then when
a foreign government
introduces that same
argument with facts that
are made up, voters who
have been listening to
that stuff for years, who
have been getting that
stuff every day from talk
radio or other venues,
they're going
to believe it.
So if we want to really
reduce foreign influence
on our elections, then we
better think about how
to make sure that our
political process, our
political dialogue is
stronger than it's been.
Mark Landler.
The Press: Thank
you, Mr. President.
I wonder whether I can
move you from Russia
to China for a moment.
The President: Absolutely.
The Press: Your successor
spoke by phone with the
President of Taiwan the
other day and declared
subsequently that he
wasn't sure why the United
States needed to be bound
by the one-China policy.
He suggested it could be
used as a bargaining chip
perhaps to get better
terms on a trade
deal or more cooperation
on North Korea.
There's already evidence
that tensions between the
two sides have increased a
bit, and just today, the
Chinese have evidently
seized an underwater drone
in the South China Sea.
Do you agree, as some do,
that our China
policy could use a fresh
set of eyes?
And what's the big deal
about having a short phone
call with the
President of Taiwan?
Or do you worry that
these types of unorthodox
approaches are setting us
on a collision course with
perhaps our biggest
geopolitical adversary?
The President: That's
a great question.
I'm somewhere in between.
I think all of our foreign
policy should be
subject to fresh eyes.
I think one of the -- I've
said this before -- I am
very proud of the
work I've done.
I think I'm a better
President now than
when I started.
But if you're here for
eight years, in the
bubble, you start seeing
things a certain way and
you benefit from -- the
democracy benefits,
America benefits from
some new perspectives.
And I think it should be
not just the prerogative
but the obligation of a
new President to examine
everything that's been
done and see what makes
sense and what doesn't.
That's what I did when I
came in, and I'm assuming
any new President is going
to undertake
those same exercises.
And given the importance
of the relationship
between the United States
and China, given how much
is at stake in terms
of the world economy,
national security, our
presence in the Asia
Pacific, China's
increasing role in
international affairs
-- there's probably no
bilateral relationship
that carries more
significance and where
there's also the potential
if that relationship
breaks down or goes into a
full-conflict mode, that
everybody is worse off.
So I think it's fine for
him to take a look at it.
What I've advised the
President-elect is that
across the board on
foreign policy, you want
to make sure that you're
doing it in a
systematic, deliberate,
intentional way.
And since there's only one
President at a time, my
advice to him has been
that before he starts
having a lot of
interactions with foreign
governments other than the
usual courtesy calls, that
he should want to have his
full team in place, that
he should want his team to
be fully briefed on what's
gone on in the past and
where the potential
pitfalls may be, where the
opportunities are, what
we've learned from eight
years of experience, so
that as he's then maybe
taking foreign policy in a
new direction, he's got
all the information to
make good decisions and,
by the way, that all of
government is moving at
the same time and singing
from the same hymnal.
And with respect to China
-- and let's just take the
example of Taiwan -- there
has been a longstanding
agreement, essentially,
between China, the United
States, and, to some
degree, the Taiwanese,
which is to not
change the status quo.
Taiwan operates
differently than
mainland China does.
China views Taiwan as part
of China, but recognizes
that it has to approach
Taiwan as an entity that
has its own ways
of doing things.
The Taiwanese have agreed
that as long as they're
able to continue to
function with some degree
of autonomy, that they
won't charge forward and
declare independence.
And that status quo,
although not completely
satisfactory to any of the
parties involved, has kept
the peace and allowed the
Taiwanese to be a pretty
successful economy and a
people who have
a high degree of
self-determination.
But understand, for China,
the issue of Taiwan is as
important as anything
on their docket.
The idea of one China is
at the heart of their
conception as a nation.
And so if you are going to
upend this understanding,
you have to have thought
through what the
consequences are, because
the Chinese will not treat
that the way they'll
treat some other issues.
They won't even treat it
the way they treat issues
around the South China
Sea, where we've had
a lot of tensions.
This goes to the core of
how they see themselves.
And their reaction on this
issue could end up being
very significant.
That doesn't mean that
you have to adhere to
everything that's been
done in the past.
It does mean that you've
got to think it through
and have planned for
potential reactions
that they may engage in.
All right.
Isaac Dovere of Politico.
