house property case laws

mr. earnest: goodafternoon, everybody. nice to see you. i do not have any commentsat the top, so we can go straight to your questions. josh, do you want to start? the press: sure. thanks, josh. i wanted to start with thecollapse of the ceasefire in aleppo that was intended toallow these final civilians

and fighters to evacuate. it seems like this deal wasessentially brokered by the turks and the russianswithout a whole lot of direct u.s. involvement. so i'm wondering at thispoint whether -- if you could tell us what kindof engagement the u.s. is involved in in tryingto ameliorate the violence there or secure theevacuation of the people who are still trapped there.

mr. earnest: josh, foryears, the united states has played a leading role intrying to facilitate a diplomatic solution tothe situation in syria, including thesituation in aleppo. and our goal all along hasbeen to reduce the violence and create space forsustained humanitarian assistance to be provided,particularly to those communities that have beenunder siege by the syrian military, aided and abettedby the russians and

the iranians. so the united statescontinues to play that leading role even today. and i know that there werediscussions at the u.n. security council, and theunited states continues to push for a diplomaticagreement. we certainly encourage othercountries to be involved as well, and we've made clearthat our efforts to reach a bilateral agreement with therussians, which is something

that we tried for many weeksearlier this year, is not something that we couldachieve because the russians couldn't hold up theirend of the bargain. and i know they've got allkinds of explanations for why that may be the case. most of them are rootedin the fact that they are either unable or unwillingto control their client government. the press: but as far asright now, hour by hour

there's pummeling of aleppo,even when there's supposed to be this ceasefire. i mean, is there any newpush or specific engagement by the u.s. to try to restorethe ceasefire? mr. earnest: there iscontinued engagement, and there has been for years,and it continues to this moment. and we continue to bedeeply concerned about the situation in aleppo. we are seeing the samereports that you are -- that

innocent people are beingslaughtered in the streets at the hands of the assadregime, aided and abetted by the russians andthe iranians. and it raises deep concerns,and it's a deeply tragic situation. and these atrocitieshave to come to an end. and we're working diligentlythrough a variety of diplomatic channels tobring about that end state. the press: there seems to besome disagreement now, even

within the intelligencecommunity, about whether the evidence that's been turnedup supports an assessment that russia was actuallytrying to influence the election in a way tohelp donald trump. can you tell us -- i knowyou have limitations about what you can talk about --but whether the president has been informed by hisdirector of national intelligence that they donot concur or embrace what the cia hasconcluded about that?

mr. earnest: when it comesto cia conclusions or intelligence communityconclusions, i'm going to refer you to theintelligence community. and there's a varietyof reasons for that. the first is that we workhard to make sure that we are insulating theintelligence community from the suggestion that theyare subject to political influence. it's important that thepresident be in a position

to get good information. and when i say goodinformation, i mean timely, accurate information aboutsituations all around the world. and i certainly don't wantto do anything or say anything from here thatcould cast doubt about the integrity of the informationthat's being provided to the president of theunited states. so when they have anassessment to offer, i'll let them offer upthat assessment.

what they have said, andwhat they've said before the election, is that russia wasengaged in malicious cyber activity in an attempt toerode confidence in our system of government. and that's deeply troublingand very serious. and that's why the presidentordered the department of homeland security towork with elections administrators across thecountry to protect those systems and to bolstertheir ability to withstand

intrusions from russia so wecould ensure the accurate counting of ballots, and wecould ensure that everybody who was eligible to casta ballot could do so. and the intelligencecommunity has reported that on election day they did notsee the kind of increase in malicious russian cyberactivity that would call into question the castingor counting of ballots. that certainly is good news. but there is rampantevidence of other tactics

that were used by therussians to erode public confidence in our democracy. and that's deeply troubling,and that's why the president has ordered a review, andthe intelligence community is working on that review,and the president's expectation is that reviewwill be delivered before the president leaves office,before january 20th. and we're certainly going toendeavor to release as much information as possible fromthe review to the public as

we can, knowing that therewill be some things that we can't release because weneed to protect the ability of the intelligencecommunity to collect this information. the press: given that themixed signals about this is sort of fueling apoliticization of the intelligence work, certainlywith the president-elect, and given that you've saidthat this review that's taking place is basicallythe primary distinguishing

factor between that and theassessments that had already been done, is that it'slooking back into previous elections and sort of doingthis holistic thing -- has the president indicatedthat he would like the intelligence community toperhaps release additional information or maybe clearwhat exactly they think happened sooner than later,perhaps sooner than that culmination of that review,which doesn't seem like it will happen until perhaps asthe president is headed out

the door? mr. earnest: i don'thave a timeframe. the president certainlybelieves that as much information can -- thepresident believes that the intelligence communityshould release as much information as they can tothe public about this issue, given how serious it is,given that we're talking about the integrity ofa national election. so the president certainlydoes support that just

on principle. but i don't have an updatedtimeframe to share in terms of what the intelligencecommunity may or may not be able to do. the press: and then justquickly, reince priebus has been out today talking aboutmixing it up a bit here at the white house as faras how the press corps interacts with the whitehouse, and possibly doing away with assigned seatinghere in the

brady press briefing room. and so i just wanted toclarify for everyone, could you tell us whether youroffice has any say or control over the seatingassignments here in the briefing room? mr. earnest: we do not. this is -- i believe thiswas -- it certainly predates president obama's presencein the white house. the white house press corpshas worked among yourselves

to organize the seatingarrangements in this room, and i certainly wouldrecommend to the incoming administration that theycollect and familiarize themselves with some basicfacts as they consider what sort of policies toimplement moving forward. roberta. the press: a senior chineseofficial warned today in china daily that the chinesegovernment is ready to penalize a u.s.

automaker for price fixing,and i'm wondering what notice the u.s. government has been given about this and what concerns the white house has, if any, about this. mr. earnest: roberta,i've seen those reports. i don't have a lot of otherinformation that i can share. we're still trying tocollect additional information about thosespecific reports. i think what i can saydefinitely is that the obama administration has a strongtrack record of making sure

that we are protecting therights and interests of u.s. businesses around theworld, including in china. and as we learn moreinformation about this particular situation, theunited states government will continue to beprotective of our interests in that circumstance and inother circumstances around the world. the press: do you seethis as a response to the president-elect's sort oftough rhetoric on

chinese policy? mr. earnest: unclear. i can't speak to why chinamay or may not have made this decision. again, i think it's unclearexactly what the decision is. and until we can figure outwhat exactly that decision is, it makes it hard toconsider exactly what their motive may have been. the press: okay.

and taking a step back justfrom the decision, whatever it may be, i guess howconcerned in general is this white house, thisadministration, that there could be economicrepercussions for u.s. companies because of thestepped-up rhetoric against chinese policies? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthis goes to an argument that i have put forward wheni was previously asked about this issue.

