Mr. Earnest: Good
afternoon, everybody.
Nice to see you all.
Let me do a quick
statement at the top,
and then we'll go
to your questions.
This is news that
you may have seen,
but I just wanted to
underscore some important
developments at the
United Nations today.
The international community
has strongly condemned North
Korea's weapons of mass
destruction proliferation
activity and its continued
efforts to advance its
nuclear missile programs
with unprecedented sanctions.
U.N. Security Council Resolution
2270 contains the most
extensive multilateral
sanctions measures to date,
including new sectoral
sanctions on North Korean
mineral exports, and
financial sanctions
targeting North Korean
banking activities in
support of its WMD programs.
The resolution also imposes
unprecedented inspection
requirements on
North Korea cargo,
and closes loopholes in the
implementation of sanctions.
To be clear, today's actions
are not aimed at increasing
the suffering of the
North Korean people.
Rather, our collective goal
is to increase the costs on
Pyongyang's leadership as it
stubbornly seeks to advance
its prohibited nuclear and
ballistic missile programs.
We have consistently said
that North Korea would face
consequences
for its actions,
and we welcome this
unanimous resolution as a
firm, united, and
appropriate response by the
international community,
including China and Russia,
to North Korea's recent
provocations that flagrantly
violated multiple Security
Council resolutions.
We commend the work of the
Security Council in sending
a strong message to
Pyongyang that there are
significant consequences for
flouting
its international obligations.
And today, the
international community,
speaking with one voice,
has sent Pyongyang a simple
message: North Korea must
abandon these dangerous
programs and choose a
better path for its people.
So with that, Kevin, let's
go to your questions.
The Press: Okay, Josh,
staying on the same topic
-- does the U.S.
expect North Korea to
seek to retaliate for the
sanctions approved today?
And could you talk about any
precautions that are being
taken in anticipation
of such actions?
And can you talk a bit about
who will be conducting the
inspections of cargo going
in and out of North Korea?
Mr. Earnest: For the way
that these sanctions are
implemented, I think I'd
actually refer you
back to the U.N.
Obviously, it's the
international community that
would impose these sanctions
and redouble our efforts to
make sure that the cargo
inspections are carried out.
So they may be able to
provide some additional
detail about how exactly
this is implemented.
As it relates to our
expectations of the
North Koreans and what potential
reaction they may have,
there's not a lot of
clarity about that.
Obviously, these actions
on the part of the
international community are
a response to provocative
actions that North Korea has
already taken in the last
couple of months.
And we obviously have
already taken a number of
steps to ensure that our
allies in the region and the
American people here at home
are protected from
North Korea's potential
capabilities.
So we've talked at some
length about how over the
last several years the Obama
administration and
President Obama has directed an
increase in assets in the
Asia Pacific to include
anti-ballistic missile
technology and systems that
could protect the United
States from any sort of
North Korea missiles.
There are a number of steps
that we have taken to
enhance the capabilities of
our allies in Japan and our
allies in South Korea to
protect themselves, as well.
And we'll certainly be
mindful of any additional
steps that may be needed to
ensure greater protection
for the United States
and our allies.
The Press: And I know you've
talked about this a little
bit before, but they've
been approved today.
Why are these sanctions --
why will they be any more
successful than past efforts
to curb North Korea's
nuclear missile program?
Mr. Earnest: Well, because
these sanctions actually go
far beyond the sanctions
that have previously been
imposed on the
North Koreans.
And there are several
different ways to evaluate that.
For the first time, this
resolution would require an
inspection of all cargo
going into and going out
of North Korea.
For the first time, this
would prohibit the sale of
small arms or other
conventional weapons
to the North Korean regime.
It also would impose broad
sectoral sanctions on those
aspects of the North
Korean economy
that are functioning.
This is significant
because we know that these
industries -- things like
coal, iron, gold, titanium,
and rare-earth minerals --
are industries in which
revenue is both dedicated to
enhance the lifestyle of the
North Korean elite, but
also in some cases used to
advance North Korea's
nuclear
and missile programs.
So we're taking action that
would have a direct impact
on their capacity to
continue to carry out these
provocative actions.
So that's why it's different
than what has happened before.
We'll have to see if this
increased pressure and
increased isolation is
sufficient to prompt a
change in strategy on the
part of the North Korean regime.
The Press: Turning to
last night's elections,
I wanted to ask how you
interpret the results
on the Republican side.
Was there a clear
winner in your view?
And on the turnout, it
seemed like the Republican
turnout in the Super Tuesday
states really increased
while Democratic turnout in
many of the states was down.
Is the turnout a sign that
Donald Trump is making the
Republican Party bigger?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'll say
a couple of things about the
turnout, last -- or about
the turnout, first.
The fact is, there were
not actually too many
battleground states that
convened primaries or
caucuses last night.
There were only two, sort of
depending on how broad of a
definition you have for
battleground states --
Minnesota and Virginia --
Virginia being the most
important one because of its
size and given the way that
it was so aggressively
contested in the last two
presidential elections.
I think certainly President
Obama's political strategist
would tell you that his
success in Virginia,
both in 2008 and 2012, was
an important part of his
political strategy.
So there's no downplaying
the political significance
of Virginia.
When you take a
look at the results,
you see that the winner of
the Democratic primary drew
far more votes than the
winner
in the Republican primary.
And these are
open primaries.
So you can go and vote in
either the Democratic or
Republican primary based on
which candidate you intend
to support.
So it is clear that the
winner of the Democratic
primary is the candidate in
Virginia that has the most
support in Virginia.
And I think that is an
indication of the level of
excitement on the
Democratic side.
When you take a
look at Minnesota,
you see a similar dynamic,
but in some ways it's even
more pronounced.
Both Democratic candidates
in Minnesota individually
got more votes than any
Republican candidate
in the Minnesota caucuses.
So I think this is an
indication that there is
ample enthusiasm on
the Democratic side,
particularly in the places
where it matters most
in the general election.
I think what is also
true is that, again,
based on the public
reporting from all of you,
that at least some of the
strong turnout in the
Republican Party was
actually due to hostility to
the current Republican
frontrunner.
And that would also be
a troubling dynamic for
Republicans in a general
election if that were to
occur in a general
election, too.
More broadly, as it relates
to the outcome -- and this
is something we've talked
about the last couple of
days, anticipating this
outcome -- and what we've
seen on the part of the
Republican leaders in
Washington, D.C. for the
last six or eight years has
been a reflexive opposition
to President Obama,
and a consistent refusal to
embrace the responsibility
to govern.
And I think the best example
of that are the roiling
political debates that
we've had in Washington, D.C.
over health
care reform.
Republicans have proudly
talked about the fact that
they've voted 50 or 60 times
now to repeal Obamacare,
but never once has there
actually been a Republican
alternative to Obamacare
that's been put forward for
a vote -- not one.
There's a similar story
to tell
about immigration reform.
We hear all of the
candidates on the campaign
trail and here
in Washington, D.C.
rail about the broken
immigration system
in the United States.
This administration
worked closely with some
Republicans to try to cobble
together a bipartisan
compromise, but that
bipartisan compromise was
blocked in the House of
Representatives from even
coming up for a vote.