The Press: Thank
you, Mr. President.
Two questions on where
this all leaves us.
The President:
What leaves us?
Where my presidency
leaves us?
The Press: The election --
The President: It leaves
us in a really good spot --
(laughter)
-- if we make some good
decisions going forward.
The Press: Well, what do
you say to the electors
who are going to meet on
Monday and are thinking of
changing their votes?
Do you think that they
should be given an
intelligence briefing
about the Russian activity?
Or should they bear in
mind everything you've
said and is out already?
Should they -- should
votes be bound by the
state votes as
they've gone?
And long term, do you
think that there is a need
for Electoral College
reform that would tie it
to the popular vote?
The President: It sounded
like two, but
that was all one.
(laughter)
The Press: It was all one.
(laughter)
You know the way this
goes around here.
The President: I love
how these -- I got two
questions, each
one has four parts.
(laughter)
The Press: On the
Democratic Party, your
Labor Secretary is running
to be the Chair of the
Democratic National
Committee.
Is the vision that you've
seen him putting forward
what you think the party
needs to be focused on?
And what do you say to
some of the complaints
that say the future of the
Democratic Party shouldn't
be a continuation of
some of your
political approach?
Part of that is complaints
that decisions that you've
made as President, as the
leader of the party, have
structurally weakened the
DNC and the Democratic
Party, and they think that
that has led to -- or has
helped lead to some losses
in elections
around the country.
Do you regret any
of those decisions?
The President: Okay.
The Press: Those
are my two.
(laughter)
The President: Good.
I'll take the second one
first and say that Tom
Perez has been, I
believe, one of the best
secretaries of labor
in our history.
He is tireless.
He is wicked smart.
He has been able to work
across the spectrum of
labor, business,
activists.
He's produced.
I mean, if you look at his
body of work on behalf of
working people, what he's
pushed for in terms of
making sure that workers
get a fair deal, decent
wages, better benefits,
that their safety is
protected on the job -- he
has been extraordinary.
Now, others who have
declared are also my
friends and are fine
people, as well.
And the great thing is, I
don't have a vote in this,
so we'll let the
process unfold.
I don't think it's going
to happen anytime soon.
I described to you earlier
what I think needs to
happen, which is that the
Democratic Party, whether
that's entirely through
the DNC or through a
rebuilding of state
parties or some other
arrangement, has to work
at the grassroots level,
has to be present in all
50 states, has to have a
presence in counties, has
to think about message and
how are we speaking
directly to voters.
I will say this -- and I'm
not going to engage in too
much punditry -- but that
I could not be prouder of
the coalition that I put
together in each of my
campaigns because it was
inclusive, and it drew in
people who normally
weren't interested in
politics and didn't
participate.
But I'd like to think -- I
think I can show that in
those elections, I
always cast a broad net.
I always said, first and
foremost we're Americans,
that we have a common
creed, that there's more
that we share than divides
us, and I want to talk to
everybody and get a chance
to get everybody's vote.
I still believe what I
said in 2004, which is
this red state/blue
thing is a construct.
Now, it is a construct
that has gotten more and
more powerful for a whole
lot of reasons, from
gerrymandering to big
money, to the way that
media has splintered.
And so people are just
watching what reinforces
their existing biases as
opposed to have to listen
to different
points of view.
So there are all kinds
of reasons for it.
But outside of the realm
of electoral politics, I
still see people the way I
saw them when I made that
speech -- full of
contradictions, and there
are some regional
differences, but basically
folks care about their
families, they care about
having meaningful work,
they care about making
sure their kids have more
opportunity than they did.
They want to be safe, they
want to feel
like things are fair.
And whoever leads the DNC
and any candidate with the
Democratic brand going
forward, I want them to
feel as if they can reach
out and find that common
ground -- speak
to all of America.
And that requires
some organization.
And you're right that --
and I said this in my
earlier remarks -- that
what I was able to do
during my campaigns, I
wasn't able to
do during midterms.
It's not that we didn't
put in time
and effort into it.
I spent time and effort
into it, but the coalition
I put together didn't
always turn out
to be transferable.
And the challenge is that
-- you know, some of that
just has to do with the
fact that when you're in
the party in power and
people are going through
hard times like they were
in 2010, they're going to
punish, to some degree,
the President's party
regardless of what
organizational work is done.
