resolution as a firm, united, and appropriate response by the international community, including china and russia, to north korea's recent provocation that is flagrantly violated multiple security council resolutions. we commend the work of the security council in sending a strong message to pyongyang that there are significant consequences for flagging its international operations, and today the international community speaking with one voice has sent them a message. north korea has abandon these drug programs and choose a better path for its people. with that, kevin? >> does the u.s. expect north korea seek to retaliate for the sanctions approved today? can you talk about any precautions being taken in anticipation of such actions?

can you talk a bit about who would be conducting the inspections of cargo going in and out? josh: for the way that these sanctions are implemented, i think i would refer you back to the u.n. obviously it's the international community that would impose these sanctions and redouble our efforts to make sure that the cargo inspections are carried out. so they may be able to provide additional detail about how this is implemented. as it relates to our expectations of the north koreans and what potential reaction they may have, there's not a lot of clarity about that. obviously these actions on the part of the international ommunity are a response to provocative action that is north korea has already taken in the last couple of onths. and we obviously have already taken a number of steps to ensure that our allies in the region and the american people here at home are protected from north korea's potential apabilities.

we have talked at some length about the -- how over the last several years the obama administration and president obama has directed an increase in assets in the asia pacific to include anti-ballistic missile technology and systems that could protect the united states from any sort of north korean missiles. there are a number of steps that we have taken to enhance the capabilities of our allies in japan and our allies in south korea to protect themselves as well. and we'll certainly be mindful of any additional steps that may be needed to ensure greater protection for the united states and our allies. eporter: i know you talked about this before, but it's been approved today.

why are these sanctions -- why will they be anymore successful han past efforts to curb north korea's nuclear missile program? josh: because these sanctions go far beyond the sanctions that have previously been imposed on the north koreans. there are several different ways to evaluate that. for the first time this resolution would require inspection of all cargo going into and out of north korea. for the first time this would prohibit the sale of small arms or other conventional weapons o the north korean regime. it also would impose broad sartorial sanctions on those aspects of the north korean economy that are functioning. this is significant because we know that these industries, things like coal, iron, gold, titanium, and rare earth minerals are industries in which revenue is both dedicated to enhance the lifestyle of the north korean elite, but also in some cases used to advance north korean's nuclear and issile programs. we are taking action that would have a direct impact on their

capacity to continue to carry out these provocative actions. that's why it's different than what has happened before. we'll have to see if this i creased pressure and increased isolation is sufficient to prompt change in strategy on the part of the north korean regime. reporter: last night's elections, i wanted to ask how you interpret the results on the republican side? and on the turnout, seemed like the republican turnout in these super tuesday states increased while democratic turnout in any of the states was down. is the turn out a sign that donald trump is making the republican party bigger? josh: well, i'll say a couple things about the turn out last. about the turn out first. the fact is there were not actually too many battleground states that convened primaries or caucuses last night.

there were only two depending on your definition, minnesota and virginia. virginia being the most important one because of the its size and given the way that it was so aggressively ontested in the last two residential elections. i think certainly president obama's political strategist would tell you that his success in virginia both in 2008 and 2012 was an important part of his political strategy. so there's no down playing the political significance of virginia. when you look at the results you see that the winner of the emocratic primary drew far more votes than the winner in the republican primary. these are open primaries. you can go and vote in either the democratic or republican primary based on which candidate you intend to support. it is clear that the winner of the democratic primary is the candidate in virginia that has

the most support in virginia. that is an indication of the level of excitement on the democratic side. when you look at minnesota, you see a similar dynamic. but in some ways it's even more pronounced. both democratic candidates in minnesota, individually, got more votes than any republican candidate in the minnesota caucuses. so i think this is an indication that there is ample enthusiasm on the democratic ide. particularly in the places where it matters most in a general election. what is also true is that, again, based on the reporting from all of you, that at least some of the strong turnout in the republican party was actually due to it hostility to the current republican frontrunner.

