>> fridays white house press briefing began with a surprise appearance who played the white house press secretary, west wing. after her parents, press secretary josh earnest takes questions about the u.s. military's airstrike against military's airstrike against the civilian hospital in afghanistan, funding for the spread of the zika virus and this weekend's correspondence dinner. this is an hour and a half.

>> will everyone. good afternoon. i see you are already seated. we can begin. begin. josh is out today, he has a root canal. laughmac. so let's be honest i'm better at this than his anyway. just between us. verse two announcements and that'll take questions. the president is still working on his jokes for the white house correspondents dinner. i do not have details on that other than he intends to be funny. very funny. second, it is friday which means at half past 5i will be performing the jacqueline my office for anyone who is interested, or remembers or cares. so now i will take your question.

>> this is not your show anymore. >> a my my gosh, i'm so sorry. i was in town and i just want to take a moment. totally, this is your office. >> in all seriousness, what you mean, this is just happening, and all seriousness, my name is allison, i'm, i'm here today to draw attention to the opiate epidemic and to celebrate those who are working to help others combat substance abuse disorder. i'm actually on the show now called moms which deals with people in recovery and i'm here with my cocreator and executive producer which is very important to both of us, he's he's in the back there. today, here at the white house ten individuals from across the country will be honored as white house champions of change. they have been selected from

over 900 nominations for their leadership in preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse and for increasing access to treatments and to support their fellow americans in recovery. for supporting their fellow americans in recovery. this is a disease that can touch anybody and all of us can help reduce the drug abuse by evidence of -based treatment prevention and recovery. research shows that works. courageous and americans that short works every day. and so never secondly. so thank you for the opportunity to be here today and highlight this important issue. i will turn the pony podium to its rightful owner. [laughter] [applause]. >> thank you allison.

>> josh has the fun part. >> obviously, allison feels passionately about the work she's spending time here at the white house focus on today. we we obviously overheard a debt of gratitude for taking on this cause. it's something she passionately believes in. we are pleased we can work with somebody who is as committed and as talented as she is on something that is that's important. the the fun stuff is out of the way now. we can go back to her regular pride briefing. will try to keep it short. >> kathleen you start. >> i wanted to ask about the report that came out on the

helicopter, it was mentioned yesterday the presiden tot plan read it, i'm wondering if he read it? >> it is a very serious topic. it is a topic that that commander-in-chief is made a priority. united states goes to tremendous length to avoid civilian casualties. when those casualties occur as they did in this instant, the president called for a transparent, thorough, and objective accounting of it what exactly transpired. as you point out, this objective accounting was performed by the department of defense today, the president has been briefed on the report, the report is available or

redacted, it's available on the central command website, that is consistent with the president's view of transparency. the report goes into some detail about what exactly transpires, the conclusion of the investigation is that there were human error that caused the tragedy. that was compounded by procedural failures, the apartment of defense has announced a set of steps that will be taken to provide accountability for those who were involved. the department of defense has also laid out some specific reforms moving forward that will prevent this kind of tragedy from occurring again in

afghanistan or anywhere else. again, all of this is consistent with the priority that president obama places on avoiding civilian casualties. our ever series certainly do not go to these links. in some in some cases our adversaries target civilian populations. but these are the kind of reforms that are consistent with our values of the country and are consistent with the priorities established. >> in looking at it, how will they explain how something like this could happen, how 40 people could die and there is no criminal charges filed.

>> what the president call for from the beginning was a thorough objective, and transparent accounting of what has transpired. that is what the department of defense as before. this is an investigation those conducted by military officers that were outside the chain of command. there individuals who led this investigation are professional investigators. there individuals not involved in the incident. they're able to provide an objective perspective on what transpired. honestly they spent months interviewing people who were involved, reviewing relevant facts and material to understand exactly what happened to understand what led to the failures including the human error that led to this tragedy. based on their own working knowledge of how these kind of military operations are carried out they made specific suggestions for reforms that can be instituted to prevent something like this from happening again.

there is no denying that what has occurred here is a genuine tragedy. when this incident occurred the president and others expressed their sorrow at the loss of innocent life. including individuals who have put themselves in harms way. to try to treat the wounds of innocent people caught in the crossfire. there are multiple dimensions to this tragedy and went a detail is consistent with their priorities and consistent with avoiding casualties in our values as a country.