the longstanding u.s. commitment to a one-chinapolicy, this is a policy that's governed by a pieceof legislation and three different communiquã©s thatwere signed into law by democratic -- or weresigned -- by democratic and republican presidents. this is a policy that hasbeen observed for 40 years or so. and china considers theirrelationship with taiwan to

be a highly sensitive issue,and signaling potential changes in that policy isgoing to have widespread ramifications for the unitedstates, both as it relates to our economy and as itrelates to our national security. so certainly the incomingadministration has an opportunity to consider whatsort of policy they believe is in the best interestof the united states. i think the suggestion thatall americans would have is

that they consider thosekinds of choices very carefully before acting. and in this case, thepresident-elect indicated in an interview over theweekend that he took the call based on anhour or two's notice. and i think this is oneillustration of how important the role of thepresidency is and how important discipline andcareful consideration of one's words and actions iswhen you're president of the

united states andresponsible for advancing our interestsaround the globe. so i'll leave it there. michelle. the press: we heard theretired nato commander talk about the situation insyria, and though he had served under obama, he saidthat obama would probably look back on that situationwith deep sorrow and some shame. what do you think ofthose words that he said?

mr. earnest: i didn'tsee those comments. i can tell you that,under president obama's leadership, the unitedstates has been at the front of the effort to find adiplomatic solution to the situation in syria. the united states hasprovided more humanitarian assistance through bilateralchannels than any other country in the world. we have provided $6billion in relief.

and the united states hasmobilized the international community to respond to thethreat that is posed by isil, which essentially isa consequence of the chaos inside of syria. so president obama has beenmaking smart, strategic decisions that protectcarefully u.s. interests in the regionand around the world. that said, i think everyamerican and every human being is deeply troubled bythe violence and innocent

loss of life that wesee inside of syria. it's heartbreaking. it's tragic when you see agovernment commit atrocities against its own people usingthe military might of the state. that is a failed government. that is a failed state. and president obama has beenleading the international effort to address it,both by trying to find a diplomatic solution to thechaos, but also dealing

militarily and otherwisewith the extremist threat that is propagated bythat kind of chaos. the press: i don't thinkanyone disputes the efforts. but for a very long timenow, those efforts have failed. so is there noother alternative? mr. earnest: well,let's be clear. you got a briefing fora long time from the president's special envoy tothe counter-isil coalition that documented the successthat we've had in rolling

back isil and reducing theircapacity to harm the united states or our interests,either in the region or around the world. so i would vigorouslydispute that characterization of ourefforts against isil. with regard to making thekind of progress that we'd like to see toward adiplomatic solution inside of syria, we haven't seen asmuch progress as we would like. and there are innocentsyrian men, women and

children that havedied as a result of it. and ultimately, that causeis the willingness of the assad regime to use themilitary might of the state against his own people,and the willingness of the russians to intervene on hisbehalf to prop him up, even though they themselves claimthat they're concerned about that chaos fueling extremismthat could have consequences back in their home country. they should beconcerned about that.

and for years, the russianshave failed to reconcile a basic contradictionin their strategy. they say, on the one hand,that they're interested in trying to fight extremismand bring the violence to an end in syria, even at thesame time that they prop up the failed governmentthere that exacerbates the violence and makes thediplomatic solution even harder to reach. there's one good exampleof this -- there are some

reports -- reports i can'tconfirm, i have to start out by saying -- but i think areillustrative of what russia has done. russia, nine months ago,touted publically their success in taking back thesyrian community of palmyra from isil terrorists. well, we have learned thatisil has retaken that city from the syriansand the russians. in doing so, they didn'tjust succeed in driving out

the syrian government andthe russians; isil now has their hands on a significantanti-aircraft missile system. this is according to reportsso i can't confirm it. but it does illustrate,if true, the grave danger associated with russia'sfailed strategy. their strategy, if they'reactually interested in fighting terrorists, shouldnot involve an anti-aircraft missile system because isildoesn't have an air force. so what that anti-aircraftmissile system was doing in

palmyra is something thatonly the syrians and the russians can explain, but itdoes underscore the grave risk that russia is takingby dedicating their resources to attackinginnocent civilians in aleppo and propping up the assadregime, and taking their eye off the ball whenit comes to isil. in this case, theirmiscalculation was so grave that it's not just a matterof them ignoring the isil threat.

the isil threat today --again, if these reports are true -- is worse because ofthe failed strategy of the syrians and the russians. and that's something thatonly they can account for. the press: when we use wordsin here repeatedly like "atrocities" -- i mean,you just said today that -- it just seems like you'resaying that -- have we gotten to a point now thatthere really aren't any red lines anymore?

like, it's as if it's gottento a point so many people have been killed, and nowbecause of social media and other means, americans arewatching this happen, and many people thinkinghumanity as a whole should be better than this. so at what point do nationssay, okay, something needs to be done now? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthe assad regime has demonstrated that they'vecrossed all the lines in

pursuit of their goals. and those goals apparentlyinclude depraved tactics like trying to starveinnocent civilians into submission, bombinghospitals and playgrounds, targeting them. these tactics are depraved. they do cross just aboutevery line that i can think of. and, frankly, they crosslines i hadn't previously thought of.

the idea that you wouldtarget a playground and bomb kids, hoping that you wouldthen convince people to give up because you had killedtheir kids -- what kind of a sick mind comes up witha strategy like that? and what kind of civilizedcountry is going to support those tactics? but that's whatrussia has done. the press: so for thefamilies that we actually hear begging forinternational help, what do

you say to thosefamilies today? mr. earnest: the unitedstates is playing a leading role in providingfinancial assistance. the united states is playinga leading role in trying to negotiate a kind ofcessation of hostilities what would allow for theprovision of humanitarian assistance. facilitate a conversationabout resolving the political situation insideof syria so we can bring the

violence to an end, and wecan put new leadership in syria that actually reflectsthe will of the syrian people. and in that chaos, that'swhat the united states is doing. what we're also doing isengaging militarily to protect the internationalcommunity and the american people from the threatthat is posed by isil. and we've made a lot ofimportant progress against it. but we have not accomplishedour goal so far. dave.

the press: thanks, josh. has the president spokenwith labor secretary perez about the dnc chairmanship? mr. earnest: dave, i've seensome of the reports about mr. perez's interestin that position. i can't confirm them. and i don't have anyadditional conversations between the president andhis labor secretary to tell you about at this point.

what i can tell you issomething that i've said before which is thatdemocrats across the country have an important decisionto make about who will assume the role of leadingthe national democratic party. and i would expect therewill be a vigorous campaign. i know that there arealready three or four candidates thatare in the race. but i don't know if mr.perez intends to be one of them.

the press: the presidentover the years has obviously valued secretary perez'sleadership in the administration. does he think he'd be goodat the dnc chairmanship? mr. earnest: well, it'scertainly true that president obama thinks veryhighly of secretary perez. he is somebody who hasserved at the department of labor for threeor four years now. and he has been instrumentalin advancing some of the

executive actions thatpresident obama has prioritized. at the department of labor,they've worked to implement the overtime rule to ensurethat the hardest-working americans are getting paidfairly and even getting a raise. under secretary perez'sleadership, the department of labor has implemented theconflict of interest rule that prevents largefinancial institutions from not acting in the bestinterest of their clients, and we know that some ofthose practices cost working

people billions ofdollars every year. we're trying to bring thatto an end, and we've made progress in doing so becauseof the leadership and effectiveness ofsecretary perez. he's somebody who hasn'tjust effectively led that department, he also issomebody who is a forceful and persuasive advocate forthe values that animate the policies that hehas implemented. so he's a veryeffective guy.