and that would also be a troubling dynamic for republicans in a general election if that were to occur in a general election, too. more broadly, as it relates to the outcome, this is something we talked about the last couple ays anticipating this outcome, and what we have seen on the part of the republican leaders in washington, d.c., for the last six or eight years, has been a reflexive opposition to president obama and a consistent refusal to embrace the responsibility to govern. i think the best example of that are the roiling political debates we have had in washington, d.c., over health care reform. republicans have proudly talked about the fact that they voted 50 or 60 times now to repeal obamacare but never once has there been a republican

lternate to obamacare that's been put forward for a vote. not one. there's a similar story to tell bout immigration reform. we hear all the candidates on the campaign trail and here in washington, d.c., rail about the broken immigration system in the united states. this administration worked losely with some republicans to try to cobble together a bipartisan compromise, but that bipartisan compromise was blocked in the house of representatives from even coming up for a vote. and there was never a republican alternative put forward that had any chance of passing either house, let alone be signed into law by the

president of the united states. the same is true when you consider gun safety legislation. there's strong support all across the country among democrats and republicans for commonsense steps that would reduce gun violence. there is no reason it has to be a partisan thing. there are a number of democrats that have put forward specific proposals for reducing gun violence. yet it is republicans that have time and time again blocked those democratic proposals without putting forward anything of their own. so this goes back to what we were talking about earlier. when you have party leaders in washington, d.c., that don't stand for something, their supporters are likely to fall for anything. it's apparent that's what happened. reporter: i want to ask, i know that moving on to syria, i know that you -- that the white house has said that it's going

to take time to see whether the essation of hostilities is actually going to be -- to be successful. now that a few days have passed, i wanted to see does the white house have any sense r assessment of where things stand now on the cessation of hostilities? is meeting expectations? are there concerns? where are things at now? josh: i asked for an updated assessment today. i have some information i can share with you here. in recent days we have seen an overall reduction in air strikes against syrian opposition and civilians. that is a reduction when compared to the number of air strikes that were conducted against syrian opposition and civilian targets prior to the implementation of cessation of hostilities. that obviously is an encouraging sign. however, we are concerned about reports that the syrian regime has engaged in tank and artillery attacks against civilians near places like holmes and hamas and around amascus.

and obviously those kinds of attacks, if confirmed, would be a flagrant violation of the cessation of hostilities. now, we are going to monitor these reports of violations. we take them quite seriously. and we are going to continue to strongly urge all parties to exercise restraint and abide by the commitments that was included -- that were included in the cessation of hostilities. we are also encouraging all of our partners in the issg to use their influence with parties on he ground to not engage in actions that put the cessation of hostility at risk.

so there's a lot of diplomatic work that goes into this. and as we acknowledged prior to the implementation of the cessation of hostilities, we anticipated all along we would encounter some resistance. we would hit some potholes. but there at least are some tentative indications of a slightly improved situation inside of syria. there's more that needs to be done and we are going to follow up on every report of a violation. we take violations, particularly as it relates to tank and artillery attacks against civilians, quite seriously. but our goal here, remember, is the cessation of hostilities can hopefully allow for a more sustained flow of humanitarian assistance to those communities that are in dire need. and also try to provide an additional boost to the fledgling effort to reach some sort of. and also try to provide an

additional boost to the fledgling effort to reach some sort of broader political agreement inside of syria that results in a political transition inside of syria. and so those -- that diplomatic political work continues. but that's the update that i've received about how the implementation of the cessation of hostilities is going. reporter: is that humanitarian relief getting through? i know some opposition groups have raised concerns about that. when they talked about continuing on with the peace talks, part of what they want is that humanitarian aid. so is that humanitarian relief getting through at this point? mr. earnest: it's starting to. there's a lot more that we believe needs to be done to speed the flow of humanitarian aid and allow for the provision of that assistance to be to become more routine. -- to become more routine. we have seen reports that the pace of that aid being provided as stepped up. that obviously is a welcome development. there are a lot of people inside of syria who are innocently caught in the crossfire who are in pretty desperate need of basic medical

supplies, food, water and other basic materials that humans need to survive. so we would like to see the pace of those humanitarian hipments increased and hopefully that will happen as the cessation of hostilities continues to be implemented. reporter: harry reid today said that a nominee's expected within a week or so. i know that you've been reticent to talk about timing and things like that, but just given a shot, i mean, should we expect a nominee within the next week or can you rule that out? if that's the case, if it's moving that fast, are there interviews going on right now with candidates? mr. earnest: unfortunately i think we are short of reaching the height of the most frustrating part of this

process, for those of you who are trying to cover it. which is that i don't have an updated assessment for you in term of timing. i don't have initially details to share -- initial details to share about our ongoing efforts here to make a decision about who the best person would be to serve on the supreme court. we won't be able to provide much of an indication about whether or not individual interviews have started. the one piece of process that i can share with you today is i understand that our team has now been in touch with the office of every member of the united states senate. about this particular nomination. obviously many of those calls were not placed by the president himself. but by senior member of his team and it does underscore, it's another way to illustrate the seriousness of purpose on