>> i thought there's a bipartisan announcement that was made on capitol hill at the end of the day yesterday. but we have been saying for months is that the white house role has been to try to nurture and facilitate bipartisan cooperation on this issue on capitol hill. fortunately the legislation was there at the beginning. democrats and republicans observed that we could save taxpayer dollars but actually make it lower. laura recidivism rates. and those who are entering

reentering is to try to encourage both sides to try to find common ground and present ideas for making that common ground more easily recognize. there's been some strange falls in these. there's representatives from conservative political organizations that were interested in contributing to this as well. i think it does reflect that what is the subject of some debate is not necessarily something that should provoke a partisan or ideological objection. rather a more common sense, practical approach to recognizing the benefits of reforms like this.

so, sometimes that kind of pragmatic approach gets drowned out by the partisanship and ideology and occasional history that are endemic on capitol hill. but in this case we are going to continue to work with democrats and republicans to try to navigate those cross currents. hopefully emerge on the other side with a genuine, bipartisan reform bill that would have enormous positive consequences for our country. the president identified this as a top legislative priority of his last year, we have been working since then to try to make it a reality. i do think the president will devote a significant portion of his eight month he remains in office to getting this

legislation passed through congress and onto his desk. >> there's it doesn't seem like it addresses the fighting, also are you confident they could be 70s talks to resume? >> let's first talk about the agreement that was in ounce today. since the beginning fighting has it continued in the area of north let's talk in eastern gouda. it's putting pressure, what's going on is unacceptable and damaging. as a result, the u.s. government and russia have been working to secure a general recommitment to the secession of hostilities by all parties to be implemented beginning at midnight tonight

damascus time. it is our view that this essentially would be a refreshment of cessation of hostilities. getting both sides to commit to refreshing, the commitments they made in the for the concession and cessation apostolate asic could have a catalyzing effect. what we would like to see is a return to the situation on the ground that prevailed a few weeks ago which was not an all out into the fighting. rather, it, it was a broad acceptance of the terms of the cessation of hostility that was only agreement because the united states and russia use our influence with the relevant groups to bring about that agreement, we acknowledged all

along that there are likely to be violations but what is happened over the last week or so is the frequency of violations has increased. that is been the source of significant concern. our hope is by refreshing this agreement and focusing our attention on these two particular areas, we can build momentum again toward a broadly observed cessation of hostility. >> how confident are you that this refreshment is going to help push forward. >> the thing that we know is the opposite is true. the thing that we know is the weakening of the cessation of hostilities are the repeated violation of the cessation of hostilities have tangibly undermined efforts to reach or

to at least advance political talks. so, the question is can we get some more momentum to those political talks by expanding the area in cereal where the cessation of hostilities is once again observed. again, our goal of trying to refresh the cessation of hostilities is motivated by a desire to advance political talks. the other benefits and this is an important benefit of this refreshed cessation of hostilities in these two areas is that it could create space for additional humanitarian relief. this part of syria has been subject to intense fighting for a long time now. there are communities and innocent people there that are suffering. and bringing much-needed humanitarian relief in the form of food, water, medicine could

relieve at least a little bit so much of the widespread suffering we see. >> on another topic on the peninsula, china and russia, today said they wanted the united states to back off the possible plan to put anti- missile defense system. what is your reaction to that. >> the reaction to that is that the united states commitment to south korea's security is rocksolid the republic of korea is a close ally of the united states and that means the united states is prepared to invest resources and keeping them safe. we have seen repeated provocations, particularly particularly in the last few months from north korea bowing to use their military might against our allies. we have begun, there are ready has been a significant commitment of military firepower, and my power by the united states to the defend