the president thinkshighly of him. but as i've said before, idon't anticipate a situation in which the presidentforcefully endorses a candidate in the dnc chair'srace simply because the president's view is thereare rules and regulations that sort of lay out how thednc chair should be elected when there's not a democratin the white house. and the president believesthat that process, which involves democrats allacross the country at a

variety of levels, engagingin that debate is healthy for the party overthe longer term. the press: do you have anyknowledge whether the vice president's office mighthave been encouraging him to get involved? mr. earnest: i can't speakto any conversations that secretary perez may have hadwith vice president biden, but you can checkwith his office. the press: one other issue.

governor brown fromcalifornia yesterday wrote to the president asking forhim to ban all new offshore drilling in the state. and there are reports alsothat the administration might be ready to banoffshore drilling in the future in the atlantic. can you let us in onplans for either ocean? mr. earnest: i haven't seenthe letter, but let me see if we can get you asubstantive response to

your question. kevin. i want to ask you aboutcomments coming up today by secretary jewel. this is according toreporting out of reuters, my colleagues downthe row here. "scientists must confrontclimate change deniers and speak up if president-electdonald trump tries to sideline climate research."is that the president's

position that scientistsshould speak up if they disagree with thepresident-elect? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthe president's view is that policymaking should beguided by science and that policymakers should belistening to scientists, both inside the governmentand outside the government. that's the president's viewand that's certainly the way that he has chosen to runhis administration over the last eight years.

if the incomingadministration determines that they want to base theirpolicy on something other than science, it looks likethey're going to get at least four years to trythat out and we'll have an opportunity tosee how it works. the press: do you believethat it's appropriate for secretary jewel to sort ofweigh in in this respect before she's actually heardfrom the president-elect officially on the job?

she seems to be makingthe suggestion that his administration will somehowignore that which the scientists -- whether it bethe epa or the interior -- have already established. mr. earnest: well, listen, ithink based on some of the comments that we've seenfrom the people that the incoming administration orthe president-elect has chosen to serve in importantpositions like the epa and the department of energy,i think the concerns that

people across the countryand around the globe have expressed about the incomingadministration's commitment to focusing and continuingthe fight on climate change i think are legitimatequestions at this point. the press: what can you tellme about the "investing in a safer, strong baltimore: amodel for the president's approach to workingwith cities" report? mr. earnest: let me takea look at the report. i don't know that i've seenit, but we can certainly

take a look into it. last, i want to get the verylatest on the gitmo numbers. i typically ask you aboutthis time -- is there a plan to transfer more? what's the latest tallyand/or is the president expected to make anotherround of transfers between now and when heleaves office? and should we expect him toalso comment on this as we hear from himlater in the week?

mr. earnest: well, iwouldn't rule out additional transfers betweennow and january 20th. there is a process that isin place that was instituted by this administration wherethe case files of individual detainees are consideredby six different national security agencies. and based on the view ofthose agencies, individuals can be cleared for transferunder certain security restrictions that wouldlimit their ability to

menace the united states orour interests around the world. once those individuals arecleared for transfer, then the state department doesthe delicate work of asking countries around the worldto assume the responsibility of taking on these detaineesand imposing the security restrictions. and that work is continuing. i don't have any transfersto preview, but every time a detainee is transferred, wemake a public announcement

about it. and that will also be truebetween now and january 20th. the press: is it also truethat the united states pays these countries to receivethese detainees, these transferees? and what's that numberlike, and who tracks that? mr. earnest: well, what ican tell you is that the united states works closelywith these other countries to ensure that there aresecurity restrictions in place.

i can't speak to all of thenegotiations that go into it, but certainly in somecases, we're talking about countries that benefit fromthe assistance of the united states and making sure thatthose security restrictions are effectively implemented. and that's consistentwith the mandate of these agencies that review thecase files to ensure that restrictions are put inplace to prevent these individuals from posing anundue risk to the united

states of america. the press: last, i'd like toget your sort of expanded comments on something benrhodes talked about, and that is the continuedrelations between the united states and cuba, and theimportance moving forward. what is thepresident's message? and will he reachout directly to the president-elect about theimportance of maintaining that relationship and someof the pitfalls that come

along with that, given theirlack of human rights and other concerns that manypeople around this country have? mr. earnest: yeah. well, listen, kevin, we'vegot concerns about the human rights situation in a lot ofcountries around the world, including some countrieslike china and russia that we've already spent a lot oftime talking about today. the question really is,how do we shape those relationships so the unitedstates benefits from them?

how can we shape thoserelationships so that we can put pressure on thosecountries to improve the human rights situationinside their country while at the same time givingthe american people the opportunity and our countrythe opportunity to benefit from those relationships? so when it comes to cuba,the united states had had a policy in place for morethan five decades that attempted to isolate cuba inan effort to pressure them

to improve their respectfor human rights. that policy failed. that policy was in place formore than 50 years and it didn't have thedesired outcome. so president obama decidedto try something new. and in just two years sincethe president decided to try a new approach that wouldseek to normalize relations between our two countries,we've made a lot of important progress.

more than $6 billion intrade has been initiated between cuba and the unitedstates since then, which obviously has an importanteconomic benefit here in the united states. more cuban americans areable to send more money and travel more frequently tocuba to visit their family members who remainin that country. other americans who areinterested in visiting cuba for cultural or educationalreasons can have the benefit

of learning more about theisland and essentially deepening relationsbetween our two countries. those americans are alsoallowed to bring back as much cuban rum and cubancigars as they'd like for their own personal use. so there are a variety ofbenefits, you might say, that the american people canenjoy as a result of this policy change. just as importantly, thecuban people are

benefitting too. and we're seeing the cubaneconomy -- particularly when it comes to entrepreneurs inthat country -- benefit from more interactions withamericans who are traveling to their country. the press: but would thatlead to a change in their human rights posture at all? i mean, because on the onehand you said, listen, the old policy didn't work asfar as human rights

were concerned. now this new policy seemsto be working perhaps economically, certainly forthem, and i think, from a social perspective, perhapseven for the american and cuban relations. but is that changing theparadigm on human rights? mr. earnest: well, itcertainly is ramping up pressure on thecuban regime. and earlier this year, manyof you had the opportunity

to travel to cuba with thepresident where the cuban president was asked directlyand put in the international spotlight around a questionabout whether or not his government takespolitical prisoners. that's increasing pressureon the cuban government in a way that, frankly, they'renot used to seeing. that was a ratherremarkable, extraordinary event, those of youwho saw it may recall. there were two differenttimes in which an aide came

onstage to whisper in theear of the cuban president about how best to answerthis question because they understood they were facingmore public pressure than ever before about theirrespect for human rights; certainly more pressure thanthey faced when they were under an embargo formore than 50 years. and that pressure was onlyexistent -- only existed because of the president'strip down there and his commitment to thepursuit of this approach.