And there was never a
Republican alternative put
forward that had any chance
of passing either house,
let alone be signed into
law by the President
of the United States.
The same is true when
you consider
gun safety legislation.
There is strong support all
across the country among
Democrats and Republicans
for common-sense steps that
would reduce gun violence.
There's no reason that has
to be a partisan thing.
And there are a number of
Democrats that have put
forward specific proposals
for reducing gun violence,
but yet it is
Republicans that have,
time and time again, blocked
those Democratic proposals
without putting forward
anything of their own.
So this goes back to what we
were talking about earlier
-- when you have party
leaders in Washington,
D.C. that don't
stand for something,
their supporters are likely
to fall for anything.
And it's apparent
that's what's happened.
Ayesha.
The Press: So I wanted to
ask -- moving on to Syria,
I know that the White House
has said that it's going to
take time to see whether
this cessation of
hostilities is actually
going to be successful and
to determine kind of
the outcome of that.
But now that a few
days have passed,
I wanted to see -- does the
White House have any sense
or assessment of where
things stand now on the
cessation of hostilities?
Is it meeting expectations?
Are there concerns?
Where are things
at now on that?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I asked
for an updated assessment
today, so I have some
information I can share
with you here.
In recent days, we have seen
an overall reduction in
airstrikes against Syrian
opposition and civilians.
And that is a reduction when
compared to the number of
airstrikes that were
conducted against Syrian
opposition and civilian
targets prior to the
implementation of the
cessation of hostilities.
That obviously is an
encouraging sign.
However, we are concerned
about reports that the
Syrian regime has engaged in
tank and artillery attacks
against civilians near
places like Latakia, Homs,
and Hama, and
around Damascus.
And obviously, those kinds
of attacks, if confirmed,
would be a flagrant
violation of the cessation
of hostilities.
Now, we're going to monitor
these reports of violations.
We take them
quite seriously.
And we're going to continue
to strongly urge all parties
to exercise restraint and
abide by the commitments
that were included in the
cessation of hostilities.
We're also encouraging all
of our partners in the ISSG
to use their influence with
parties on the ground to not
engage in actions that put
the cessation of hostility
at risk.
So there's a lot of
diplomatic work that goes
into this.
And as we acknowledged prior
to the implementation of the
cessation of hostilities, we
anticipated all along that
we would encounter
some resistance,
that we would hit
some potholes.
But there at least are some
tentative indications of a
slightly improved
situation inside of Syria.
There's more that
needs to be done,
and we're going to follow
up on every report
of a violation.
And we take violations --
particularly as it relates
to tank and artillery
attacks against civilians --
quite seriously.
But our goal here, remember,
is the cessation of
hostilities can hopefully
allow for a more sustained
flow of humanitarian
assistance to those
communities that
are in dire need,
and also try to provide an
additional boost to the
fledgling effort to reach
some sort of broader
political agreement inside
of Syria that results in a
political transition
inside of Syria.
And so that diplomatic
political work continues.
But that's the update that
I've received about how the
implementation of a
cessation of hostilities
is going.
The Press: Is that
humanitarian relief
getting through?
I know some opposition
groups have raised concerns
about that.
When they talk about
continuing on with the peace
talks, part of what they
want is that humanitarian aid.
So is that humanitarian
relief getting through
at this point?
Mr. Earnest:
It's starting to.
There's a lot more that we
believe needs to be done to
speed the flow of
humanitarian aid and allow
for the provision of that
assistance to become
more routine.
But we have seen reports
that the pace of that aid
being provided
has stepped up.
That obviously is a
welcome development.
There are a lot of people
inside of Syria who are
innocently caught in the
crossfire who are in pretty
desperate need of basic
medical supplies, food,
water, and other basic
materials that humans need
to survive.
So we would like to see the
pace of those humanitarian
shipments increased.
And hopefully that will
happen as the cessation of
hostilities continues
to be implemented.
The Press: And on
the Supreme Court,
Harry Reid today said that a
nominee is expected within a
week or so.
So I know that you've been
reticent to talk about
timing and things like that.
But just giving
it a shot, I mean,
should we expect a nominee
within the next week?
Or can you rule that out?
And if that's the case,
if it's moving that fast,
are there interviews
going on right now
with candidates?
Mr. Earnest:
Unfortunately, Ayesha,
I think we are sort of
reaching the height of the
most frustrating part of
this process for those of
you who are trying
to cover it,
which is that I don't have
an updated assessment for
you in terms of timing.
And I don't have initial
details to share about our
ongoing efforts here to make
a decision about who the
best person would be to
serve on the Supreme Court.
We won't be able to provide
much of an indication about
whether or not individual
interviews have started.
The one piece of process
that I can share with you
today is I understand that
our leg affairs teams has
now been in touch with the
office of every member of
the United States Senate
about this
particular nomination.
And obviously, many of those
calls were not placed by the
President himself, but by
senior members of his team.
And it does underscore
-- it's another way to
illustrate the seriousness
of purpose on our part when
it comes to consulting with
Congress in advance of
making a Supreme
Court nomination.
Michelle.
The Press: On
that same subject,
yesterday after the meeting
here at the White House,
we heard McConnell very
clearly and publicly state
this vacancy will not
be filled this year.
Does that change the
optimism that you expressed
yesterday at all, that they
still could take this up?
Mr. Earnest: No,
it doesn't change.
I indicated yesterday that
out of the -- that during
the meeting, no one
represented a potential
change of opinion here.
And the view that Leader
McConnell articulated after
the meeting is the same view
that he's been articulating
since just a couple of hours
after Justice Scalia's death
was announced.
The Press: But you really
think after he said that so
definitively, that there's
some chance
that he would change that?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'll just
say that Leader McConnell
has a way of expressing
himself rather definitively.
In fact, he did that back
in 2008 when he said,
"Even with lame duck
Presidents there is an
historical standard of
fairness as to confirming
judicial nominees."
So he seemed pretty
definitive then, too.
And what's most important
here is the clarity of the
Constitution that says the
President shall appoint
someone to fill a vacancy
on the Supreme Court,
and the Senate shall do its
duty to offer advice
and consent.
And that means giving that
individual a fair hearing
and a timely yes or no vote.
That's not a
controversial notion.
That is not subject
to any sort
of legal interpretation.
That's everybody's
interpretation of what the
Senate is supposed to do.
And the question really
is whether or not Senate
Republicans are willing to
put that constitutional duty
ahead of their own
political considerations.
The Press: Yesterday, we
heard some interesting words
from the Vice President.
He jokingly thanked
Donald Trump and he said,
the stuff that he's doing,
Cruz and the others,
making the American people
look in the mirror.
And he talked about the
divisiveness maybe being a
good thing for the American
people, and saying,
"Maybe it's a good thing to
awaken the American people."
That's quite a bit different
from what we've heard the
President say on the
rhetoric that's been out
there -- as well as
what you've said.
I mean, you guys have said
that it's bad for America's
standing in the world and
the divisiveness is just
making partisanship worse.
So, I mean, do you disagree
with what he said then?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think
the Vice President is just
making an observation
about Democrats' electoral
prospects in a
general election.