south korea and the assessment of our military and national security expert is that additional resources could be necessary to ensure the safety and security of the republic of korea. that's why the united states has a engaged in conversations with our south korean allies about deploying what is called a fad battery, this is an anti- ballistic missile system that would enhance our allies security. those discussions are ongoing i will point out that equipment would be oriented to a threat that is posed by north korea not oriented toward north korea or russia. that is been our contention along and those are the facts. it certainly changes in the environment within the behavior

of the north korean government that is prompting this consideration of increasing our posture in south korea. it is not a result of changes that are made by russia or china. >> can you give us any sense of timing or when you expect the talks to conclude. >> i do not have the time and at this point. obviously, these these conversations have been occurring for several weeks now. i do not have an announcement to make it about a particular decision. >> what i'm one with china -- you do expect that to be completed. >> i won't predict the outcome. obviously we would defer to the preferences of our allies in south korea about whether or not they would like to have this additional equipment located on

their territory. the assessment of our military and national security expert is that it could be a good idea for them to do that. ultimately this is a sovereign country. because they are an ally of the united states were looking for ways to help them this is one way we could offer assistance to them and enhance their security. ultimately they would make the final call. >> i would not prejudge what the outcome would be. i note that our officials thought it would be prudent will have a conversation about that. >> so if we know china is not happy about this and they expressed at once, if it does go through is that going to affect china's pressure on north korea which many feel is the only way to get north could north korea to change its behavior. >> the course it would be oriented to the threat north korea not oriented to china. >> they don't but those are the

facts. the second fact is that we all ready know that china is understandably concerned about the behavior of the north korean government. these violations of un security council resolution are destabilizing. it's not at all in china's interest to have that kind of destabilizing activity right on their doorstep. >> the point is, china using its influence on the north korean government to get them to end their provocative acts is not something they do as a favor to the united states. their focus on getting north korea to end their provocation is rooted in their own self-interest which is having all of this in provocative behavior in this conflict on

their doorstep is not in their interest. >> do you expect them to assess the relationship or do you expect it to prime china to keep on militarizing or militarizing factors. >> obviously there is a reference in the south china sea, that is an entirely, it's an entirely different part of the world literally in figure leave here. i would not predict what the chinese response would be even if this is something were eventually decided, i think what i would say is that there are, there is an opportunity for the united states and china to work together, and we have effectively to increase the pressure of the north korean government to change the behavior. we've ramped up the pressure but thus far we have not seen the change that we are both seeking.

as a result, we have felt to begin at least talking to our allies in south korea about enhancing their national security, but that is not going to in any way diminish our interest in trying to make the korean peninsula more stable and less a source of tension in the region. >> looking at the way the campaigns are playing at, as a few days ago hillary clinton's communication called bernie sanders destructive and said that he is not productive for democrats, not productive for the country. did the president feel like democrats are united right now? >> obviously were still in the midst of a primary. the democratic party has been engaged in a competitive process. that's appropriate, that's way

the party can evaluate who the strongest candidate is. the party has strong interest in choosing the strongest candidate in the general election. these are decision for voters to make and the president as a voter has cast a ballot but has not weighed in publicly about who his preference of candidate is. so at some point i think the president will make a strong case about the need for the democratic party to come together in support of the policy that he has fought hard to put in place. that that would be a fundamental question in the election. >> you said multiple times that you welcome robust debate, that it's good for the country, at the same time we for the

president say at a private event that democrats really need to come together right now. so would you disagree with words like that that it's a destructive influence not only a democrats but on the country? >> i have done my best to stay out of the middle of the debate between the two democratic candidates. i'm going to try to do that in this case. i think what the president is focused on is ensuring that when the general election does roll around and it has not yet, but when we get knee-deep in a general election, it will be important for democrats to keep in mind what their priorities are. the president has spent the better part of seven and a half years fighting for a set of priorities, and i'm confident he