ur part when it comes to consulting with congress in advance of making a supreme court nomination. ok? michelle. reporter: on the same subject, yesterday after the meeting here at the white house, we heard mcconnell very clearly and publicably state this vacancy will not be filled this year. does that change the optimism you expressed yesterday at all? that they still could take this up? mr. earnest: no. it doesn't change. i indicated yesterday that out of the -- during the meeting, no one represented a potential change of opinion here. and the view that leader mcconnell articulated after the meeting is that same view that he's been articulating since just a couple of hours after justice scalia's death was announced. reporter: you really think after he said that so definitively that there's some chance that he would change

that? mr. earnest: i'll just say that leader mcconnell has a way of expressing himself rather definitively. in fact, he did that back in 2008 when he said, even with lame duck presidents, there is an historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees. so, he seemed pretty definitive hen too. what's most important here is the clarity of the constitution. that says the president shall appoint someone to fill a vacancy in the supreme court, nd the senate shall do its duty to offer advice and conen -- and consent. that means giving that individual a fair hearing and a timely yes or no vote. that's not a controversial notion, that is not the subject to any sort of legal interpretation. that's everybody's interpretation of what the senate is supposed to o.

and the question really is whether or not senate republicans are willing to put that constitutional duty ahead of their own political considerations. reporter: yesterday we heard some interesting words from the vice president. he jokingly thanked donald trump and he said, the stuff that he's doing, cruz and the others, making the american people look in the mirror, he talked about the divisiveness maybe being a good thing for the american people and saying, maybe it's a good thing to awaken the american people. that's quite a bit different from what we've heard the president say on the rhetoric that's been out there. as well as what you said. you guys have said that it's bad for america's standing in the world and the divisiveness is just making partisanship worse. so, i mean, do you disagree with what he said there? mr. earnest: i think what the vice president is just making an observation about democrats' electoral prospects in the general election. think his analysis

actually dovetails with the analysis of others in d.c. who are also concerned about the impact that mr. trump's candidacy would have on republicans up and down the ballot. reporter: so the divisiveness and the rhetoric that you've really slammed in the past, do you now think that that's a good thing? or do you think that -- he said that it's a good thing for america, to awaken the american people. but you guys have said that it's a bad thing for america and hurts our standing in the world. which is it? mr. earnest: i think what the vice president was offering up is his own analysis about democratics' prospects in the general election. a lot of republicans that you talk to around this town at least seem to be offering up an assessment that's quite similar to what the vice president has said. which is that most republicans who are going to be on the ballot, if they share that ballot with mr. trump, probably will not see their electoral prospects enhanced by the presence of mr. trump.

but this is academic at this point. republicans need to do more work to choose their nominee. and the difficult to predict in advance exactly how a general election's going to shape up before a republican nominee has been chosen and before a democratic nominee has been chosen. all that's premature. but i think what we continue to be confident about and the vice president will have an important role in this, is that we'll be able to make a strong case about how democrats and the democratic candidate for president is one that is trongly supported by the big tent of the democratic party and is committed to building on the important progress that our country has made over the last seven years. reporter: so do you disagree or agree that the divisiveness could be a good thing for the american people? mr. earnest: my view is that when it comes to our -- when it omes to democratic electoral

prospects, that, as many republicans have said, mr. trump's presence at the top of the ticket may not end up being particularly helpful to them. what there's no question about and republican leaders agree with this too, is that the divisive rhetoric that we've heard from mr. trump is directly contrary to the values that this country has long defended. and we'll have -- you know, here will continue to be a debate on the republican side to choose their nominee. but if this is a debate that we have in the general election, i would feel bullish about the strength of the democratic argument. reporter: do you think that that divisiveness and that same rhetoric that you decried in the past is actually helping democrats? mr. earnest: i think we'll have to see. it's too early to tell. reporter: lastly, the north korea sanctions, do you have any real expectation that that will change north korea's ehavior?

mr. earnest: i think time will tell. they were just passed by the security council just a couple of hours ago. the international community is quite serious about implementing these sanctions. these will -- these sanctions and these restrictions will be more robust and rigorous than sanctions that have believe by been imposed on the north korean regime. we will anticipate they will have an impact on the ability of the north korean elite to enjoy the exalted lifestyle that they currently enjoy. we also anticipate that it will have an impact on industries that we know are used to fund their nuclear and ballistic missile programs. this required a significant commitment on the part of the chinese and the russians and we certainly welcome the way that they are working closely with the rest of the international