i think the last thing is,if we're actually interested in trying to protect andadvance the interests of the cuban people, if we actuallycare about their plight, then we might consider whattheir view is of the policy. and all the public data thati've seen is that, in some cases, more than 90 percentof cubans actually believe that this policy hasbeen good for them. so this is a policy that hasonly been in place for two years, and the president ishopeful that as this policy

remains in place, we'll havemore benefits to show from it. but of course, the nextincoming president will have something to say about that. margaret. mr. earnest: josh, u.n. ambassador samantha powerhad some strong words, some strong rhetoric, about syriaand russia in particular, and i want to ask if youagree with one particular thing she said.

she said, "aleppo is joiningrwanda and srebrenica as defining historical eventsthat embody evil." is that how the white house viewswhat's happening right now in aleppo -- comparing itto those two genocidal mass atrocities? mr. earnest: well, thisactually is an area of expertise forambassador power. she's written award-winningbooks on this topic, so i certainly wouldn't be in aposition to disagree with her.

the kinds of atrocities thatwe've seen in aleppo, as i mentioned earlier, seem tocross every line, including some lines that i thinkmany of us had never even contemplated before. the willingness of theassad regime, backed by the russians and the iranians,to engage in depraved tactics targeting innocentcivilians is beyond the pale. and it certainly does -- thekind of chaos and violence and bloodshed and innocentloss of life that we've seen

in aleppo certainly does,tragically, distinguish it from so many other countriesin the world -- and so many other cities in theworld, i should say. the press: but using thosetwo specific examples, they are very concrete examplesthat are now widely recognized as genocidal actswhere the world community failed to prevent massatrocity, and american presidents have, in past,then said, i regret not doing something then.

so it's a powerfulcomparison to make, and i'm just wondering, how doespresident obama think about this? i mean, is he sitting theresaying -- and putting it in the same category assrebrenica, and putting it in the samecategory as rwanda? and how does he feel? i mean, does he regret thatthis is happening on his watch? mr. earnest: well, listen,as i mentioned in response

to the earlier question,president obama is deeply troubled by the innocentloss of life that we've seen in aleppo andall across syria. there's no denying that. that's why the president hasplayed a leading role in the international community totry to bring that violence to an end. that's why we've been deeplyengaged from the beginning in trying to find a way tobring this violence to an

end, to negotiate the kindof political solution that's the only kind of solutionthat can solve this problem. a military solutioncannot be imposed on this situation, unless of coursesomebody is suggesting that somehow the united states ofamerica, on the orders of the commander-in-chief,should deploy 100,000, 150,000 -- 200,000 u.s. servicemen and women toessentially occupy syria. i don't know -- the press:iran and russia do believe

there is a military solutionand they are seeing their version of a militarysolution play out on the ground in aleppo. mr. earnest: at the sametime that bashar al-assad does an interview todaysaying that the violence is going to continue. the press: right. so not end the war, butcertainly advantage the side that you want to win.

but putting that aside, justtalking about the atrocities -- not the rest of it-- president obama did something reallyextraordinary when he came to office in saying thatatrocities prevention is a national security priority. he was the firstpresident to do that. you are now saying as anadministration these two prime examples of ethniccleansing, of genocidal acts are happening right now.

and the actionstops at rhetoric. how does the presidentprocess that? mr. earnest: again, istridently disagree with the suggestion that theaction stops at rhetoric. there's no basis. the press: but there wereactions taken elsewhere, right? and president clinton cameout and said, i regret not doing something in rwanda. mr. earnest: margaret, mypoint is --

the press: there weren't actionstaken in the balkans. so it's not as -- mr.earnest: when you say actions, you're using someshorthand for military action. if that's the case, then weshould -- but you cut me off from trying to offer up whythat's not a wise solution. so there is -- the press: no one was advocating for invasion. i never said that, that thatwas the example you were doing. mr. earnest: okay, butyou're suggesting why isn't

there any action on the partof the obama administration. and the case that i havemade repeatedly so often that you guys can repeatthis: president obama has played a leading role in theinternational community in trying to find a diplomaticsolution to this situation. you all have covered it. you all have traveledfrequently to locations throughout europe wheresecretary kerry has met repeatedly with the russiansand other countries in the

region to try to find asolution to this situation. those meetings occurredbecause the united states is playing a leading role inbringing people to the table to try to negotiatethis solution. the united states is thelargest donor of bilateral humanitarian assistance totry to meet the needs of the people who are suffering. the united states is in aposition where we are taking military action to try toprevent the chaos that

president assad is causingin his country from fueling the kind of extremism thatcould pose a threat to the united states and our alliesand our interests not just in the region, butaround the world. all of those things arehappening on president obama's orders, as a resultof his leadership, and they're the kinds ofthings that only a u.s. president can do given ourinfluence around the world. so that is what theunited states is doing.

i readily acknowledge thatwe are not seeing the results that we would liketo see in addressing the violence inside of aleppo. but it's offensive tosuggest that somehow the united states governmentand the world is not doing anything, particularly whenno one has put forward an alternative suggestion forwhat we should now be doing. ron. the press: i think theissue, josh, is that people

will acknowledge all thatthe united states has been doing -- humanitarianaid, so on and so forth, diplomacy -- but we arestill at a place where the awfulness isstill happening. and i -- the press: andthat's why the question becomes, okay, so the u.s. has done all that -- now what? which is why yesterdaybrett mcgurk was saying the humanitarian, the civilwar part of syria was only addressed brieflyin that meeting.

is that correct? it wasn't -- most of themeeting was about the isis part of this,isil part of it. mr. earnest: that's correct. the press: and the syriancivil war atrocities part of it was just brief. and i guess the questionis -- the president just doesn't see anythingmore that the u.s. can do now to stop what'shappening now despite all

that you've done, all thathe's done over the past number of years? there's just nothing else? mr. earnest: well, again, i -- the press: again, i know -- i hear you. but again, there's nothingnew, nothing different, nothing that he thinks --it's just a problem that can't be solved, or asituation that can't be ameliorated?

mr. earnest: i'm not awareof anybody in the u.s. government who has given uptrying to continue to play the leading role infinding a solution here. the diplomacy continues. and you can go talk to mycolleagues at the state department about all of theconversations and all of the work that is underway there. and the reason for that isnot just because secretary kerry finds thoseconversations particularly

enjoyable; i'm surethat he doesn't. but they are the only pathto resolving the situation that exists. if there's another one, byall means, please send it up and we'll make sure that itgets a careful look, because even our harshest criticscannot articulate some sort of alternative for whatis happening right now. and, again, if they thinkthat the most powerful thing that we should do is todeploy the united states

military and occupy thecountry, they should do so. they should explain howthat's going to reduce the violence. that certainly isnot our experience. they should explain how thatis in the interest of u.s. taxpayers because that'sgoing to be expensive. they should explain to ourunited states military why they should put themselvesat risk in that way. and they should explain howthat is part of a long-term

strategy to protect ourinterests in the region. because what we have foundis when the united states engages in a ground war andtries to occupy a country in the middle east, thereare long-term negative consequences for doing that,including the situation in syria right now. the press: and there'snothing short of a full-scale invasion? that, i guess, is what mostpeople would just ask.