will make a case in the general election about the wisdom of continuing that fight. but, the time for that part of the debate has not yet arise. >> so sanders been called the struct div and not productive for democrats, not productive for this country, you don't want away and on whether you agree or disagree with that. >> i don't. part of working on a campaign is engaging on charges and counter charges. i think a fair observation to note the difference in tone and tenor between the debate on the democratic side and the debate on the republican side. many republicans have made that observation. i'm not saying anything particularly controversial. the president does believe in the value of a robust debate in politics or politics. but i think what the president

is focused on is a general election and making sure that the people were strongly supportive of his policies over the last seven or eight years realize the six of the general election and the president will have ample opportunity to make that case. and this weekend with the white house correspondent. >> with it being the last year, is he going to do anything different or any foreshadowing of what he plans to do? he always follows routine, is he going to try to get his stamp on it? anything like that. >> i don't want to give away any surprises,. >> i would not rule out a few surprises, i think think surprises a key element in humor. the president, i would protect his ability to surprise you with some good jokes. the president does enjoy this opportunity. it is something, over the course

of eight years he has given thousands of speeches and public human form or another. the best majority of them are dealing with very serious topics. this is one unique opportunity he has every year to poke a little fun at himself, poke a a little fun at the process, maybe poke a little fun at political adversary or two. but it is also a reminder of how in one way or another we all have a role to play in our democracy. the president has important role to set the agenda but you all have an important role too. to hold those in power accountable. the president is asked respective of that role. i'm confident he will acknowledge that in the serious portion of his speech. he believes in the value of professional, independent media.

the other way we reflect the importance of political journalism in our country is to poke a little fun at the process. >> there are ample opportunities to do so this year. >> is he just going to let loose this year? >> i will let you judge based on his comments of whether not he took advantage of the opportunity to let loose. >> to misquote nixon, the president will not have donald trump to kick around anymore. he will not be in the audience. will the president regret that opportunity? >> i would preserve the element of surprise here. i do not think that duck in the room means you are going to avoid some attention in his speeches. but we will see.

>> i think in general there is a long history and a long tradition of protest and the american political system. in fact this country was started by a bunch of protesters. some who decided they were unhappy about taxes and through barrels of tea in the boston harbor. so there is a history of protest in this country. what the president believes is that we also have a system of government and there is an opportunity for voters to make their voices heard at the ballot box and there should be a dip data in a public debate and that debate is likely to filled with some emotions, these are serious

issues being discussed. so while people's surely should take advantage of the history and tradition of this country of political protest, to do so was some some respect for the system of our country and government and to ensure that protests is not a source of violence or incite violence, the protest should not be used too drowned out the ability for other people to participate but there is a strong history protest in this country and that's a good thing. >> but the watching with quite astonishment you don't think the president has a responsibility to do something,.

>> i would just say, as a general statement the president has been outspoken on a number of occasions about how our political system, our former politics in the united states was geared toward resolving conflicts. this is a big, diverse country. people. people are going to have different points of view. we resolve those differences not through violence and taking up arms against one another or questioning someone else's patriotism, or judging someone based on their religion or their color, or the are, but rather through a system of government. where every citizen has an opportunity to cast a vote. make their voices heard in the ballot box and that is how our system of government was designed. that is the way it should work. >> on trump again yesterday he was looking about his solution to fight isis on nbc news your

talking about the possibility to nuclear and it would not exclude to use the nuclear weapon against isis what's your threshold on that? >> i will let all of you conclude the wisdom of that kind of strategy. the president has been clear about what our strategy is. that is a strategy that is mindful of the need to protect the american people and that our success and the effort to degrade and ultimately destroy isil is not unrelated to how those efforts are carried out. for example, make it a priority

in this country to avoid civilian casualties. that is going to be a lot harder to do if you are using nuclear weapons are advocating the use of nuclear weapons. this country we have made clear that people are included and not discriminated against just because of their religion, what their name is or how they may have entered the country. but rather, their judge based on their contributions to the country. and there contributions to the political debate. that is not just a reflection of our value, but our commitment to our value is also an important part of advancing her interest around the world and protecting a national security.