community, including the united states and our allies, to implement these sanctions. that sends an important message, just as a symbolic atter. but once these sanctions and restrictions are imposed, it will have an impact on north korea. but it is an open question about whether or not that impact will prompt the kind of change that we'd like to see in north korea. reporter: you've been very strong about donald trump in the pastest. talked about his divisive rhetoric. can you speak to the fact now that donald trump is not denouncing david duke, someone who is a former grand dragon of the k.k.k., as well as a former neo-nazi, before he was a member of the k.k.k. a grand dragon of the k.k.k. mr. earnest: i know mr. trump as indicated there's more that

he needs to learn about mr. duke before he can offer an opinion about their endorsement. but i do think that this reveals all we need to know about mr. trump. reporter: what's that? mr. earnest: again, i think voters will come to their own conclusions. i think the bigger concern frankly is that you have members of the republican party who are trying to have it both ways. they're suggesting that they are condemning the decision of the republican frontrunner to accept political support from this divisive, offensive figure n the country. but yet they're still vowing to support that person if they become the general election candidate of the republican party. not really sure how you square those two things. they'll have plenty of time to figure that out i guess over the course of the next eight months or so. as this is publicly litigated. reporter: one more thing. someone who deals with the press, friendly adversarial relationship, we have a very close relationship, donald trump has now -- he has a

member of the -- his press corps who is a white supremacist. what do you think about that and the possibilities of that possibly coming here? mr. earnest: i have not seen those reports. as you know, when it comes to our policies for people who sit in this room and participate in this briefing, there's no sort of ideological screen that we put in place. i think there are people who represent a variety of points of view. in this room. including people that the vast majority of whom represent a point of view that's focused on just getting the facts traight. and sharing those facts with their readers and viewers and listeners. but we regularly protect the ability of professional independent journalists to do their job.

and the independent press corps, the white house press corps, the professionals who work here day in and day out have an important responsibility and they're critical to the functioning of our democracy. hopefully whoever the next president is will continue a tradition that has had a tendency to transcend political parties. reporter: i have some questions bout baseball. [inaudible][laughter] "the new york times" reported that major league baseball has committed a proposal to allow major league baseball teams to directly hire cuban players and hey said the white house has been talking behind the scenes with league officials about how to navigate that regulatory environment. so i'm wondering if you can elaborate on the behind-the-scenes talks, who's

involved, and can we expect a ruling from the administration on this before the president attends the game in havana later this month? mr. earnest: there's a division of the treasury department that's called the office of foreign assets croil. and they have the responsibility for -- control. and they have the responsibility for regulating the restrictions that are currently in place, that are currently in place, that apply to commerce between the united states and cuba. since the president announced the change in policy a little over a year ago, there are a number of those regulations that have been changed and altered in a way to begin to normalize relations between our two countries. and it is not at all uncommon for the administration to offer advice to u.s. businesses that are seeking to ensure that their actions are firmly in compliance with those regulations. so, the kind of conversations

that you're alluding to are not unusual and wholly appropriate. is that an answer to your question? there were several parts to your question. reporter: the second part is, do you expect some kind of announcement on a new policy toward cuban players by the time the president attends the game? mr. earnest: not that i'm aware of but you should check with the treasury department. again, they can provide you additional information about the regulations that would apply in this situation. reporter: one more, congressional republicans i guess saw this announcement and they were a bit irked because they said the white house is making a big deal about going to this game but they haven't announced any kind of solid meeting -- [inaudible] -- do you have a response to that? are you going to announce some kind of set meeting -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: i think when we first announced the president

was going to travel to cuba, the president's deputy national security advisor stood at this podium, he didn't say anything about a baseball game but he talked about the fact that the resident will certainly meet with dissidents in cuba. part of that is because one of the priorities of our policy is to apply the best interests of the cuban people and get the cuban government in a position where they are better protecting the basic universal human rights of all cuban people, including people who might be critical of the government. that is an important part of our policy and that's part of our priority here, is to empower the cuban people who want to protest and want to offer their dissent in public, to have the freedom to do o.