I think his analysis
actually dovetails pretty
cleanly with the analysis
of a lot of establishment
Republicans in Washington,
D.C. who are also concerned
about the impact that Mr.
Trump's candidacy would
have on Republicans up
and down the ballot.
The Press: So the
divisiveness and the
rhetoric that you've really
slammed in the past -- do
you now think that
that's a good thing?
Or do you think
that it's -- I mean,
he said that it's a
good thing for America,
to awaken the
American people.
But you guys have said that
it's a bad thing for America
and hurts our
standing in the world.
So kind of, which is it?
I'm confused.
Mr. Earnest: Again, I think
what the Vice President was
offering up is his own
analysis about Democrats'
prospects in the
general election.
And again, a lot of
Republicans that you talk to
around this town at least
seem to be offering up an
assessment that's quite
similar to what the Vice
President has said, which is
that most Republicans who
are going to be
on the ballot,
if they share that
ballot with Mr. Trump,
probably will not see their
electoral prospects enhanced
by the presence
of Mr. Trump.
But this is all
academic at this point.
There are still additional
Republican votes that need
to be cast.
Republicans need to do
more work to choose
their nominee.
And it's difficult to
predict in advance exactly
how a general election is
going to shape up before a
Republican nominee has
been chosen and before a
Democratic nominee
has been chosen.
So all that's premature.
But I think what we continue
to be confident about -- and
the Vice President will have
an important role in this --
is that we'll be able to
make a strong case about how
Democrats and the Democratic
candidate for President is
one that is strongly
supported by the big tent of
the Democratic Party and is
committed to building on the
important progress that our
country has made over the
last seven years.
The Press: So do you think
you disagree or agree that
the divisiveness could be a
good thing
for the American people?
Mr. Earnest: Well, my view
is the that when it comes to
Democratic electoral
prospects that,
as many Republicans
have said,
Mr. Trump's presence at the
top of the ticket may not
end up being particularly
helpful to them.
What there's no question
about -- and Republican
leaders agree with this,
too -- is that the divisive
rhetoric that we've heard
from Mr. Trump is directly
contrary to the values
that this country
has long defended.
And there will continue
to be a debate on the
Republican side to
choose their nominee,
but if this is a debate
that we have in the general
election, I would feel
bullish about the strength
of the Democratic argument.
The Press: Do you think that
that divisiveness and that
same rhetoric that you've
decried in the past is
actually helping Democrats?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again,
I think we'll have to see.
It's too early to tell.
The Press: Okay.
And lastly, the North
Korea sanctions.
Do you have any real
expectation that that will
change North
Korea's behavior?
Mr. Earnest: I think
time will tell.
They were just passed by
the Security Council just a
couple of hours ago.
So we, the international
community,
is quite serious about
implementing these sanctions.
These sanctions and these
restrictions will be more
robust and rigorous
than sanctions that had
previously been imposed on
the North Korea regime.
We would anticipate that
they will have an impact on
the ability of the North
Korean elite to enjoy the
exalted lifestyle that
they currently enjoy.
We also anticipate that
it will have an impact on
industries that we know are
used to fund their nuclear
and ballistic
missile programs.
This required a significant
commitment on the part of
the Chinese and
the Russians,
and we certainly welcome the
way that they are working
closely with the rest of the
international community,
including the United
States and our allies,
Japan and South Korea, to
implement these sanctions.
And that sends an important
message
just as a symbolic matter.
But once these sanctions and
restrictions are imposed,
it will have an
impact on North Korea.
But it is an open question
about whether or not that
impact will prompt the kind
of change that we'd like to
see in North Korea.
April.
The Press: Josh, something
simple just on Donald Trump.
You've been very strong
about Donald Trump in the past.
You've talked about
his divisive rhetoric.
But can you speak to the
fact now that Donald Trump
is not denouncing
David Duke,
someone who is a former
grand dragon of the KKK,
as well as a former neo-Nazi
before he was a member of
the KKK -- a grand
dragon of the KKK.
Mr. Earnest: Listen, I know
Mr. Trump has indicated that
there's more that he needs
to learn about Mr. Duke
before he can offer an
opinion about their endorsement.
But I do think that this
reveals all we need to know
about Mr. Trump, and --
The Press: What's that?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again, I
think voters will come to
their own conclusions.
I think the bigger
concern, frankly,
is that you have members of
the Republican Party who are
trying to have it both ways.
They're suggesting that they
are condemning the decision
of the Republican
frontrunner to accept
political support
from this divisive,
offensive figure
in the country,
but yet they're still vowing
to support that person if
they become the general
election candidate
of the Republican Party.
I'm not really sure how you
square those two things,
but they'll have plenty of
time to figure that out,
I guess, over the course of
the next eight months or so
as this is publicly
litigated.
The Press: And I want to
ask you one more thing.
As someone who deals
with the press --
friendly-adversarial
relationship;
we have a very close
relationship -- it seems
that Donald Trump has now --
he has a member of his press
corps who is a
white supremacist,
and he has a radio show.
What do you think about that
and the possibilities of
that possibly coming here?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I
have to admit
I have not seen
those reports.
As you know, when it comes
to our policies for people
who sit in this room
and participate in this
briefing, there is no sort
of ideological screen that
we put in place.
I think there are people
who represent a variety of
points of view in this room,
including people that,
the vast majority of whom
represent a point of view
that's focused on just
getting the facts straight
and sharing those facts with
their readers and viewers
and listeners.
But we regularly protect the
ability of professional,
independent journalists
to do their job.
And that's the
independent press corps,
the White House press corps,
the professionals who work
here day in and day out have
an important responsibility,
and they're critical to
the functioning
of our democracy.
And hopefully, whoever the
next President is will
continue a tradition that
has a tendency to transcend
political party.
Jordan.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
I have some questions
about baseball,
but don't get too excited,
it's not about the Royals.
(laughter)
Mr. Earnest: Okay.
Someday we'll have the
briefing where somebody
wants to have a long
conversation about the Royals.
The Press: We can
do that sometime.
Mr. Earnest: Okay.
I'm going to
hold you to that.
The Press: So the New York
Times reported that Major
League Baseball has
submitted a proposal to
allow Major League Baseball
teams to directly
hire Cuban players.
And as part of that report
they said the White House
has been talking behind the
scenes with League officials
about how to navigate that
regulatory environment.
So I'm wondering if you
can elaborate on those
behind-the-scenes talks
-- who's involved.
And should we expect
a ruling from the
administration on this
before the President attends
the game in Havana
later this month?
Mr. Earnest: So there's a
division of the Treasury
Department called the Office
of Foreign Assets Control,
and they have responsibility
for regulating the
restrictions that are
currently in place that
apply to commerce between
the United States and Cuba.
Since the President
announced the change in
policy a little
over a year ago,
there are a number of those
regulations that have been
changed and altered in a
way to begin to normalize
relations between
our two countries.
And it is not at all
uncommon for the
administration to
offer advice to U.S.
businesses that are seeking
to ensure that their actions
are firmly in compliance
with those regulations.
So the kind of conversations
that you're alluding to are
not unusual and
holy appropriate.
Is that an answer
to your question?
There are several
parts to your question,
so I don't know if I
covered all of them.
