the lives of our young people and that unsecured border is a big part of the reason when it's so easy that you can hop the fence. my 5-year-old daughter could have climbed over or under that fence in five

i am sure the community appreciates donald trump's advice on how to practice their faith. i somehow suspect that advice is not grounded. i tell you. i am encouraged.

reason donald trump engages in insults is because he cannot defend substance. by the way, we saw the illustration when donald trump fled the utah debate coming up on monday. >> having some technical problems there with the feed coming from arizona. again, holdingz, a press conference in douglas, arizona, right on the mexico border. post" isashington reporting a number of rabbis are planning to boycott donald trump's speech next monday before the pro-israel group. rosalindn the phone is held a minute. thank you for being with us. >> who are the rabbis, and what

is their message? helderman: it is a group of rabbis from the conservative form of judaism, whose members tend to be more liberal lyrically than other parts of judaism, and basically what i was told is this was a movement that grew out of a lot of angst across the political spectrum about the best way to respond to donald trump. there are some conversations about people jeering or turning their backs to him. the rabbis wanted to make it clear they did not object to the invitation to mr. trop to speak at aipac. they did not want to treat him rudely and contribute to a toxic atmosphere around him, but they would send a message by not going -- simply not appearing at the event. their concerns, certainly rest on what he has said on israel

issues, what he has said he would be neutral between the israelis and palestinians, but even more than that, his rhetoric on immigrants, a religiousimposing test for immigration, what he said about women -- some of the issues they feel like are not welcoming and inclusive, which are strong and important values for them. >> it is important to note his appearance at aipac meant he would not be in salt lake city. fox news canceling the debate scheduled for monday, march 21. any reaction from the truck campaign? ms. helderman: some of the things mr. trump has said, when asked about israel positions, he literally told me some of his best friends are jewish, many of his company executives are jewish, that he has been a israel, andrter of

they cited things in the past -- he marched in a parade in new york city that was a pro-israeli parade. he received an award from a jewish organization. he gave an interview with an israeli newspaper this week where he promised to be the best friend israel can have. -- it shows a sign of them trying to persuade the wary, which has not always been the way in the campaign. >> he is the front runner, on the road to the nomination in cleveland, but could this be a sign of internal strife with a key constituency in the gop? ms. helderman: another thing we looked at in the story was also the conversation among republican jews. there are not an enormous

number, but some of them are very influential, and there is the angst in that community that mimics the asked across the establishment of the republican party -- deep concern about trump. the republican jewish coalition is meeting in las vegas next month, and the meeting is expected to be dominated about how to greet trump -- can they endorse them, or do they feel like he is not a candidate they can support. >> what can we expect from the other candidates -- governor kasich and senator cruz will speak before the aipac conference, and on the democratic side, they will hear from vice president joe biden, and secretary of state, now democratic front runner, hillary clinton? ms. helderman: i was told this is a sophisticated argument that 1 -- audience that want quality -- policy statistics. there will be an effort by hillary clinton to contrast herself with trump, to give a specific, policy-oriented

address that includes -- but, of course, one that a pro-israel group will want to hear. imagine, i would express her long support for a two-state solution, but particularly for the israeli government, and do it with some level of seriousness. in some ways, that is one of the most interesting things to see about trump -- the tone. he is not one who generally gives written speeches that take on issues of policy in any depth, and this is an audience that is going to expect that of him, and it will be interesting to see what it looks like on him to give a serious policy address, or if he does not choose to do that, even if that is what the audience is expecting. sen. cruz: -- >> let me ask about ari fleischer, who served in the george w bush administration, and you quoted him as saying normally reliable jewish voters see reason to

doubt donald trump and question him. ms. helderman: mr. trump, since he started the campaign, in one breath he will say he is the most pro-candidate amongst the republicans running, and then he says there is not -- he is not sure there could be a peace deal because he is not sure israel wants one. it is not something that has gone well in the republican jewish community. he has repeatedly said he thinks this will be a negotiation, he is a great negotiator, and you have to go in neutral. that neutrality word is not something the republican jewish immunity wants to hear. -- community wants to hear. as fleischer said, there have been significant doubts in that community. >> the headline at it isgtonpost.com -- available online at washingtonpost.com. helderman closing just

joining us from the newsroom. ms. helderman: you are for having me. >> we will have coverage of a rally in phoenix ahead of the meeting on monday. hey look at primetime tonight at 8:00 p.m. -- a look at primetime tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern -- comments from defense of the terry ashton carter on defense and national security issues. the naacp,nt of cornell brooks, we'll talk about civil rights and criminal justice reform, and another chance on c-span3 to hear commentary from richard country on the future of the consumer protection bureau. journal"'s "washington -- coming up, the congressional hearings on the flight, michigan, water -- flint,

michigan, water crisis. the "national journal" journalists will talk about the potential for a brokered or contested convention in the republican party. then, deputy director and senior fellow at the center for strategic and international studies joins us to talk about russian president vladimir putin's decision to withdraw russian forces from syria this week. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. >> join american history tv on c-span3 saturday for live, all-day coverage of a lincoln symposium from ford's theater in washington, d.c.. featured speakers include sidney blumenthal, author of "a self-made man."