and we believe that we will -- we are more likely to achieve that aim by deepening and increasing our engagement between the american people who enjoy those freedoms and the cuban people who in many ways o not at this point. that will certainly be an important part of the trip. something that we discussed in the very first day. -- on the very first day. the truth is i think the president, it's fair to say, for different reasons, is looking forward to both meeting with political dissidents in cuba and attending a game between the tampa bay rays and the cuban national baseball team. eporter: i want to follow up on the question about the turnout in virginia, how the democratic leader, hillary linton, she had more votes for her than the winner in the republican primary, donald trump. but the overall turnout for each party, republicans had over a million voters turn out. democrats had about 775,000 voters turn out. does the white house or the president or you, do you doubt the ultimate republican

nominee's ability to unite the party and bring together the full amount of primary voters around their general election candidate? mr. earnest: we'll see. i know there are some republicans who doubt that the current republican frontrunner has that ability. but they would certain lino better than i do. when it comes to the raw turnout numbers, the not surprising to me that there were more republicans who showed up at the polls because there are more republicans in the states that had elections ast night. we're talking about oklahoma, texas, georgia, alabama, tennessee, these are all states with sizable republican voting populations. the democratic states involved were quite a bit smaller. vermont, for example. it's not surprising know that the overall numbers are tilted in favor of republicans. that's why i singled out states like virginia and minnesota. where the democratic candidates, in the case of minnesota, both democratic candidates got more support than any of the republicans that were on the ballot.

and in virginia, you saw that the leading vote getter of any of the candidates that were on the ballot was a democrat. and that's significant because anybody who shows up at the polls can choose either a democratic or a republican ballot to vote for the candidate of their choice. i think that's a pretty clear sign that the candidate with the most support in virginia right now is the democratic frontrunner. given the important role that virginia has played in the last two general elections, i would anticipate that virginia will play an important role in this general election. and that seems to bode well for the democrats right now. reporter: you also mentioned that you didn't think that donald trump would necessarily be helpful, may not be helpful to the top of the ticket. does the white house believe that the house -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: there certainly are lots of people who will weigh in on both sides of this argument. i'm confident that there are democratic strategists who

believe that the house would not be in play if mr. trump were not at the top of the ticket. you'll have to ask them if they think that it's there play because he's at the top of the ticket. i can assure that you democrats right now are mounting a serious effort to retake the majority in the house because they believe that that's possible. they certainly are doing the important work on the front end to make that happen, regardless of who the republican candidate for president is. reporter: one quick follow-up on your opening statement. you mentioned about the -- [inaudible] -- that it doesn't target the people of north korea directly. is there anything that the international community is doing that would help compensate for any adverse effects that would be directed unintentionally -- [inaudible] r. earnest: to the north korean people? look, the truth is, there is a significant population of north korean citizens who are suffering right now. and they're suffering because of the policy decisions made by the leadership of that country. he leaders of that country

have chosen to prioritize that country's nuclear and ballistic missile programs over meeting the base needs of its citizens - basic needs of its citizens. that's grossly immoral. but it's a decision that that country's leadership has made. that's why putting in place sanctions that would have an impact on their nuclear and missile programs and have an impact on the lifestyle of the ruling elite in north korea does put pressure on the regime that they haven't seen before. we're just a couple of hours after the united nations has passed this resolution. but as it goes into effect, it will have an impact on north korea's programs, their ballistic missile and nuclear programs, it will have an impact on the ruling elite. we'll see if it ends up having an impact on their ultimate strategic choices. reporter: it seemed like your opening statement was specifically talking about the unintended consequences of the

citizens that are innocent in this, right? so it there anything that was addressed -- so was there anything that was addressed when the resolution was drafted or is there anything the administration is considering now that would help compensate any sort of adverse affect directly on the people? mr. earnest: i'm not sure that anything like that is possible. you have an authoritarian regime in north korea that essentially is taking all the money that's flowing into their country, that they can get heir hands on, and devoting it to their lifestyle, their country's nuclear program and their country's missile program. and they do that in a way that has a negative impact on their eople. in fact, it has an impact on the ability of north koreans -- north korea's population to feed themselves. and to provide for some of their basic necessities. that's an appallingly immoral choice.

and one that the international community does not condone. but one of the challenges here is you have a country that's so isolated, an authoritarian government, that it's hard to allow money into the country that they aren't able to get their hands on. that's why what we're trying to do here is to focus our efforts on those revenue sthreems -- streams that we know benefit those areas that we're concerned about. which is specifically their nuclear program and their missile program. ultimately, in order for the needs of the north korean people, of the north korean people to be met, we need to ee a north korean government that's making different decisions. and actually making decisions that are in the best interests of the day to day lives of the neern poo -- north korean people. thus far they haven't been illing to do that.

reporter: you keep saying these sanctions on north korea are going to hit the north korean elite. do you believe that they will be felt by kim jong un himself? mr. earnest: i'm certainly no expert when it comes to understanding the north korean economy. i think the -- what we do know is that the north korean elite in general does benefit disproportionately from some of the revenue that's generated by their gold and their iron and their titanum exports -- exports. by targeting that we hope to have an impact on their ability to fund their destabilizing activities and on their ability to fund the ex traffic gantt lifestyle that they enjoy at the -- extravagant lifestyle that they enjoy on behalf of the north korean people. roimp you don't see these as -- reporter: you don't see these as targeting the leader himself? mr. earnest: there are not sanctions that target him personally. but the north korean people ave suffered enough.