The Press: Yeah, I guess
the second part is,
do you expect some kind of
announcement on a new policy
toward Cuban players by the
time the President attends
the game later this month?
Mr. Earnest: Not
that I'm aware of.
But you should check with
the Treasury Department.
And again, OFAC can provide
you some additional
information about the
regulations that would apply
in this situation.
The Press: And one more.
Congressional Republicans I
guess saw this announcement,
and they were a bit irked
because they said the White
House is making a big deal
about going to this game,
but they haven't announced
any kind of solid meeting
with political
dissidents yet.
Do you have a
response to that?
And is there any plan -- are
you going to announce some
kind of set meeting
with those dissidents
in the coming days?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think
when we first announced that
the President was going
to travel to Cuba,
the President's Deputy
National Security Advisor
stood at this podium.
He didn't say anything
about a baseball game,
but he did talk about the
fact that the President will
certainly meet with
dissidents in Cuba.
And part of that is because
one of the priorities of our
policy is to apply the best
interests of the Cuban
people and get the Cuban
government in a position
where they are better
protecting the basic
universal human rights
of all Cuban people,
including people who
might be critical
of the government.
That is an important
part of our policy.
And that's part of our
priority here -- is to
empower the Cuban people,
who want to protest and want
to offer their
dissent in public,
to have the
freedom to do so.
And we believe that we are
more likely to achieve that
aim by deepening and
increasing our engagement
between the American people
who enjoy those freedoms and
the Cuban people
who, in many ways,
do not at this point.
And that will certainly be
an important part of the trip.
That was something that we
discussed on the very first day.
But the truth is, I
think the President,
it's fair to say, for
different reasons is looking
forward to both meeting with
political dissidents in Cuba
and attending a game between
the Tampa Bay Rays
and the Cuban national
baseball team.
John.
The Press: I want to just
follow up on Kevin's
question about the turnout
in, you mentioned,
Virginia -- how the
Democratic leader,
Hillary Clinton, she had
more votes for her than the
winner in the Republican
primary, Donald Trump.
But the overall
turnout for each party,
the Republicans had over a
million voters turn out;
Democrats had about
775,000 voters turn out.
Does the White House or do
the President or you -- do
you doubt the ultimate
Republican nominee's ability
to unite the party and bring
together the full amount of
primary voters around their
general election candidacy?
Mr. Earnest:
Well, we'll see.
I know that there are some
Republicans who doubt that
the current Republican
frontrunner has that ability.
But they would certainly
know better than I do.
When it comes to the
raw turnout numbers,
it's not surprising to
me that there were more
Republicans who showed
up at the polls,
because there are more
Republicans in the states
that had elections
last night.
So when we're talking about
Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia,
Alabama, Tennessee -- these
are all states with sizeable
Republican voting
populations.
The Democratic states
involved were quite a bit
smaller -- Vermont,
for example.
So it's not surprising to me
that the overall numbers are
tilted in favor
of Republicans.
That's why I singled out
states like Virginia and
Minnesota, where the
Democratic candidates -- in
the case of Minnesota, both
Democratic candidates got
more support than any of
the Republicans that were
on the ballot.
And in Virginia, you
saw that the leading
vote-getting of any of the
candidates that were on the
ballot was a Democrat.
And that's significant
because anybody who shows up
at the polls can choose
either a Democratic or
Republican ballot to vote
for the candidate
of their choice.
So I think that's a pretty
clear sign that the
candidate with the most
support in Virginia right
now is a Democratic
frontrunner.
And given the important role
that Virginia has played in
the last two
general elections,
I would anticipate that
Virginia will play an
important role in this
general election.
And that seems to bode well
for the Democrats right now.
The Press: You also
mentioned that you didn't
think that Donald Trump
would necessarily be helpful
-- you said he may not be
helpful to the top
of the ticket.
Does the White House believe
that the House could be in
play if Donald Trump
is the nominee?
Mr. Earnest: Well, there
certainly are lots of people
who will weigh in on both
sides of this argument.
I'm confident that there are
Democratic strategists who
believe that the House would
not be in play if Mr. Trump
were at the top
of the ticket.
You'll have to ask them if
they think that it's in play
because he's at the
top of the ticket.
I can assure you that
Democrats right now are
mounting a serious effort to
retake the majority in the
House because they believe
that that's possible.
And they certainly are doing
the important work on the
front end to
make that happen,
regardless of who the
Republican candidate
for President is.
The Press: And then just
one quick follow-up on your
opening statement.
You mentioned about the U.N.
Security Council's
resolution that it doesn't
target the people of
North Korea directly.
Is there anything that the
international community is
doing that would help
compensate for any adverse
effects that would be
directed unintentionally to
the North Koreans?
Mr. Earnest: To the
North Korean people?
Well, look, the truth is,
there is a significant
population of North Korea
citizens who are suffering
right now.
And they're suffering
because of the policy
decisions made by the
leadership of that country.
The leaders of that country
have chosen to prioritize
that country's nuclear and
ballistic missile programs
over meeting the basic
needs of its citizens.
That is grossly immoral, but
it's a decision that that
country's
leadership has made.
That's why putting in place
sanctions that would have an
impact on their nuclear
missile programs and have an
impact on the lifestyle of
the ruling elite in North
Korea does put pressure on
the regime that they haven't
seen before.
And again, we're just a
couple of hours after the
United Nations Security
Council has passed
this resolution.
But as it goes into effect,
it will have an impact on
North Korea's programs -- or
their ballistic missile and
nuclear programs.
It will have an impact
on the ruling elite.
We'll see if it ends up
having an impact on their
ultimate strategic choices.
The Press: But it seemed
like your opening statement
was specifically talking
about the unintended
consequence of its citizens
that are supposedly innocent
in this, right?
So is there anything that
was addressed when the
resolution was drafted?
Or is there anything that
the administration is
considering now that would
help compensate any sort of
adverse effect
directly on its people?
Mr. Earnest: I'm not sure
that anything like that is
possible, frankly.
You have an authoritarian
regime in North Korea that
essentially is taking all
the money that's flowing
into their country that they
can get their hands on,
and devoting it to
their lifestyle,
their country's
nuclear program,
and their country's
missile program.
And they do that in a way
that has a negative impact
on their people.
In fact, it has an impact on
the ability of North Korea's
population to feed
themselves and to provide
for some of their
basic necessities.
That's an appallingly
immoral choice,
and one that the
international community does
not condone.
But one of the challenges
here is you have a country
that's so isolated -- you
have an authoritarian
government that it's hard to
allow money into the country
that they aren't able
to get their hands on.
That's why what we're trying
to do here is to focus our
efforts on those revenue
streams that we know benefit
those areas that we're
concerned about,
which is specifically their
nuclear program and their
missile program.
Ultimately, in order for the
needs of the North Korean
people to be met, we need
to see a North Korean
government that's making
different decisions,
and actually making
decisions that are in the
best interest of the
day-to-day lives of the
North Korean people.
Thus far they haven't
been willing to do that.
Margaret.
The Press: Josh, you keep
saying these sanctions on
North Korea are going to hit
the North Korean elites.
Do you believe that
they will be felt
by Kim Jong-un himself?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'm
certainly no expert when it
comes to understanding
the North Korean economy.