i mean, we've heard --we understand all that. and i also understand howyou feel that your critics always say that if you'renot doing something militarily, you'renot doing anything. and i get that. but just talking to people-- there's nothing short of a full-scale invasion. and there was talkof safe zones. and during the campaign,hillary clinton, others,

some of the allies in theregion -- the turks at one point -- weretalking about that. i guess it's just hard forpeople to see the slaughter continue and there's notsomething else that can be done militarily that would,in the short term at least, stop some of the bloodshed. mr. earnest: let me try toanswer your question this way. i suspect if there actuallywere a military solution to this problem, dependingon what it was, the

commander-in-chief wouldn'thesitate to implement it. but there's not. and this is not a newposition that is being articulated by theobama administration. this is a position that wehave had since the earliest days of the civilwar in syria. there is not a militarysolution that can be imposed by the united states. diplomacy is the avenue.

diplomacy is the path towarda long-term resolution that is in the interestof the united states. and that's whatwe're pursuing. and, in fact, that'swhat we're leading. the press: it's thehesitancy that i think a lot of the critics point to --this caution that is, yes, part of president obama'sapproach to this -- approach to many things. and we've heard him arguehow he has not hesitated in

certain circumstances todeploy the military to do things in different places. i guess this is a questionfor him on friday when he -- because, again, given what'shappening, i guess we'd love to get a better sense ofhow he processes this. and i understand it's atremendous responsibility, but how he processes thecriticism, the concern that the world has about thissituation at the same time that there's this criticismof him for being too

cautious, too -- dare isay -- weak to do more. mr. earnest: well, i don'tthink you should use that word because peoplecertainly didn't think it was cautious when thepresident of the united states ordered the seal teamsix into pakistan to go and take osama bin ladenoff the battlefield. i don't think people thoughtit was cautious that the president has built aninternational coalition of 68 members to go andtake the fight to isil.

and you just got a longbriefing yesterday, a timely one, that reveals theprogress that we've made in rolling back territoryfrom isil and taking their external plotters off thebattlefield and limiting their ability to organizethose kinds of operations and carry them out againstthe united states and our allies around the world. so i think the presidenthas been judicious and strategic, but he'salso been bold.

and the united states andour national security has benefitted from it. gardiner. the press: why did ittake until october 7th to attribute the hack to therussian government when the hack on the dnc wasconfirmed in april, and from the first days investigatorsknew it had russian ties? that delay covered most ofthe presidential election, causing months' worth ofdebilitating coverage of the

leaks that were not properlyinformed by a formal government statement thatthis was an act of foreign espionage. wasn't that a mistaketo take so long? mr. earnest: gardiner, thisis an assessment that was put forward by theintelligence community, and the intelligence communityput forward this statement as soon as they were able toconfirm a couple of things. first, they had to confirmacross 17 different

government agencies thatthey had high confidence that this is exactlywhat had transpired. now, i recognize that therewas this independent, private analysis that hadbeen put forward, but the standards of theintelligence community, for good reason, are very high. second, the intelligencecommunity wanted to be as specific as possible inputting forward that assessment so that peoplecould have confidence in

the facts. in order to be specific, theintelligence community also had to ensure they would notbe revealing the kinds of sources and methods thatgive them the insight that they need to conductthese investigations. so there was a determinedeffort to both be as specific as possible whilealso protecting the sources and methods that are used bythe intelligence community to conduct theseinvestigations.

i think all in all,gardiner, this was a statement that was put out amonth before the election. so i would acknowledge thatthere were reports of hacks and leaks before that, butwhat also existed before that were privateassessments about how that material was obtained. and there's no denying thatthose materials were stolen property. the suggestion -- there isno denial on the part of the

u.s. government that somehow thednc had not been hacked. so even as newsorganizations were reporting on this information,they were reporting on information that they knowhad been stolen and leaked. those are editorialdecisions that are made by independent newsorganizations, but even the excellent report that wasincluded in your newspaper today about this incidentmakes clear that news organizations in the unitedstates essentially became

the arms of russianintelligence. the press: but shouldn'tthose news organizations have been toldmonths earlier? i mean, josh, this is a newbattlefield, and you're telling me that the u.s. government cannot respond onthis battlefield for months, six months, until much ofthe damage as a result of this attack hasalready occurred? you're saying that it wasappropriate to wait between

april and october to allowthe russians to have their goals and aims achievedlargely, and it wasn't until pretty much the last minuteof the election that the u.s. government came out withsomething that might have changed news organizationsdecision-making about using this information? why not do it before? and shouldn't you -- if youare not capable because of this wide-ranging review,shouldn't you change that

review process? mr. earnest: i don't thinkthere's any evidence to indicate that editorialdecisions changed as a result of the statement. so i think we actually dohave an opportunity to evaluate that claim. so i think it actually is anopen question about whether it would havemade a difference. it didn't make a differencewhen we put out the

statement a month before theelection in the way that this was handled bynews organizations. but here's the other thing,gardiner, and i think this is important, as well, asyou consider the government response, and in particularthe white house response to this situation. it would have beeninappropriate for white house figures, includingthe president of the united states, to be rushing theintelligence community to

expedite their analysis ofthe situation because we were concerned about thenegative impact it was having on the president'spreferred candidate in the presidential election. that would have been allthe more damaging in an environment in which youhave the republican nominee, without evidence, suggestingthat the election is rigged. so what we were deeplyconcerned about from the beginning was making surethat we were protecting the

integrity of theintelligence community and insulating the intelligencecommunity from the kind of political pressure that wasobvious to everybody who was reading the newspapersor watching television. it's important for ourintelligence community to be shielded from that kind ofpolitical interference or we need -- the press: it'sjust that he has -- that he's sort of paralyzed andcan allow the russians sort

of open-field running aslong as they attack in a way that the president himselffeels awkward about intervening -- right? i mean, this was a russianeffort on the most important electoral process inthe united states. and you're saying thatthe president himself had difficulty responding simplybecause of the politics of responding? mr. earnest: no, i'm notascribing any difficulty here.

i'm merely stating thefacts, which is that the president believed itwas important for the intelligence community toformulate in advance of the election, if possible, themost definitive analysis that they could make public. and that's what they did --a month before the election. unfortunately, that didn'tseem to change the way that this was considered orreported on by the media. so again, i think that's whyit's difficult to say that

maybe it would have beentreated differently if the report had come out twoor three or four months earlier, because it's notclear that when the report did come out that it hadmuch of an impact on the way that it was -- in the waythat this material was reported on. i also think this allunderscores the risk of politicizing theintelligence community. there is a reason thatwhen the review that the

president has ordered isreleased in january will have some integrity. it will have that integritybecause the president has gone to great lengths toprotect the intelligence community from even theappearance of being used as a political weapon. and that has long-termconsequences for the decisions that futurepresidents -- plural -- will make.