Some of it has to do with
just some deep-standing
traditional challenges for
Democrats, like during
off-year election, the
electorate is older and we
do better with a
younger electorate.
But we know those things
are true, and I didn't
crack the code on that.
And if other people have
ideas about how to
do that even better,
I'm all for it.
So with respect to the
electors, I'm not going to
wade into that issue
because, again, it's the
American people's job, and
now the electors' job to
decide my successor.
It is not my job to
decide my successor.
And I have provided people
with a lot of information
about what happened
during the course
of the election.
But more importantly, the
candidates themselves, I
think, talked about their
beliefs and their
vision for America.
The President-elect, I
think, has been very
explicit about what he
cares about and
what he believes in.
So it's not in my hands
now; it's up to them.
The Press: What about
long-term about the
Electoral College?
The President: Long-term
with a respect to the
Electoral College -- the
Electoral College is a
vestige, it's a carryover
from an earlier vision of
how our federal government
was going to work that put
a lot of premium on
states, and it used to be
that the Senate was not
elected directly,
it was through state
legislatures.
And it's the same type
of thinking that gives
Wyoming two senators with
about half a million
people, and California
with 33 million
get the same two.
So there are some
structures in our
political system, as
envisioned by the
Founders, that sometimes
are going to
disadvantage Democrats.
But the truth of the
matter is, is that, if we
have a strong message, if
we're speaking to what the
American people care
about, typically the
popular vote and the
Electoral College
vote will align.
And I guess part of my
overall message here as I
leave for the holidays is
that if we look for one
explanation or one silver
bullet or one easy fix for
our politics, then we're
probably going
to be disappointed.
There are just a lot of
factors in what's happened
not just over the last few
months, but over the last
decade that has made both
politics and governance
more challenging.
And I think everybody
has raised legitimate
questions and
legitimate concerns.
I do hope that we all just
take some time, take a
breath -- this is
certainly what I'm going
to advise Democrats -- to
just reflect a little bit
more about how can we get
to a place where people
are focused on working
together based on at least
some common set of facts.
How can we have a
conversation about
policy that doesn't
demonize each other.
How can we channel what I
think is the basic decency
and goodness of the
American people so it
reflects itself in our
politics, as opposed to it
being so polarized and so
nasty that, in some cases,
you have voters and
elected officials who have
more confidence and faith
in a foreign adversary
than they have in
their neighbors.
And those go to
some bigger issues.
How is it that we have
some voters or some
elected officials who
think that Michelle
Obama's healthy eating
initiative and school
nutrition program is a
great threat to democracy
than our government going
after the press if
they're issuing a story
they don't like?
I mean, that's an issue
that I think we've got
to wrestle with
-- and we will.
People have asked me how
do you feel after the
election and so forth, and
I say, well, look, this is
a clarifying moment.
It's a useful reminder
that voting counts,
politics counts.
What the President-elect
is going to be doing is
going to be very different
than what I was doing, and
I think people will be
able to compare and
contrast and make
judgments about what
worked for the
American people.
And I hope that, building
off the progress we've
made, that what the
President-elect
is proposing works.
What I can say with
confidence is that
what we've done works.
That I can prove.
I can show you where we
were in 2008 and I can
show you where we are now,
and you can't argue that
we're not better off.
We are.
And for that, I thank the
American people and, more
importantly, I thank --
well, not more importantly
-- as importantly -- I was
going to say
Josh Earnest for doing such
a great job.
(laughter)
For that, I thank
the American people.
I thank the men and women
in uniform who serve.
I haven't gotten to the
point yet where I've
been overly sentimental.
I will tell you, when
I was doing my last
Christmas party photoline
-- many of you have
participated in these;
they're pretty long --
right at the end of the
line, the President's
Marine Corps Band comes
in, those who had been
performing, and I take a
picture when them, and it
was the last time that
I was going to take a
picture with my Marine
Corps Band after an
event, and I got a
little choked up.
Now, I was in front of
Marines, so I had to,
like, tamp it down.
But it was just one small
example of all the people
who have contributed
to our success.
I'm responsible for
where we've screwed up.
The successes are widely
shared with all the
amazing people who
have been part
of this administration.
Thank you, everybody.
Mele Kalikimaka.