What we do know is that
the North Korean elite in
general does benefit
disproportionately from some
of the revenue that's
generated by their gold and
their iron and their
titanium exports.
And so by targeting that, we
hope to have an impact on
their ability to fund their
destabilizing activities and
on their ability to fund the
extravagant lifestyle that
they enjoy at the expense
of the North Korean people.
The Press: But you don't
see these as specifically
targeting the
leader himself?
Mr. Earnest: My
understanding is,
based on the sanctions that
have been put in place,
there are not sanctions
that target him personally.
But again, the North Korean
people have suffered enough.
And the way that these
sanctions and restrictions
are designed, it's to have
an impact on those revenue
streams that benefit the
ruling elite and that
benefit their
destabilizing activities.
The Press: You took quite a
while in negotiating this
with the Chinese.
Does the White House see
this as a breakthrough with
China, a new direction
for their client,
to be tougher on them?
Mr. Earnest: Well, it
certainly does reflect a
greater commitment on the
part of the international
community to taking steps
against North Korea that
we've never taken before.
And China voted for them.
China worked with the United
States in a series of
intensive, high-level
diplomatic discussions to
reach an agreement and
commit to implementing
these sanctions.
I do think that it
represents an increased
capacity for the United
States and China to
coordinate our efforts when
it comes to North Korea.
But it's not just the United
States and China that are
taking action here.
This is something that
Russia voted for,
and this is all taking place
with the full support of our
closest allies
in the region,
including South
Korea and Japan.
The Press: And you've talked
in the past about really
needing China on board
with this, not just
the U.N. Security Council.
But this doesn't seem --
while it does hit North
Korean elites, it doesn't
seem explicitly to say it's
freezing accounts in
China and elsewhere.
Is there an assumption that
China is going to also take
unilateral action
like the U.S.
did today in adding
more sanctions?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I was
just going to say that --
that there are some
additional steps that the
U.S. government did announce
today that are complementary
to this U.N. action,
and separate
from the congressional
legislation that was passed
last month on this matter.
So what you do see is you
see the United States
ramping up our
activities, too.
But as it relates to China,
we've long acknowledged that
China has unique influence
and a unique relationship
with North Korea.
They have a more active
relationship with the North
Korean regime than any
other country in the world.
We know that the North
Korean economy depends more
on China than any other
country in the world.
So they do have
unique leverage.
But we also know that China
is quite concerned about
North Korea's
nuclear activities.
We know they're concerned
about their ballistic
missile activities.
And we're pleased to see
China using their influence
and demonstrating a
willingness to coordinate
their efforts with the
rest of the
international community.
The Press: But it would
seem that while the U.S.
is hailing this as the
toughest bit of sanctions in
20 years, in more
than two decades,
it still allows the regime
a lifeline -- otherwise,
the Russians and Chinese
wouldn't have signed up for it.
The Russians said that they
didn't want the economy
to collapse.
So this goes
farther than before,
but still allows the
regime to survive.
Would you acknowledge that?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again, I
think only time will tell
exactly what the impact
is of these sanctions.
But there is no denying that
these sanctions go farther
than we have before, and
there's no denying that
these sanctions will have a
tangible impact on the North
Korean ruling elite, on
North Korea's missile
program and on North
Korea's nuclear program,
all of which are in
violation of U.N.
Security Council
resolutions.
The Press: Quickly on SCOTUS
-- you said we're now in the
most frustrating part
of covering this.
Mr. Earnest: Sorry.
The Press: I guess
you're feeling our pain.
(laughter)
Do I take that as
understanding the next time
we hear an update from you,
it will be that you've sent
a nominee to the Hill?
Mr. Earnest: I don't want
to get your hopes up.
(laughter)
The Press: Not get my hopes
-- but you're not going to
have -- we're not going
to have a photo of the
President carrying a
binder like we had before?
We're not going to have a
photo of a bunch of Senate
leaders coming to the
White House again?
That's it?
Mr. Earnest: I wouldn't
rule those things out.
The Press: Can
that be scheduled?
Mr. Earnest: I just don't
want to get your hopes up
that the next thing you'll
hear us talking about when
it comes to the Supreme
Court is the President
announcing a decision
about a nominee.
His work continues, and
we'll do our best to keep
you updated.
Byron.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
I saw some reports that
President Obama endorsed
Ted Strickland in the
Ohio Senate race.
Is that right?
Mr. Earnest: That is true.
The President also
announced an endorsement of
Congressman Patrick Murphy
in Florida, as well.
He's also involved
in the Senate race.
The Press: If I'm not wrong,
Strickland voted against a
bill that included the
federal assault weapons ban.
He said, in 2004, he was
against the assault weapons ban.
He opposed the city of
Columbus's assault weapons ban.
He opposed the
Brady handgun bill,
and was endorsed by the NRA
for reelection in 2010.
Didn't the President say in
a highly touted New York
Times op-ed that he would
not support candidates who
do not support common-sense
gun control measures?
And is this the kind of
record of candidates that
the President will
support going forward?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Byron,
as we've discussed before,
what we're focused on are
candidates who will support
and will promise to support
common-sense
gun safety legislation.
And you'd have to talk to
Mr. Strickland about the
policies that he would
support as a member
of the United States Senate.
Obviously, an individual's
record matters,
but when it came to that
particular promise,
it related to -- or gave
candidates the capacity to
change their mind.
After all, that's
what we need to see.
We need to see more people
in the United States Senate
-- in the United States
Congress change their mind
and embrace common-sense
gun control,
gun safety legislation that
could prevent at least some
incidents of gun violence
without undermining the
Second Amendment rights
of law-abiding Americans.
But for Mr. Strickland's
current position on these
issues, you should check
with him or his campaign.
The Press: But it's fair
to say that you think,
going forward, he would be
a good candidate on these
issues, and one that the
President could support?
Because that was a litmus
test that the President drew
in his op-ed.
Mr. Earnest: I think the
President's endorsement is
pretty strong.
But, again, for Mr.
Strickland's position on
those issues, you should
check with him or his campaign.
Ron.
The Press: There was a
report this morning about an
ISIS significant operative
and then key operative being
detained, captured
in Iraq somewhere.
Inasmuch as targeting the
leadership is a significant
aspect of the U.S. strategy
there, what's
going to happen
to those individuals?
Where will they be taken and
where will they be held?
And what's the judicial
process that they will face
-- if they're
alive, presumably?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Ron,
there's not a whole lot
about this that I can say.
I can tell you in general
that the President directed
the Department of Defense to
stand up an expeditionary
task force because we have
seen this tactic yield some
important results.
There have been at least one
raid that has been publicly
discussed that was
carried out by U.S.
special operators against a
high-ranking ISIL official;
this was last year.
And that raid resulted
in the death of that
high-ranking official,
but it did allow U.S.
special operators to obtain
significant quantities of
valuable intelligence
information.
And the Department
of Defense,
recognizing and following
the President's instructions
to intensify our efforts
that are yielding some
progress, decided to create
these expeditionary task
forces to operate inside of
Iraq and to carry out raids
on relatively short notice
against leading ISIL figures.