they need to be able tocount on the information that they're getting fromthe intelligence community being right and not beinginfluenced by -- and by "right" i mean timely andaccurate -- and not being influenced bypartisan politics. the press: is that thereason for the very differential responsebetween what the president did after the north koreansony hack, in which he very forcefully and personallycame out and addressed that,

and this hack? which it's a strange thingbecause this hack so clearly had far graver consequencesand was so much more important to the countrythan the sony hack, which he very publicly and forcefullycame out and denounced. so help me understand whythose two very different responses by the presidentpersonally, and why he didn't respond to this onein the forceful personal way he did to the sony one.

was it because of politics? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthere are two things at play here. the first is that the northkorea attack was, in many ways, more crude. and the president'sstatement in december of 2014 was also based on anintelligence assessment. so the statements thatwe have made as an administration have beendriven by the facts and have

been driven by theassessment of the intelligence community. and the intelligencecommunity assessment with regard to the sony hackwas arrived at sooner. the press: andwas more clear? or is that -- mr. earnest:well, you'd have to talk to them, i think, abouthow they reached these conclusions.

but in both -- in all cases,our administration is commenting on this based onthe facts and based on the impartial, unbiasedassessment of the united states intelligencecommunity. and the american peoplebenefit from having an intelligence community thatisn't subject to partisan politics, even in the midstof the most hotly contested, divisive electionin recent history. but you raised a secondquestion, which is sort of

about the president'spersonal involvement. and the president didbelieve, given that he had endorsed a candidate in thepolitical -- given that the president had endorseda candidate in the presidential race, hebelieved it was important for the intelligencecommunity to make this announcement. and that's why you saw astatement from -- a joint statement from the ic andfrom the department of

homeland security. again, that was an effort toensure that this information avoided even the appearanceof being politically motivated. and the president had verystrong feelings about the race and about thecandidates who are involved in the race. and the president did not --those of you who traveled with the president in thelast four or five weeks of the campaign saw that thepresident didn't pull any

punches in forcefully makingan argument in support of his preferred candidate. and he believed that thatpolitical activity should be separate from theintelligence community's analysis of russianmalicious cyber activity. now, what's also true -- andthis goes to something that we discussed in the briefingon monday -- there's ample evidence that was known longbefore the election and, in most cases, long beforeoctober about the trump

campaign and russia --everything from the republican nominee himselfcalling on russia to hack his opponent. it might be an indicationthat he was obviously aware and concluded, based onwhatever facts or sources he had available to him, thatrussia was involved, and their involvement was havinga negative impact on his opponent's campaign. that's why he wasencouraging them to keep

doing it. you had the republicannominee refer to the president of russiaas a strong leader. the republican nominee chosea campaign chair that had extensive, lucrative,personal financial ties to the kremlin. and it was obvious to thosewho were covering the race that the hack-and-leakstrategy that had been operationalized was notbeing equally applied to the

two parties and tothe two campaigns. there was one side that wasbearing the brunt of that strategy and another sidethat was clearly benefitting from it. now, i know there's a lot ofreporting that there may be some disagreement in theintelligence community about whether or not thatwas the intent. that's a question that theyshould ask and a question that they may attempt toanswer, but there certainly

was no doubtabout the effect. and, again, it didn'trequire a security clearance or a consensus,high-confidence intelligence assessment to understand. and in spite of all that,that didn't change the way in which this informationwas reported on, either. the press: josh, we'vetalked before here about this administration'sretaliation or potential retaliation forthese efforts.

and we quoted a lot ofexperts in our story saying that basically you're makinga mistake; that you didn't -- you haven't apparentlyretaliated against this attack and you continueto sort of say that any retaliation could be secret. they are saying that, firstof all, you should have retaliated long before nowand probably before the election, and that itshouldn't be a secret retaliation -- it should bevery clear that the united

states is retaliatingagainst this to discourage this continued behavior. so help me -- if youdon't mind, defend the administration'sdecision-making on both not apparently retaliating sofar, not retaliating before the election as a means ofdiscouraging this continued behavior, and notguaranteeing that this retaliation would becomingpublic, which, again, according to these experts,would help discourage this

behavior then andin the future. mr. earnest: gardiner, whatwe have indicated is the president believes thatbased on what we know about what russia did, that itmerits a proportional response. from here, i'm not in aposition to confirm whether or not that response hasbeen initiated or not. i'm also not in a positionto confirm that we won't ever in the future discusswhat that response is or what that response may be.

there may eventually be apoint at which we do discuss what the response is,will be, or has been. just trying to cover allmy verb tenses there. (laughter) but here's a couple of otherthings that are important to consider. given the interconnectednature of our society and our economy, the unitedstates is in the unique position vis-ã -vis the restof the world because we rely

on 21st centurycommunications technology for just about everythingin a way that lots of other societies and economiesand countries don't. so -- the press: are weparticularly vulnerable? mr. earnest: we are --the united states is particularly vulnerable. now, that is counterbalancedby the fact that the united states is also more powerfulwhen it comes to our cyber capabilities than any othercountry in the world.

that's compounded -- thecomplexity of that situation is compounded by the factthat so much of this is new. when we're talking aboutinternational conflicts on the battlefield or in theopen seas, there are decades and, in some cases, evencenturies-long traditions and norms and treaties andunderstandings that have been negotiatedand observed. and it sets up a frameworkfor countries being able to avoid disagreements aboutwhat's appropriate behavior.

and when those disagreementsdo arise, there is a codified system forresolving them. none of that existsin cyberspace. and, in fact, the presidenthas made this one of his top policy priorities is tobegin to initiate a process in our discussions at theg20, in our discussions at the g7, and in our bilateralrelations with other countries that havesignificant cyber capabilities to start toestablish those rules of

the road. and if you go back andlook at some of the g20 communiquã©s, you can seethat there is a specific -- i know that's somethingyou've probably already done, gardiner, knowing howconscientious you are about covering these issues. so just to refresh yourmemory about how specific some of those efforts werein the context of the world's 20 largesteconomies, you'll also

recall -- and this got moreattention, understandably so -- when president xi ofchina came to the white house for a state visit lastfall, the fall of 2015, it was notable that he stood inthe rose garden of the white house next to the unitedstates president indicating his country's commitment toa norm in cyberspace that countries should not supportcyber-enabled theft for commercial gain. and that is a norm thatthe united states had been

previously concerned chinawas not willing to observe. i can't offer an updatedassessment on how well they are observing that normthat the chinese president stated. but it certainly addressedmany of the concerns that had been justifiablyraised by u.s. companies about howchina was hacking their businesses, and then usingproprietary technology and information todisadvantage u.s.

businesses and to givechinese businesses a leg up. so establishing those normsin cyberspace is a priority. i just described aneconomic situation that has significant economicconsequences for the country, but this alsoapplies in the national security and homelandsecurity realm, as well. so i think that wouldexplain a lot of this. look, i guess there's oneother -- you asked a lot of questions, so that's whyi'm giving a long answer.