and the way that these sanctions and restrictions are designed, it's to have an impact on those revenue streams that benefit the ruling elite and that benefit their destabilizing activities. reporter: it took quite a while in negotiating with the chinese. do you see -- does the white house see this as a breakthrough with china? a new direction for their client? to be tougher on them? mr. earnest: it certainly does eflect a greater commitment on the part of the international community to taking steps against north korea that we've never taken before. china voted for them. china worked with the united states in a series of intensive, high-level, diplomatic discussions, to reach an agreement and commit to implementing these sanctions. i do think that it represents n increased capacity for the united states and china to coordinate our efforts when it comes to north korea. but it's not just the united states and china that trake action here. -- that are taking action here. this is something that russia voted for and this is all

taking place with the full support of our closest allies in the region, including south korea and japan. reporter: you talked in the past about really needing china on board with this. while this does hit the north orean elite, it doesn't seem to says that freezing accounts in china and elsewhere. s there an assumption that china'ses a taking lateral action like the u.s. did today and adding sanctions? mr. earnest: there are steps that the u.s. government did announce today that are complimentary to this u.n. action and separate from the congressional legislation that was passed last month on this matter. so, what you do see is you see the united states ramping up our activities too. but as it relates to china, we've long acknowledged that china has a unique influence and a unique relationship with north korea. they have a more active relationship with the north

korean regime than any other country in the world. we know that the north korean economy depends more on china than any other country in the world. so they do have unique leverage. but we also know that china is quite concerned about north korea's nuclear activities. we know they're concerned about their ballistic missile activities. and we're pleased to see china using their influence and demonstrating a willingness to coordinate their efforts with the rest of the international community. reporter: -- is hailing this as the top sanctions in 20 years, it still allows the regime a life line. otherwise the russians and chinese wouldn't have signed up for it. the russians said they didn't want the economy to collapse. this goes farther than before, but still allows the regime to survive. would you acknowledge that? mr. earnest: again, for -- i think only time will tell exactly what the impact is of the sanctions. but there's no denying that these sanctions go farther than

we have before. and there's no denying that these sanctions will have a tangible impact on the north korean ruling releet, on north korea's missile program, and on north korea's nuclear program, all of which are in violation of u.n. security council resolutions. reporter: quickly on scotus. you said we're not at the most frustrating part of covering his. that's your feeling. do i take that as understanding the next time we hear an update from you, it will be that you've sent a nominee to the ill? mr. earnest: i don't want to get your hopes up. reporter: we're not going to have a photo of the president carrying a binder like we had before? we're not going to have a photo of a bunch of senate leaders coming to the white house again? that's it? mr. earnest: i wouldn't rule those things out. reporter: nothing scheduled. mr. earnest: i just don't want to get your hopes up that the next thing you'll hear us

talking about when it comes to the supreme court is the president announcing a decision about a nominee. his work continues and we'll do our best to keep you updated. reporter: i saw some reports that president obama endorsed ted strickland in the ohio senate race, is that right? mr. earnest: thathes true -- that is true. the president also announced an endorsement of congressman patrick murphy in florida as well. reporter: if i'm not wrong, strickland voted against the bill that included the federal assault weapons ban. he said in 2004 he was against the assault weapons ban. he opposed the city of columbus' assault weapons ban. he was endorsed by the r.n.a. for re-election in 2010. did the president say he would not support candidates who do not support commonsense gun ontrol measures? is this the kind of record of candidates that the president will support going forward? mr. earnest: as we've discussed before, the -- what we're focused on are candidates who will support and will promise to support commonsense gun safety legislation.

you have to talk to mr. strickland about the policies that he would support as a member of the united states senate. obviously an individual's ecord matters. but when it came to that particular promise, it related to or gave candidates the capacity to change their mind. after all, that's what we need to see. we need to see more people in the united states senate, in the united states congress, change their mind. and embrace commonsense gun control, gun safety legislation, that could prevent at least some incidence of gun violence without undermining the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. but for mr. strickland's urrent position on these issues, he -- you should check with him or his campaign. reporter: it's fair to say you think going forward he would be a good candidate on these

issues and one the president can support? mr. earnest: i think the president's endorsement is pretty strong. for mr. strictland's position on those issues, you should heck with him or his campaign. reporter: there was a report this morning about an isis ignificant operative and key operative being detained, captured in iraq somewhere. in as much as targeting the leadership is a significant aspect of the u.s. strategy there, what's going to happen to those individuals? where this will they be taken? where will they be held? what's the judicial process they will face if they're alive presumably? mr. earnest: there's not a whole lot about that i can say. i can tell you in general that the president directed the department of defense to stand up an expeditionary task force because we have seen this tactic yield some important results.