At this point, I can't
discuss the details of any
missions, particularly
when it comes to risking
operational security.
But I can tell you that
one of the goals of this
expeditionary task force is
to capture ISIL leaders,
but these operations will be
carried out in coordination
and in partnership with
the government of Iraq.
Any detention of ISIL
leaders in Iraq would be
short term and coordinated
with Iraqi authorities.
And one of the things that
you know about the one raid
that's been carried out
that's been reported
publicly is that the
individual who was detained
in that raid was an
individual who was subjected
to an interrogation where
important intelligence
information was obtained.
And then that person has
been turned over to Kurdish
authorities, and is
currently in the Kurdish
criminal justice system.
The Press: So you can't say
if or how many other ISIL
figures have been detained?
Mr. Earnest:
Unfortunately, I cannot.
There may be additional
guidance the Department of
Defense can share with you.
The Press: You can't say --
or can you say what the --
you said short term
they'll be held.
Where long term are
they going to be held?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I can
rule out a couple of things.
These individuals would not
be transferred to the prison
at Guantanamo Bay.
There is no one that's been
transferred to that prison
during President Obama's
seven years in office.
Our goal is to
close that prison.
Adding to that population
would be contradictory to
that goal.
I think what the Department
of Defense will tell you is
that they'll have to make
their own determinations
about the best way to handle
these individual cases.
When it came to the
case of Umm Sayyaf,
the wife of the ISIL leader
who was detained in that
raid, she was turned over
to Kurdish officials,
and she'll be brought to
justice in the Kurdish system.
The Press: So none of these
individuals will ever come
to the United States?
Mr. Earnest: Again, you'll
have to check with the
Department of Defense about
how they would resolve
those cases.
The Press: In the
case of Mrs. Sayyaf,
there is a DOJ warrant
for her arrest based on
providing material
support to terrorists,
something --
whatever that is.
So why would someone like
that not be brought to the
United States to answer
to a warrant issued by the
Department of Justice?
Mr. Earnest: Well, you'd
have to talk to the
Department of
Justice about that.
Their specific warrant
that they filed related to
alleged crimes related to
Umm Sayyaf's involvement in
taking an American
citizen hostage.
And so those are
very serious crimes,
and that's a warrant
that's been filed.
How the Department of
Justice wants to pursue that
is something that
they will decide,
and you should ask them
for their latest update.
But right now she is in
the custody of Kurdish law
enforcement officials and
she is being brought to
justice in their system.
The Press: But you answered
-- you kind of answered my
next questions.
Because that case involves
an American citizen,
why is there not a case to
be made that that person
should be prosecuted in the
court system in the United
States so that there's
justice done here?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again, I
think for how the Department
of Justice will proceed,
you should check with them.
But obviously, they have
made filings
in an American court.
So I think that the
possibility that you have
raised is probably not one
that they would rule out.
But that also is going to
involve a conversation with
law enforcement authorities
who are currently holding her.
The Press: So just to
be clear about it then,
the administration policy --
and I know we can talk to
each individual department
-- but the administration --
is there a clear policy that
says no ISIL figures will be
brought to the
United States?
Or is there a policy that
says clearly under certain
circumstances, some of these
individuals detained on the
battlefield could end
up in the United States?
Mr. Earnest: Well, let me
just try to be helpful -- as
helpful as I can here, given
the constraints that I'm
operating under here.
What is true is there have
been situations where
individuals have been picked
up on the battlefield around
the world.
These are terrorists who
were actively plotting
against the United
States or our interests.
Those individuals in some
cases have been brought
to the United States.
They have gone through
Article 3 Courts.
They have been charged,
they have been convicted.
And they currently are
serving time on American
soil in American prisons.
So if something like what
you are describing were to
happen, it would not at
all be unprecedented.
In fact, our system has
demonstrated its capacity to
handle these kinds
of challenges.
I think the thing that I
will go back to, though,
is that our principal
goal when it comes to the
expeditionary task force is
obtaining information that
can be valuable in our
campaign to degrade and
ultimately destroy ISIL.
And we made clear
that when Umm Sayyaf,
the wife of the ISIL
leader, was detained,
that she was interrogated
for intelligence purposes
prior to being put into the
Kurdish criminal justice system.
That sort of process is one
that is in place any time
U.S. officials detain an
accused terrorist.
But there is a process
for sending professional
interrogators in to
interrogate the individual
to obtain as much
information and intelligence
as possible; if necessary,
to obtain information about
potential plots or potential
threats so that those
threats can be mitigated
or even eliminated.
Then, where appropriate,
those individuals can then
be turned over to law
enforcement officials who
can conduct an investigation
and obtain information that
could be used in a
civilian court of law.
This is a process that was
created and implemented
under President
Obama's leadership,
and it is one that has
resulted in important
terrorism convictions
against individuals who
sought to do harm to the
United States or our interests.
The Press: You made a point
earlier on SCOTUS when you
said that the White House
has now talked to every
office of every United
States senator.
In the past, I think we've
had a couple names -- Kirk,
Ayotte, maybe others -- who
have indicated a willingness
to let this process go
forward with the nominee,
to some extent.
Now that you've talked to
every senator, do you think,
or can you give us any other
names of individuals on the
Republican side who you
think are willing to
essentially break with the
leadership and let this
process go forward?
Mr. Earnest: Obviously,
there are a lot of Democrats
who believe that this
process should go forward.
I think all of them do.
When it comes
to Republicans,
I'll allow them to
announce their own views.
We have seen, as
you point out,
statements from Senator Kirk
and Senator Collins from Maine.
I don't believe that Senator
Ayotte has indicated a
desire to put her
constitutional duty first.
This is something that
she'll have to decide for
herself and something I'm
sure that she's considering.
But look, we're going to be
making a case to Senator
Ayotte and others about the
priority that we believe
they should place on their
constitutional duties.
I think most of their
constituents believe that
their constitutional duties
should come ahead of any
more narrow political
considerations
that they may have.
Kevin.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
Do you know
Judge Jane Kelly?
Have you ever
heard of her?
Have you ever met her?
Mr. Earnest: I've read some
public reports about her,
but I have not
met her in person.
The Press: Have you seen
her here, by chance?
(laughter)
Mr. Earnest: That's clever.
(laughter)
The Press: Yes?
Nothing?
Mr. Earnest: No,
nothing on that.
The Press: Can you say with
any certainty that anyone
who might be under -- I know
we're going to run through
this every day.
Have you seen anyone that
you can think of who might
be a candidate for
the Supreme Court,
a potential nominee
inside this building?
Mr. Earnest: Well,
even if I had,
I don't think I would
say so from here.
The Press: Does that
mean, yes, you have?
Mr. Earnest: It
means that if I have,
I wouldn't say so
from here.
The Press: All
right, fair enough.
On Gitmo, do you have any
announcements to make about
potential detainee
transfers?
We've talked about that a
few times and have spent a
little bit of time.
I know the process is
moving forward on a few.
Might you have any
announcements today
or the coming days?
Mr. Earnest: I don't
anticipate any
announcements today.
I'll have to check and see
if there are any
that are in the pipeline.
We probably wouldn't
announce them in advance
just because of the
diplomatic work we have to
do with other countries.