the press: i've gotone more, by the way. mr. earnest: which is -- iwelcome the opportunity to have this discussion, soi'm just trying to remember everything i wanted to say. there's one last thing thati did want to say, which is one of the highestpriorities that was identified by the presidentand his policy team in the fall, given the threatthat was posed by russian malicious cyber activity,was ensuring that the

elections infrastructureof the united states was protected. now, the thing that weacknowledged from the very first time that i was askedabout this is that there are some built-in protectionsbased on how diffuse the elections infrastructureis in this country. cities, states, counties allhave a role in administering elections. they use different systemsfor conducting those elections.

that means that there's notone way to hack the entire election system ofthe united states. that makes our electionsprocess complicated and messy and difficult toreform and improve. it also makes itharder to hack. the press: so hangingchads are a good thing? mr. earnest: well, i don'tknow if i'd go quite that far, but relying on paperballots or hanging chads makes it hard for somebodywho's sitting in a cubicle

in moscow to have an impacton the outcome, at least by tampering with the ballots. but the same goes tovoter registration rules. now, the concerning thing,gardiner, was that we had detected some russianmalicious cyber activity on the systems of someelections administrators across the country, andthis is where politics gets involved again. in most states, the peoplewho are in charge of

administering elections arethemselves politicians. they're notimpartial observers. they have an impartialmandate to ensure the conduct of a free and fairelection, and the vast majority of them dothat job and do it well. but if there was aperception that the democratic president of theunited states was raising some of these concerns aboutrussian malicious cyber activity because he wastrying to protect the

democratic candidate forpresident, there is not likely to be a lot ofcooperation between a republican electionsofficial and a democratic administration. so this administration wentto great lengths -- we even went to capitol hill -- totry to convince democratic and republican leaders oncapitol hill to signal their commitment to setting asidepartisan politics and focusing on the nationalsecurity of the country, and

issuing a joint publicstatement about how important it was forelection administrators in both parties to workwith the democratic administration to protecttheir systems from russian intrusion. democrats in congressreadily agreed this was a good idea. leader mcconnell and speakerryan did not readily agree to it.

i'm not going to getinto all of our private conversations, but this wasan element of the story that was published in yournewspaper today. and it's true, we didn'tget the kind of prompt cooperation wewould have liked. now, we eventually did get aletter that the four leaders of congress did agree tosend to the organization that represents electionsadministrators across the country.

and as a result, there werenot a lot of charges and counter-charges that thedemocratic administration was up to no good. and, in fact, experts atthe department of homeland security worked withelections administrators in 45, 46, 47 states to ensurethat their systems were protected fromrussian intrusions. and the good news is thatthe intelligence community was watching closely, andthey determined -- or at

least they did not observean increase in malicious russian cyber activity onelection day that interfered with the casting orcounting of ballots. and that obviouslyis good news. but that's not thewhole question. the press: one more. sorry to take so long. the gsa has released aletter stating that the trump organization will bein violation of its lease on

the trump hotel site here inwashington the minute that president-elect trump takesoffice if he doesn't fully divest himself of hisholdings in the hotel, which he has shown no signthat he is doing. was that appropriatefor the gsa to do? and what responsibility doesthis administration have in ensuring that the incomingtrump administration abides by conflict of interest lawsand the emoluments clause of the constitution?

is this something you'reworking on in the transition? mr. earnest: well, i'm notaware that there's a robust role for this administrationto play in this. i'd refer you to the gsa toexplain the concerns that they raised about thecontract that they have with the trump organization. the relevant agency here isgoing to be the office of government ethics. this is a nonpartisan,independent agency that is

charged with ensuring thatgovernment officials -- federal government officialsare abiding by all of the rules and restrictions thatapply to the ethical conduct of people who are supposedto be serving the national interest. so i think the proper rolehere is going to be with the office of government ethics,with inspectors general who have independent oversightresponsibilities in the executive branch.

there's also going to be acritically important role for congress. and the early indications, ithink, leave me cautiously optimistic that democratsand republicans are prepared to play that oversight roleto ensure that those who are entrusted with protectingand advancing the public interest are not compromisedby their own personal financial considerations. obviously, president obamahas gone to great lengths to

prevent even the appearanceof having a personal financial conflict. president obama sold all hisstock and all of his outside interests before enteringthe oval office, and tied all that money intotreasury bonds. given the aggressive way inwhich the federal reserve was reducing the interestrate, that was a very poor investment decision, but itwas the right thing for and that's kindof the point.

john. the press: thanksa lot, josh. russia has figuredprominently in a number of questions that you'vereceived this week, whether it's related to thesituation in syria, or whether it's related to thealleged hack by russia in an effort to influence ourpresidential election. does the president have anyplans to reach out, pick up the phone, speak to hiscounterpart from russia,

vladimir putin, and talkabout some of the same issues that we're talkingabout all this week? mr. earnest: i'm not awareof any calls that are planned. but obviously the presidenthas had a number of occasions to see hiscounterpart and to talk to him about these issues. obviously, the president sawpresident putin for a brief period in lima, peru, whenwe were there for the apec summit -- i guess itwas just last month.

it feels likeabout a year ago. president obama also had anopportunity to see president putin in china when we werein china for the g20 meeting in september, the meetingof the world's 20 largest economies. and over the course of histime in office, president obama has had conversationswith president putin on the phone and in person to atthis point, i'm not sure that there's a situationthat they've talked about

more than thesituation in syria. they've had multipleopportunities to do that. obviously, there are evenmany more conversations that occurred between secretarykerry and his russian counterpart, foreignminister lavrov. so there's been deepengagement with the russians. but i'm not aware of anyupcoming conversations between president obamaand president putin. but if one does occur,we'll let you know.

the press: a lot ofconversation has occurred this week as it relates topresident-elect trump's decision to nominate rextillerson as his secretary of state. and a knock on him from anumber of critics appears to be his preexistingrelationship with russia, his preexisting relationshipwith vladimir putin. do you see this as a knock,or do you think it can be helpful to have apreexisting relationship

with someone who figures soprominently in america's foreign affairs? mr. earnest: well, look,obviously, you have outlined the case that the trumpadministration has made in favor of the nomination. there are others who haveraised concerns about the wisdom of choosing someonewho has been awarded the order of friendship byvladimir putin to represent u.s. interests around the globe,considering the adversarial

nature of our relationshipwith russia on so many important issues. there are some areas wherewe do effectively cooperate with russia already and havedone so to the benefit of the american people. but look, i'll let othersmake the argument on both sides. i think the argument that iwould make is simply: people shouldn't be surprised. the president-elect ran on aplatform of pursuing warmer

relations with russia. he indicated his frustrationand signaled a potential lessening of ourcommitment to nato. he referred to presidentputin as a strong leader. so it shouldn't beparticularly surprising that he chose someone who got theorder of friendship medal from vladimir putin to behis secretary of state. the press: wouldthat be a bad thing? u.s. relations with russia areat perhaps the lowest level

they've been since the coldwar, since maybe the early 1960s. do you think thatrelations between the u.s. and russia should remain atthe level where they are right now, or do youthink there is room for improvement with russia,vis-ã -vis the united states? mr. earnest: yeah, i thinkwhat the president would say is that he would welcomeadditional opportunities to try to advance our interestsby working with russia.