>> you don't think there's a responsibility to quiet down his tone? >> there is a long history, put tough political debate and protest in this country. that is kind of protest and debate was present at the creation of our country. at the same time, leaders in both parties have a responsibility not to incite violence, not to promote discrimination but rather to, even in the midst of tough political debates remind us all that there is more that we having, then what divides us. that certainly has been part of partial of the president's leadership style, even before he entered the oval office.

that is a legacy, an aspect aspect of his legacy that president obama is proud of. >> when you look at that and it the dod response and all the details they point out they had been asking for international commission to look into this. they say it has so far gone unanswered. was there an action to that request or was the final word on this? >> at this point this is the final word. this is the transparent though objective account of the president asked for. >> there are other investigations the right? >> i do not remember, i'd have to check with the afghan government about that. >> so why not have an international body, a more impartial body, obviously the u.s. military has a vested interest why not have an international nonpartisan.

>> is the president has confidence that the investigation that was conducted was conducted by people who are not involved in that operation. >> these are commander. >> know it was conducted by people who are outside the chain of command who are outside and so that's why we described it as an objective investigation. it's also clear that an investigation that includes suggestions for reforms needs to be conducted by individuals have their own working expertise of how u.s. military operations are conducted. so i understand sort of the case that you are making for the benefits of an investigation that is conducted by some of that is outside the united states military, i think it's

important that you do not overlook the value of choosing someone who understands how the u.s. military works and how these kind of operations are carried out but it's also someone who can be objective because they were not involved in the operation or the chain of command with the people, they are professional investigators and they can put forward a clear rendering of what transpired, of how and what steps to accountability should be taken and what reform should be implemented to prevent it from happening again. >> they do not think that this is just as were 42 people people are dead and nobody's held criminally responsible. how do you reconcile that? >> i reconcile that by saying the united states goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.

when those casualties do occur as a result of human there that was compounded by systemic and procedural failures, the united states of america owns up to it. the united states of america conducted an independent investigation to determine what exactly happened. we see our values as transparent about those failures. they're published on a website that all of you can see right now. the individuals were involved and to bear some accountability are held accountable. that is our system. that is a system that is consistent with our values, it's also a system that follows through and implementing reforms that make something like this much less likely to ever happen again. that is what the community of aspirin that's what he got. >> they believe this focus on intent is not a valid answer to the question of responsibility. determining a crime or clearly do not agree with that.

this point that intent is not the result and intent is not a way to essentially explain away the responsibility. >> i i think the passion is evident in articles that are going to be made it is entirely understandable. this is a tragedy. this is an organization that does heroic work around the world. in this case some of the individuals they employ, really support were killed the ball they were trying to ten to the wounds of people, into some some people were injured in this conflict. so i think their responses entirely human, one that is entirely understandable and reasonable, but what is also true is that the investigation that was conducted by the department of defense that is consistent with the orders they received from the orders and

she. the american people can decide themselves whether this investigation was serious. i think if you take a look at the report that is beyond 100 pages pages there is ample detail in there, and it does discuss what transpired and what steps could be taken to prevent these errors from happening somewhere else. i think that is what the president has been focused on even in the midst of this tragedy. >> on a lighter note,. >> i was just suggesting, even people who do not show up are not necessarily guaranteed to be spared from some good-natured ribbing by the president of the united states or anybody else who speaks to nomar light. >> there's a video going around, did the royal family, guess how

did that come about is actually an international competition by men and women in uniform, there is a friendly rivalry between the united states and our allies in the united kingdom. , the president and first lady coordinated closely with the rough family to take these videos and organize the effort to show their support for our citizens who will be competing. >> there as it may be some transatlantic trash talking. the obama said bring it on or something like that and the queen's response was oh please yours something like that. >> is going to say that was quite the reenactment i encourage everybody to take a look at the video, what.

>> not frightened at all. this is an attempt to show our strong support for the american and british heroes who will be participating in the games. obviously the queen was a good sport about it so people should check out the video. obviously this is a competition to really highlight the service and sacrifice the best the united states has to offer in the best our allies in the u.k. have to offer. it should be a great set of games hosted next weekend in orlando florida. >> is he going to make fun of the queen. >> i doubt it. >> she probably does dust spare some ridicule.