there have been at least one raid that has been publicly iscussed, that was carried out by u.s. special operators against a high-ranking isil official. this was last year. and that raid resulted in the death of that high ranking official. but it did allow u.s. special operators to obtain significant quantities of valuable ntelligence information. and the department of defense, recognizing and following the president's instructions to intensify our efforts that are yielding some progress, decided to create these expeditionary task forces to operate inside of iraq and to carry out raids on relatively short notice against leading isil figures. at this point, i can't discuss the details of any missions, particularly when it comes to risking operational security.

but i can tell you that one of the goals of this expeditionary task force is to capture isil leaders, but these operations will be carried out in coordination and in partnership with the government of raq. any detention of isil leaders in iraq would be short term and coordinated with iraqi authorities. and one of the things that you know about the one raid that's been carried out, that's been reported publicly, is that the individual who was detained in that raid was an individual who was subbletted to an interrogation -- subjected to an interrogation request where important intelligence information was obtained and that person was then -- has been turned over to kurdish authorities and is currently in the kurdish criminal justice system. reporter: so you can't say if or how many other isil figures ave been detained. mr. earnest: unfortunately i annot.

reporter: you can't say or can you say what the -- you said short term they'll be held. where long term are they going to be held? mr. earnest: i can rule out a ouple of things. these individuals would not be transferred to the prison at guantanamo bay. there's been no one that's been transferred to that prison during president obama's seven years in office. our goal is to close that prison. adding to that population would be contradictory to that oal. i think what the department of defense will tell you is that they'll have to make their own determinations about the best way to handle these individual cases, when it came to the case of the woman -- the wife of the isil leader who was detained in

that raid, she was turned over to kurdish officials and she'll be brought to justice in the kurdish system. reporter: none of these individuals will ever come to the united states? mr. earnest: you'll have to check with the department of defense about how they would resolve this? reporter: in the case of the woman, there's a d.o.j. warrant for her arrest, based on providing material support to terrorists, something, whatever that is. so why would someone like that not be brought to the united states to answer to a warrant issued by the department of justice? mr. earnest: you'd have to talk to the department of justice about that. their specific warrant that they filed related to alleged crimes, related to the woman's involvement in taking an american citizen hostage, and so those are very serious crimes and how the department f justice wants to pursue that is something that they will decide and you should ask them

for their latest update. but right now she's in the custody of kurdish law enforcement officials and she's being brought to justice in heir system. reporter: you kind of and he my next question. because that case involves an american citizen, why is there not a case to be made that that person should be prosecuted in courts of the united states, so that there's justice done here? mr. earnest: i think for how the department of justice will proceed, you should check with them. obviously they have made filings in an american court. so i think that the possibility that you have raised is probably not one that they would rule out. that also's going to involve a onversation with law enforcement authorities who are currently holding her. reporter: just to be clear about this then. the administration policy, i know we can talk to each

individual department, but the administration, is there a clear policy that says no isil figures will be brought to the united states or is there a policy that says clearly some under certain circumstances, some of these individuals detained on the battlefield could end up in the united tates? mr. earnest: let me try to be as helpful as i can here, given the constraints that i'm operating under here. what is true is there have been situations where individuals have been picked up on the battlefield around the world, these are terrorists who were actively plotting against the united states or our interests. those individuals in some cases have been brought to the united states, they have gone through article three courts, they have been charged, they have been convicted and they currently are serving time on american soil. in american prisons. so, if something like what

you're describing were to happen, it would not at all be unprecedented. in fact, our system has demonstrated its capacity to andle these kinds of challenges. i think the thing that i will go back to, though, is that our principle goal when it comes to the expeditionary task force is obtaining information that can be valuable in our campaign to the great and -- degrade and ultimately destroy isil. we made clear that when the ife of the isil leader was detained, that she was interrogated for intelligence purposes prior to being put into the kurdish criminal justice system. that sort of process is one that is in place any time u.s. fficials detain an accused terrorist. that there is a process for sending professional nterrogators in to interrogate

that individual, to obtain as much information and intelligence as possible, if necessary, to obtain information about potential plots or potential threats, so that those threats can be mitigated or even eliminated. then, where appropriate, those individuals can then be turned over to law enforcement officials who can conduct an investigation and obtain information that could be used in a civilian court of law. this is a proprocess that was created and implemented under president obama's leadership. and it is one that has resulted in important terrorism convictions against individuals who sought to do harm to the united states or our interests. reporter: the white house has now talked to every office of every united states senator. in the past, i think we had a couple of names, kirk, maybe others, who have indicated a willingness to let this process go forward with a nominee. now you've talked to all these