but that's going to requirenot additional concessions to russia but a willingnesson the part of the russians to deal honestly with theiramerican interlocutors in pursuit of theirstated goals. so, for example, just to goback because it's the most pertinent one, russia saysthat they are committed to working with theinternational community, including the unitedstates, to go after isil. there's noevidence for that.

and, in fact, what russiahas done against isil has been rolled back and isil'scapabilities have been heightened and worsenedbecause of russia's poor decisions. so in some ways, untilrussia signals a willingness to pursue a differentapproach in their relationship with the unitedstates, i think we're going to encounter somechoppy waters here. i think what president obamahas tried to do is to try to

prevent our disagreements insome areas of syria and in ukraine from allowing us tomake progress in some other areas. and whether that's ourcooperation on the space program or the success thatthe united states and russia had in eliminating thedeclared chemical weapons stockpile of theassad regime. there are some areaswhere we are able to work effectively with therussians, and the american

people havebenefitted from it. but if we want to see moreof that, i think we're going to need to see a change inbehavior and a change in strategy on the partof the russians. maggie. circling back to the officeof government ethics, they recently are urging trumpto act as if he must follow financial conflict ofinterest laws, but as trump has pointed out, thepresident is not legally

bound by these. do you think it's time toupdate federal ethic laws to make sure that the presidentdoes have to follow these laws, that it's a law? mr. earnest: look, i thinkall i can say to you is what president obama has done,and as i described earlier, president obama didn't justfollow the ethics rules as if they applied to him -- hewent far above and beyond them and made sure thatthere was not even the

appearance of a conflict ofinterest when it comes to his personal finances. and he did that in a waythat disadvantaged him financially but was goodfor the country because it erased any doubt abouthis true motivations. so the president alsobelieved that that actually benefitted his presidencybecause he wasn't in a position in which he wassidetracked by allegations of a personalconflict of interest.

and he set a very highstandard for ethics that people throughout hisadministration have followed. and it's why the presidentis quite proud of the fact that his administration hasnot been plagued by the kinds of major personalscandals that have plagued other presidencies. the press: so would you saythen that the argument of selling a lot of real estatewould make donald trump lose money is not avalid argument?

mr. earnest: i think theincoming administration and the president-elect aregoing to have to make their own decisions about howthey handle the situation. but if president-elect trumpwere to sustain a financial loss in order to enter theoval office, he would not be the first one. toluse. i wanted to go back to thecomment you made about how people shouldn't besurprised that donald trump

is selecting someone who hasclose ties to russia given the fact that he said all ofthese things on the campaign trail that were seenas friendly to russia. it kind of seems to stand incontrast to this idea that once donald trump leaves thecampaign trail and gets into the office, he's going to bewoken up by the realities of the office, and all of thosesort of incendiary things he said on the campaign wouldnot be the actual policies that he pursues.

and that seems to be themessage that the president was giving when he wentoverseas and spoke to nato partners and other partners. so what's the message? is it that people shouldn'tbe surprised and they should brace for trump to followthrough on all of this rhetoric that he hadon the campaign trail? or is that -- the officewill change him and he'll moderate on someof those positions?

mr. earnest: well, toluse, ithink it's hard to assess, because you have in the pastheard mr. tillerson say positive things about thetrans-pacific partnership and the parisclimate agreement. so does that mean -- so iguess -- i cite those two examples to illustratethat we'll have to see. it's unclear. i think what we might beseeing now is that the president-elect cares moreabout his secretary of

state's position on russiathan he does about his secretary of state nominee'sposition on trade and climate change. but again, when you go backto the rhetoric of the trump campaign, it's notparticularly surprising that the president-elect appearsto be prioritizing over a bunch of otherimportant issues. but what that actually meansfor the kinds of policy they will implement, that'ssomething that we'll all

have to wait and see. the press: i also wanted toask you about the -- give you another chance to maybeweigh in on the energy secretary pick. obviously, president obamaselected a nobel laureate physicist in ernie monizwho -- you know, highly respected and -- mr. earnest: merely a physicist at mit. so i'm wondering if, giventhe fact that moniz had such

an important role inthe iran nuclear deal negotiations, i'm wonderingif the president has any thoughts about the formertexas governor becoming the next person forthis position. mr. earnest: i'm reallytempted to, but -- the press: give in. mr. earnest: -- maybe if youwant to come by and chat in my office, i've got somegood zingers for you. but i think i will try toexercise some discipline and

refrain from commenting anymore than i already have, admittedly, about -- the press: you could just tweet it. mr. earnest: if i canremember them all, i'll share them with youafter this briefing. the press: i'llstay tuned for that. one more on thestock market. obviously, it's hittingrecord highs on a regular basis, almost at 20,000 inthe dow, and donald trump

and his surrogates areclaiming credit for that. obviously, you all saidthere's only one president at a time, so i wonderingif you have any thoughts on whether or not this rallyhas anything to do with the current president orthe president-elect. mr. earnest: well, i'll letthe significant number of market analysts who followthe market more closely than i do comment on individualmarket movements. i'll just make the broaderobservation that since the

depths of the greatrecession that president obama inherited, the stockmarket has more than tripled. we'll see if the economicpolicies that the incoming president implements havea similar positive effect. he campaigned on vowing totry things differently. he campaigned on the ideathat we need a different economic approach. and we've laid out a numberof times -- and we're getting late here, so iwon't do it again -- but

we've laid out a number oftimes the benchmark that the incoming administrationwill have to live up to. and we'll see if they do. but an important of themis the stock market. and the stock market, sincewas at its nadir in the summer of 2009, hasmore than tripled. and we'll see if presidenttrump's economic policies have a similar positiveimpact on the market in a way that has a positiveimpact on the savings and

retirement savings ofmillions of american workers. taka, i'll giveyou the last one. the press: thank you, josh. president putin will visitjapan tomorrow to meet prime minister abe. what do you expectfrom the meeting? they will meet in japantwice, in tokyo and in prime minister abe'sold prefecture. what do you think of primeminister abe's decision to

maintain warm relationswith president putin? mr. earnest: well, listen,you know, president obama, as i mentioned earlier,has had a number of conversations with presidentputin over the last year. obviously, russia has facedsome significant diplomatic isolation from theinternational community, including the g7, ofwhich japan is a member. we used to refer to thatmeeting as the g8, back when russia was includedin that meeting.

they no longer are becauseof their willingness to violate the territorialintegrity of ukraine. so i can't speak to what maybe on the agenda or what prime minister abe intendsto discuss with president putin, but while wehave been able to work effectively with theinternational community to isolate russia -- and theyare facing more isolation than they have in recentyears -- we also acknowledge that the united statesbenefits from our allies,

like japan, having goodrelations with other countries around the world. so, presumably, that will bewhat prime minister abe is pursuing when he meetswith president putin later this week. the press: are you concernedthat the meeting may send the wrong message that theg7 is not united, and may put pressure on russia? mr. earnest: i have no doubtthat japan and the other

members of the g7 remainfirmly united about the need for russia to observe thebasic territorial integrity and sovereignty of thenation of ukraine. thanks, everybody,we'll see you tomorrow.