>> you said the president has been briefed on the report about the hospital bombing, you mentioned yesterday he might read the entire report to know if the plates do that. >> i don't know if you will i know he was briefed on them. >> does he plan to reach out to anybody? >> you recall the president had an opportunity to speak to one of the leaders of that organization after this incident occurred. the department of defense including general has been in touch with senior official to discuss the report. at this point i'm not sure and i don't know of any plan phone calls from the phone call from officials. >> on the supreme court said they would block tax about photo

access, what's his reaction to that action on the supreme court. >> i do not see the announcement, the president has expressed his concern with the politically motivated efforts to make it harder for people to vote. as he observed that yesterday the united states is the only genuine democracy in the world that actually makes it harder for citizens to vote than it should be. there is increasing evidence to indicate that republican engage in these kind of tax six to make it harder for people to vote because they perceive a political interest in doing so. they somehow believe that if your people vote that is good for republicans. it's not really a motto to be proud of so the president obviously believes that when cities states and federal

government are considering voting laws, they should do so with an eye toward making it easier and more convenient for citizens who are registered to vote that the principal he would keep fighting for. it is hard for me to direct the spring court decision. >> does the president support the idea that some of the women and men who are involved in the accident in afghanistan should in fact lose their jobs? >> i'm not in a position to, specifically about the accountability measures that were announced by the department of defense. as the commander-in-chief as a spokesman for the commander-in-chief i need to avoid even the appearance of any potential undo command influence.

so the president was clear that an objective accounting of the facts and circumstances of this tragedy needed to be brought forward. that is what the department of defense day. commanders took a look at the evidence report and made a decision about the appropriate accountability measures to be imposed. i would refer you to the department of defense. >> just a point on the president would support their decision, should those commanders decide to relieve someone of duty? >> i cannot speak to any or in any detail about the specific accountability measures that have been imposed. or anything that could be announced at a later date. this is something that was decided by the department of defense but what i can tell you is that the report that was made

public today by the department of defense is consistent with the president's expectations about the need for a thorough, transparent, and objective accounting. >> the federal government, from my research is still the largest purchaser of weapons in the united states, says an area where the president would like to get more smart going in the hands of the federal government and make it part of his mandate to push for this technology? >> earlier today the white house did announce the moving forward on executive action or he announced early this year, this is an executive action that would essentially allow law-enforcement officials at the department of justice and the department of homeland security to begin developing guidelines and standards for smart and technology. the idea is, are there a set of standards and guidelines that can be developed that will ensure that's mark in technology

could effectively be used by law-enforcement officers. the idea is that yes, the federal government is a bold purchaser of firearms. so it does raise questions about that potential. that is not the announcement we made today. the announcement we we made today is this question about specific guidelines and standards and whether or not those can be developed and consistent with the needs of law-enforcement officials. >> how concerned is the president about the notion for some gun owners that this is yet another intrusion by the federal government to try to get regular law-abiding guns purchaser and gun owners to purchase a technology they are not interested in. and somehow mandated for the future. >> i think this is consistent with the kind of wild i conspiracy theory that we have

heard on this issue for years now. i think what is true is i cannot think of another industry off of the top of my head that is not interested in looking at new technology that can make their products safer. just about every other industry a can think of that's what people do. that is what manufacturers do, that is the source of innovation in a variety of fields. the best. the best example is in the auto industry. auto manufacturers actually market the degree to which they use new technology to make their products safer and to make cars and trucks safer. it is surprising to me that so many gun manufacturers shirk that responsibility. >> ..