We need to coordinate our
announcements with other
countries who are agreeing
to take in these detainees
under the security
precautions that the
Secretary of Defense has
certified are necessary.
So I don't have any
additional transfers to tell
you about right now.
The Press: To the best
of your knowledge,
at least today, is
there any effort, plan,
discussion or initiative
underway that we're aware of
to alter the status of the
naval station at Guantanamo,
including not
making payments,
transferring it over
to a caretaker body,
or abandoning
it altogether?
Mr. Earnest: No, I'm not
aware of any plans like that.
But for the way that the
military base at Guantanamo
Bay is maintained,
I'd refer you to
the Department of Defense.
The Press: Lastly, let me
just take another run at
that very quickly.
Should we expect any
announcements about the
military base at Guantanamo
Bay during the President's
visit to Cuba?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I know
that the President is not
planning to visit the
military facility on this trip.
So I guess not.
The Press: Not.
Okay.
Mr. Earnest: Okay.
Andrew.
The Press: Josh, I wanted to
ask you a little bit about
Vice President Biden's trip
to Jordan and the West Bank.
I was wondering if you
could tell us whether the
President asked him to go;
and if so, for what purpose,
what aim.
Mr. Earnest:
Well obviously,
we did just recently
announce that the Vice
President is traveling
to the Middle East.
I believe he's going to stop
at the UAE and Jordan in
addition to Israel
on this trip.
And he'll obviously have an
opportunity to meet with
leaders in each of
those countries.
At this point, I don't have
a detailed preview of his
trip to share with you.
Obviously, when it comes to
our efforts to coordinate
our international
counter-ISIL coalition,
countries like Jordan
and the UAE have played
important roles in that.
And I'm confident that
that will be a subject
of discussion.
It certainly was a subject
of discussion when King
Abdullah was here
in Washington,
I believe that was
just last week.
And so I'm sure that
discussion will continue
when the Vice President
travels to Jordan.
But we'll get you a little
bit more on his trip as it
gets closer to
his departure.
The Press: So we shouldn't
read this as a sign that the
Vice President is going to
find out what's possible in
terms of steps that could
reduce tensions between the
Israelis and the
Palestinians?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again, I
think it's difficult for any
U.S. leader to travel to Israel
and to meet with both
Israeli and Palestinian
leaders and not have that
issue come up.
I'm confident that it
comes up every time.
But to the extent that -- to
the precise nature of those
discussions, I'd refer you
to the Vice President's
office for now.
But I'll see if I can
get you some additional
information before he
departs to help you
understand what the goal
of his trip exactly is.
Angela.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
Yesterday, Director Comey
and Attorney General Lynch
said that they don't think
that new legislation is
needed to compel -- or to
allow law enforcement to
crack phones in
the Apple case.
Is that the official
administration position,
that the existing law gives
law enforcement the ability
to get into phones
if necessary?
Mr. Earnest: Well, that's
not just the opinion of the
Attorney General and the
Director of the FBI,
it's also the opinion of at
least one federal judge in
California, who, based on a
filing to the Court by the
FBI, suggested that Apple
should cooperate
with those efforts.
That's just one
very specific case.
That is a case that is being
led by independent federal
law enforcement
investigators,
and they are focused on
learning as much as they can
about the terrorist incident
in San Bernardino so that if
there are additional steps
we need to take to protect
the American people,
that we'll do it.
So that's one very
specific case.
But that's where this
argument was applied,
and a federal judge agreed.
The Press: Is there anything
the White House does want in
legislation on this
topic right now?
There's obviously movement
on the Hill to write some
sort of a bill.
Mr. Earnest: Well, we
certainly will be in touch
with members of Congress
about that kind of legislation.
And we would welcome a
productive conversation
about that.
I will say that at least
I personally harbor some
skepticism about whether or
not that's something that
Congress can successfully
complete just because this
is a really complicated
topic and we've seen that
even simple, straightforward
measures have some
difficulty getting through
this Republican-led Congress
that has been reluctant to
embrace their government
responsibilities.
The Press: On another topic
-- former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright,
on CNN this morning,
became the latest in a
series of high-level
diplomatic officials to say
that Trump's candidacy and
how well he's doing
is causing concern
among world leaders.
The President obviously has
frequent meetings and phone
conversations with
these world leaders.
Is this something
that's coming up
in those conversations?
And is he finding himself in
the perhaps awkward position
of having to assure his
counterparts in other
countries that the U.S.
is on solid ground, despite
what may happen in November?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'm not
at this point prepared to
get into a detailed
discussion of the
President's conversations
with world leaders.
The President himself has
observed many times that
other countries around the
world closely follow our
politics and they're aware
of the ongoing debate in
this country and the
upcoming election to choose
the next President
of the United States.
So the stakes
are significant,
and other countries
recognize that.
But for the reaction that
is shared by other world
leaders, I'll let them talk
about that publicly if they
choose to do so.
The Press: And lastly,
a quick follow-up your
response to Kevin.
You said that the President
isn't planning to visit
the Guantanamo Bay
base on this trip.
Is he planning
another trip to Cuba?
Mr. Earnest: Not
that I'm aware of.
But if we do, we'll
let you all know.
Cheryl.
The Press: Thanks.
Just one quick one.
Yesterday, House Speaker
Ryan came out against the
Department of Labor's
fiduciary rule,
a conflict-of-interest
rule.
A lot of business groups
have been running ads
against that.
Is the White House prepared
to try to change that or
reconsider that
before it's finalized?
Mr. Earnest: Well, there is
a process for considering
these kinds of rules.
It's going through that
regulatory process right now.
The President and the
Secretary of Labor have both
been pretty clear about
precisely why we believe
this rule needs
to be changed.
Right now, because of
decisions that are made by
financial advisors
across the country,
about $17 billion in
retirement savings is wasted.
When we're talking about the
need for more middle-class
families having greater
access to retirement
security, that's money
we need to protect,
particularly when you
consider that this is the
hard-earned income of
workers
from all across the country.
That money is wasted because
there are some financial
advisors that are not
obligated to put their
customers' financial
interests ahead of their own.
That doesn't sound right.
And the fact is, for the
vast majority of financial
advisors who do
follow those rules,
this law -- or this rule,
this regulatory action
wouldn't require them to
do anything differently.
This would just be a rule
that would apply to those
financial advisors that
don't currently commit to
putting their customers'
interests ahead of their own.
So we see this as a
common-sense change that
could have a substantial,
positive impact on
middle-class families that
are working really hard to
try to save for retirement.
That's a good thing.
And this is exactly the role
that government should play.
The Press: So then you're
proceeding forward on this
and don't believe it
needs to be delayed
or reconsidered?
Mr. Earnest: We believe that
this is an important rule.
This is a change that was
announced I think almost a
year ago now, so there has
been a process in play here.
And I don't have an update
for you in terms of where we
are precisely
in that process,
but given how long
it's been playing out,
I hope we're getting
close to the end.
But we'll see if we
can get you an update,
if that's necessary.
Mark.
The Press: Josh, you
mentioned Ohio and Florida.
Are there any other
Democratic primaries in
which President Obama
is taking sides?
Mr. Earnest: If th
President does take sides,
we will make that
decision public.