-- every senator, is it -- do you think or can you give us any other names of individuals who, on the republican side, who you think are willing to break with the leadership and let this process go forward? mr. earnest: obviously there are a lot of democrats who believe that this process should go forward. i think all of them do. when it comes to republicans, i'll allow them to announce their own views. we have seen, as you point out, statements from senator kirk and senator collins, from maine, i don't believe that senator ayotte has indicated a desire to put her constitutional duty first. this is something that she'll have to decide for herself. and something i'm sure she's considering. we're going to be making a case to senator ayotte and others about the priority they should place on their constitutional uties.

i think most of their constituents believe that their constitutional duties should come ahead of any more narrow political considerations they may have. reporter: do you know judge jane kelly? have you ever heard of her or met her? mr. earnest: i've read some public reports about her but i've not met her in person. reporter: you have seen her here by chance? [laughter] mr. earnest: that's clever. reporter: yeah? mr. earnest: nothing on that. reporter: can you say with any certainty that anyone who might be -- [inaudible] -- we're going to run through this every day. you have seen anyone that you can think of who might be a candidate for the supreme court, a potential nominee? nside this building? mr. earnest: even if i had, i don't think i would say so from here. reporter: does that mean, yes, you have? mr. earnest: it means if i have, i wouldn't say to from here. reporter: fair enough. on gtmo, do you have any nnouncements to make about potential detainee transfers? we've talked about that a few times. i know the process is moving forward on a few. might you have any announcements today or in the coming days? mr. earnest: i don't anticipate

any announcements today. i'll have to check and see if there are any that are in the pipeline. we probably wouldn't announce them in advance, just because of the diplomatic work we have to do with other countries. we need to coordinate our announcements with other countries who are agreeing to take in these detainees under the security precautions that the secretary of defense has certified are necessary. i don't have any additional transfers to tell but right now. reporter: to the best of your knowledge, at least today, is there any effort to plan, discussion, or initiative under way that you're aware of to alter the status of the naval station at guantanamo? including not making payments, transferring it over to a care taker, body or abandoning it altogether? mr. earnest: no. i'm not aware of any plans like that. for the way that the military base at guantanamo bay is maintained, i'd refer you to the department of defense.

reporter: lastly, let me take another run at that very quickly. should we expect any announcements about the military base at guantanamo bay during the president's visit to cuba? mr. earnest: i know that the president's not planning to visit the military facility on this trip. i guess not. reporter: [inaudible] -- wondering if you could tell us whether the president asked him o go and for what purpose? mr. earnest: obviously we did recently announce that the vice president is traveling to the middle east. i believe he's going to stop at the u.a.e. and jordan, in addition to israel on this trip. and he'll obviously have an opportunity to meet with leaders in each of those countries. at this point i don't have a

detailed preview of his trip to share with you. obviously when it comes to our efforts to coordinate our international counter-isil coalition, countries like jordan and the u.a.e. have played important roles in that. and i'm confident that will be a subject of discussion. certainly was a subject of discussion when the king was here in washington, i believe that was just last week. and so i'm sure that discussion will continue when the vice president travels to jordan. but we'll get you a little bit more on his trip as it gets closer to his departure. reporter: [inaudible] -- the vice president is going to find out what's possible in terms of reducing tension -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: again, i think it's difficult for any u.s. leader to travel to israel and to meet with both israeli and palestinian leaders and not have that issue come up. i'm confident that it comes up every time.

but to the extent that -- to the precise nature of those discussions, i'd refer you to the vice president's office for now. but i'll see if i can get you some additional information before he departs to help you understand what the goal of his trip exactly is. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> coming up tomorrow morning, new york republican congressman chris gibson and minnesota democratic congressman tim walz discuss their opposition to the obama administration's drawdown of u.s. land forces to its lowest level since world war ii. and then the chair of the election assistance commission, thomas hicks, will talk about voting integrity in the upcoming election. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning. [applause] every election cycle we are reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. >>