>> >> but then they tried to

mitigate the death stick the government of p.r. does not have that authority. the kind of authority that the federal government can impose is the restructuring it is not a strategy that has to be designed. given the government the authority that they need to structure their debt. and they're also interested to read sure that's it is a commitment to implement what

is long overdue. >> but then where are we in the process? >> now at 191 days we have seen republicans in congress failed to act from october october 21st and that is why the case i have made to adjust to the proposal that i have outlined. that is wrong. but the more than

republicans drag their feet the more likely it is the bailout becomes the only option. believe it furthers the process. >> between now and monday? >> retreated administration officials and on capitol hill. edits the island inhabited by 3 million americans. there are risk because of the situation. to back to the way not to

the best interest of americans operate under a million better on the mainland. >>. >> i don't know how the russians responded to the concerns that were expressed by the military attache. i just don't go. and how they were over those concerns by the military attache at the u.s. embassy in moscow. >> another completes after that incident? >> i do not know about the initial concerns be you to

check with the department of defense. >> coming out when the first lady and the president have cooperated? >> but i am not aware of any cooperation on the part of the white house or the obama family perk i do know they have heard of it but done nothing has ceded. i will look into it. >> with afghanistan with this incident it makes me wonder if this is in the update. >> i don't have video on the true posture that i talk

about as recently as last year. and the strategy they he played out for what he has received did nine military leaders of the ground and afghanistan. what is to continue to fight terrorism and are trying to use the chaos in afghanistan but in addition with the afghan security forces of the capacity but those still missiles what -- missions will continue. so the change of of posture

is imminent for what they were requesting. that is broader strategic decisions better read about the news like worse posture and to be influenced see by conditions on the ground. to have higher level strategic decisions that is from the of leadership in afghanistan. and that needs to reflect the situation on the ground. at this point i am not aware of any in any form.

>> with syria of those groups but physically with those russians to the odd medical personnel and hospitals. >> i can tell you that this particular incident in syria was not the result of any action taken by united states or the coalition of partners. i know that the tactics used were consistent with the

tactics used by the us side -- a saudi regime to be concluded definitively that assad forces are directly responsible but the evidence is already available that indicates it is quite similar to the tactics of assad and other places. this administration from the president on down has repeatedly to forcefully condemn the a moral tactics of the regime and we have noticed time and time again to attack innocent citizens. that is why the obama administration believes a

political transition is necessary to address the series of consequences from the failed leadership. >> it isn't just political theater. >> what i would say is simply the observations we have made is based on available information. there is no denying the united states of america on a variety of locations starting with the level of the president on down has condemned the attacks the

assad has launched against innocent civilians they have reached a political transition there is no military force to be imposed a way to resolve the chaos in the country. >> they indicated that we would share the view to get them to participate. the fact that those talks could lead to that was a testament to to persuade the russians to influence them worship -- assad regime that

is a glimmer of progress or glimmer of hope and why they continue to push that is why you see that dogged engaged rid of secretary kerry of this effort taking calls to the of prime minister and other participants as an indication tried to capitalize on a narrow opening. because as the president observed, during his trip last week, all the options in syria are bad. there are no good options. we midas will focus on what we know to address the wide array of problems to seek political transition to bring leadership to syria

that can unite the country to be a partner and begin to govern the country once again. is a long-term goal. and that is the path we try to carve out. that is painstaking work and frustrating. but that is the path to the outcome the path that reflects to resolve a conflict in the already volatile part of the world

is. >> [inaudible] >> to willingly have forcefully condemn the immoral actions of the assad regime and they have repeatedly used military tactics to attack the sent men and women and children and to condemn their actions suggest united states has been focused to bring along. to recognize political path is the best way to resolve the violence inside of syria. >> are they open? [inaudible]

>> what we have said to one college student that was duty did north korea back you jiddah mary. our engagement a bed to continue to work through. >>. >> we don't have much to say about it but to go to great length to bring home americans with those efforts

did birth korea to the swedish protective power. >> so much that discretionary spending so with that flexibility. [inaudible] >> i am now expert when it comes to the intricacies of the federal budget process. but what i do now is that the process run by the republicans in the house and senate has say budget

agreement which is why it is totally irresponsible for republicans to suggest the process should be pursued to meet the urgent need to. if it was a public health emergency and prompted the emergency response by the cdc and other professionals across the country in a tie for congress to treat accordingly. or the republican guard. i don't know why. i don't know the explanation.