But at this point, I believe
those are the only two
Senate races -- or Senate
primaries where the
President has weighed
in with an endorsement.
I wouldn't rule out
additional decisions about
endorsing candidates.
The Press: What is his
thinking when he involves
himself in a primary?
Mr. Earnest: Well, the
President evaluates the
record of the candidates; he
evaluates their performance
in the campaign thus far.
And obviously, I think we've
certainly seen over the last
year or so how the country
and how the Democratic
President benefits from
having a Democratic majority
in the United States Senate.
That's why you've already
seen the President do a
couple of trips to raise
money for the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign
Committee.
And I certainly wouldn't
rule out the President
campaigning aggressively for
Senate Democratic candidates
in the general election.
The Press: Pre-primary?
Mr. Earnest: I don't know
that we would necessarily do
any campaign stops
pre-primary.
I guess I wouldn't
rule it out,
but that would probably be
more the exception
than the rule.
But I would expect that over
the course of the fall you
would see the President
working hard to support
Democratic candidates for
the United States Senate.
The Press: And on the
outreach to senators,
what is the principal
message that the White House
offers to the senators
or their offices?
Is it exclusively about
holding a confirmation
hearing and a vote?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again,
I think that's one of the
virtues in this argument
that we'll make and have
been making, which is that
the message that we're
delivering publicly is the
same as the message that
we're delivering privately.
It's pretty persuasive.
The United States
Constitution does not
include an exception
for election years.
It insists that the
President fulfill his
constitutional duties every
year that he's in office for
all four years.
It similarly insists that
senators fulfill their
constitutional duties for
all six years that they
remain in office and that
they do not -- in the same
way that the President is
not appointed or elected to
a three-year, one-month term
-- senators aren't elected
to a five-year,
one-month term.
They're in office
for six years,
and we expect them to do
their job for
that entire six years.
The other argument that
we've heard from some
Republicans is that somehow
this is something that
should be decided
by an election.
I was asked about
this yesterday,
and I made the observation
that in some ways this
actually was decided by an
election -- the one that was
convened in 2012 with
a lot of fanfare,
and President Obama won.
But Chairman Grassley has
weighed in on this in the past.
Back in January of 2006,
he said something that
attracted my interest today.
He said, "A Supreme Court
nomination is not a forum to
fight an election.
It is the time to perform
one of our most important
constitutional duties and
decide whether a nominee is
qualified to serve on the
nation's highest Court."
He's right about that.
The Press: Any chance the
President mentioned that in
the meeting with
Grassley yesterday?
Mr. Earnest: I don't believe
that the President mentioned
that in his meeting with
Chairman Grassley yesterday.
But I did notice that he
delivered these remarks on
the floor of the United
States Senate, so,
presumably, there's an
opportunity for all of you
to see the words coming
out of his mouth.
Goyal, I'll give
you the last one.
The Press: Thank you, Josh.
A quick question.
As far as this upcoming
nuclear summit is concerned,
this is the first time
that many things will be
happening in Washington,
D.C. Of course,
President Obama
will be there.
And two, on nuclear and
North Korea and other
threats are going on that
whoever has nuclear weapons
and maybe ISIL or
those threats are
-- those countries.
And I'm sure this summit
will address those issues.
And also, Prime Minister
Modi -- this will be the
first nuclear conference as
far as the Prime Minister
is concerned.
What message you think will
be different than the last
one this time?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Goyal,
you alluded to one of them,
which is that the last time
the Nuclear Security Summit
was convened, there was
intense concern about the
possibility that Iran was
on the verge of obtaining
nuclear weapons.
Their breakout period was
just a couple of months.
But because of the recently
completed international
agreement to prevent Iran
from obtaining a nuclear
weapon, they've committed in
a verifiable way to never
obtaining a nuclear weapon.
And in the meantime, there
are significant limitations
that have been placed on
their program that included
a 98-percent reduction in
their nuclear stockpile,
unplugging thousands of
centrifuges and a number of
other modifications that
can give the international
community ongoing confidence
that Iran will not obtain a
nuclear weapon.
So that certainly is
one thing that I would
anticipate will be discussed
at the summit and represents
tangible, important progress
that makes the region and
the world safer.
I'm confident that North
Korea will be the subject
of some discussion.
Obviously, we continue to
be concerned about their
flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions
that do apply to their nuclear program.
I'm confident that there
also will be an extensive
discussion about the need
for other countries around
the world to engage
effectively with the
international community to
prevent the proliferation of
nuclear materials and
other nuclear equipment.
That's an important
priority,
primarily because we
know there are extremist
organizations like ISIL that
would love to get their
hands on those materials.
So safeguarding those
materials and safeguarding
that equipment is a top
international priority,
and the United States,
through the forum of a
Nuclear Security Summit, has
been able to make progress
in securing loose nuclear
materials in a way that has
enhanced the safety not just
of the American people but
of the entire world.
The Press: Last, as far as
this election is concerned,
talking to many minority
groups in the past two weeks
or so, they are very much
worried about what is going
on against minorities --
many statements during this
election -- are concerned.
What they've been saying
is, that as far as -- under
Obama, they are very safe,
they have been safe because
President Obama has been
protecting minority rights
in many ways.
And also during Secretary
Clinton's statement,
she said that she will
continue as far as President
Obama's mission and concern
as far as minorities are
concerned -- issues.
My question is that, how
much do you think minority
will play a role in
this coming elections?
Because one poll is saying
that minority votes will
decide who will be the next
President of the United
States because of the unity
that's going on among these
groups in the country that
vote who will be the best
President for the U.S. and
for minority rights.
Mr. Earnest: Listen, Goyal,
I think we have heard quite
offensive rhetoric coming
from a number of Republican
candidates for President,
and there has been an
attempt on the part of
a number of Republican
candidates to marginalize
and single out and treat
differently American
citizens because of the way
they look, because of
the color of their skin,
because of the sound
of their last name,
and in some cases, because
of the religion they choose
to practice.
All of that flies directly
in the face of the kinds of
values that all
Americans cherish.
And the fact is,
it's not just racial,
ethnic and religious
minorities in this country
that have been offended by
that Republican rhetoric.
It's a whole lot
of Americans,
including Americans that
don't fit those categories,
that have been grossly
offended by that rhetoric
and by those
political tactics.
And I do anticipate that
there will be an opportunity
for us to have a robust
debate about those values
and priorities in
a general election.
And I do feel confident
that whoever the Democratic
nominee is will be somebody
who will present a stark
contrast to the rhetoric and
values and offensive views
that are occasionally spewed
from the podiums occupied by
Republican candidates
for President.
The Press: And as well, do
you think the President will
be talking about these
issues in the coming months
-- a message for the
minorities and other groups
in the country?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'm
confident in telling you
that in the
general election,
the President will be
lifting up the kinds of
values that our country
has long cherished.
And that certainly includes
a commitment to ensuring
that everybody in America
has an opportunity to
succeed, regardless
of their last name,
or the color of their skin,
or the way they choose to
worship their God.
That's what makes
this country great,
and it certainly is a
message that you will hear
from President Obama and
Democrats up and down the
ballot this fall.
Thanks, everybody.