the women of both parties are affected and address. this time for congress to do something to protect them. every day that goes by that republicans and congress fail to act is another day lost to our efforts to prepare for the secrecy. the subject of intense discipline and is highly irresponsible and i don't know how republicans you are in the majority right now will explain that to their constituents over the next 10 days that are not and congress. affair planning a vacation or town hall meeting is but they would get some direct

questions asking why they haven't done anything to address the public health the emergency a isis back later this summer with their awareness of the public health crisis said republicans wonder why they didn't do something earlier. i am of the answer to that question either. >> [inaudible]

>> i expected good-natured ribbing from his friends as well. >> [inaudible] >> not that i am aware of. that would be hectic day was. >> i realized on wednesday dole trump he would not say his name. that seems to be a habit when asked that his proposals. why is that? hand as he was closer to being the of nominee. >> over the course of the last nine months from presidential candidates from both parties and i faked as

i have been pretty q. did about the fact there are opportunities i have taken but mostly i try to stay out of it. with the general election as it advances will try to fill what responsibilities i have here. with the president's policies and values. but then off to make some

strategic decisions to make the case for the president. he will be out there to make his case and will do that at the white house as he travels across the country. but yet that they can file. >> i a pitcher them with a certain color of bandana across their forehead and. >>. [laughter] >> maybe they should. >> they're trying to produce something. senator graham bechet's said it is part of the cave.

>> by the republicans wrestle recognize this is a priority. one reason is that emergency funding is typically not offset is that. the essence of the emergency is to act quickly.

but who they say exist. that could be quickly and easily be sold i would not rule that out to do to us discuss the funding and end of this self like her friend and hard to imagine this scenario and the congress needs to act urgently so we can prepare for this of urgency. a republicans in congress have failed. we will continue to make the case that they should.

does is in the your indeed close heard tuesday year-end hadn't and president obama

has taken that advice is needed the consent the s ability with members of congress with more experience in many of the nominee in history. as a whole life in public service soon demonstrated he's understood to interpret the law and an avid is but

they should do whatever their supreme court nominee has done there is the evidence to indicate that republicans put clothes and an assessment and some of some polling yesterday that the approval rating of the republican party as a whole is the lowest it has been since i was in high school. despite the fact there are

strong republican majorities in the street is that i will cry up -- follow your party from leaders to handle the people's business. it may be cases day of remember about the budget process that americans have proved even dash but yet we have seen that process under the break do in the house and the senate.

is one with the republicans. >> your ability to do the most of his but he could have chosen with the do have those political views that are far different from the republican senator.

>> [inaudible] >> if the kid is clear but they are doing their job there and then hoping to loosen but there is it good

reason for them jesus of he simply added about expecting the u.k. a every year since television was invented the supreme court justices will answer questions under oath that they are tough from the senators on the right and left that is why we're asking for the chief justice the reason the republicans to want that the new is there concern he will perform well bettis the reason they don't want to invite that possibility it will only serve to increase pressure and confirm but the

next term to help a company with those chances but then i can consider. we will try to move on. i do. we'll get this for, but to receive the empress and interfering in did deliver remarks to the members of

the committee. details about the initiatives are in the coming days but. but on thursday but nearly 1500's service members arrived wreck our friday the president will attend from howard it here in a washington d.c.. one of the top end howard is recognized for the legacy of building bridges and -- purges of opportunity and i

am looking forward. [inaudible conversations]

>> everybody needs to think of the future in a more optimistic way with the definition of work has changed in a freelance economy people are looking in the same day but the nature of the work as stage there is positive and negative but it will continue to develop so how'd you position yourself they say wayne gretzky was great because for the puck was people need to understand where it is going selachian position themselves for that future that will unfold in

the next tender 50 years -- 10 or 15 years

posted this bill and note to this includes a sexually explicit link which andrew not be appropriate for children.