lincoln and emancipation. mcdermott, author of "mary lincoln, southern girl, northern woman." alford.arson, and terry abraham lincoln symposium on american history tv on c-span3. live coverage from the clock a.m. until 5:00 p.m. eastern. has power, andt with that power comes responsibly. individual -- the idea that you have a person on the court unfortunate -- unfettered 430, 35 years does not pass the smell test. roth talksight, gabe about changes he will see at the supreme court, including opening up or allotments two cameras,

imposing term limits, and requiring justices to hear the same -- adhere the same code of ethics that other justices follow. americans are aware of the third branch of government, and in the last 10, 15 years, it has become so powerful. voting, health care, immigration, marriage -- pregnancy dissemination -- i could go on and on. these issues that 20, 30 is ago, congress and the executive branch would figure out a compromise and put together a bill. that does not happen anymore. the book stops with the supreme court in a way that is unprecedented in our history, and given that the supreme court is making these impactful decisions, the least we can do withess them to comport reasonable standards of accountability. "q anday's on c-span's

a." >> next, a press presents with press secretary josh earnest. sec. earnest: good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. happy friday. i do not have anything to do at the top. we can go to your questions. darling, would you like to start? darlene: thank you. i have a couple of quick ones on the supreme court -- can you say whether the white house gave a courtesy heads up to either the clinton or the sanders campaign after the president settled on judge garland as the nominee? sec. earnest: my understanding is thatsec. earnest: -- sec. earnest: my understanding

is that we obviously made it a concerted effort to inform members of the united states senate, but legally those that serve on the judiciary committee, and those that serve in leadership, prior to the president making a formal announcement. i am not aware of any plan to give either of the democratic presidential candidates a heads up, so i feel confident in telling you they learned about butnews from news reports, your news reports were extensive prior to the president formally making his announcement. darlene: secondly, with the president withdraw either's nomination if sanders or clinton wins, so they could appoint someone more to their liking? sec. earnest: your colleague asked about this wednesday, and i will repeat what i said then. the president leaves strongly

that chief judge garland is the right person for the job. this is a substantial responsibility, that president obama has asked chief garland to take on -- a life -- lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is significant. hasn, chief judge garland demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law, and an understanding that a judge's responsibility are to interpret a law, not to enhance an agenda. that is why chief judge garland -- how he hasibed been described. haveresident is proud to nominated him. the president will stand by him and urge the senate to confirm him properly. there is no good reason the senate should delay

consideration until the lame duck. that would be irresponsible. describedndsey graham it as unprecedented, and it should not happen. it is not the right thing for the country, and it would represent an escalation of partisan politics when it comes to a branch of government that we go to great length to try to protect from partisan government. darlene: is that a no? sec. earnest: the president stands by his nominee and believes the senate should confirm him as soon as possible, and i cannot imagine a scenario where the president would withdraw his support from his nominee. ne: would you account for the number of times the president told journalists the times -- they told journalists

they could not find records? hit has gone this to great lengths to make -- this administration has gone to great lengths to make this administration the most transparent ever. there are ways to quantify that. administration 903 769,0 0 requests, 769,903 more than congress. they write themselves out of the process. as advocates for transparency, i hope all of you will continue the pressure you have applied to congress to encourage them to subject themselves to the kinds of transparency rules dances other agencies follow. ne: given the record that

you have said you cannot find what people wanted, how do we oia officers are being diligent? sec. earnest: one way to evaluate that is for seven straight years the government agencies have released records in full, or in part, for more requests thatia have been processed for disclosure. i think that is an indication that government officials work diligently to be responsive to requests from the media and the that these i suspect statistics would be even better if congress were also in a position to provide necessary funding to complete these activities. we would obviously welcome additional support and resources

being appropriated by congress for these kinds of important activities. >> following up on a question by darlene yesterday, senators are going back home for two weeks. what would the white house like to see happen among constituents and groups considering the next supreme court term starts in october? well, you had an opportunity to hear directly from the president on wednesday on this, who suggested that members of congress, members of nextenate should take the couple of weeks, while they are enjoying a spring break, to consider the constitutional responsibilities, and to consider whether or not they are comfortable with taking orders from republican leaders in washington, as opposed to taking orders from the constitution and the american people. presumably, it should not take two weeks to figure out the

answer to that question, but way from all of the clever and debate in andington, d.c., -- clamor debate in washington, d.c., it'll will be easy to arrive at that conclusion. that is certainly what we hope republican senators will do. i would anticipate that over the you willle of weeks hear members of the public who do share the president's passion for this issue, will make clear what their elected representatives will do, but ultimately that will be up to those groups and american citizens to determine how i wanted to make those voices heard. chrysler have been talkative -- >> there have been talks that they will hold up signs saying "do your job." is there anything else they can do? sec. earnest: personally, there are people thinking about this

more than i am, but obviously, we're going to continue to make forceful, principled case, that the united states and should fulfill constitutional duties. the president took seriously the constitutional duties he has to carefully consult with congress, and to carefully consider the record of a wide variety of individuals, and then put forward the person that he believes can best fill the vacancy on the supreme court. i think by all accounts, the president took the responsibility quite seriously, and has nominated somebody that should not be subjected to the kind of political gamesmanship that we are seeing from republicans right now. the president has put forward somebody that republicans acknowledge should be on the bench -- somebody that would be and is a consensus nominee. those are not quotes from ancient history. those are quotes from earlier in this presidency. so, it is time for republicans to take advantage of this

opportunity to put this response -- their responsibility to govern i had of political calculations. ahead of political cap relations. >> with north korea acquiring their first midrange missile -- does the white house have reactions to this? there were two sections from the white house, -- there were new sanctions from the white house. could one argue the tensions are not effective? sec. earnest: let me start by saying we are aware of reports that north korea conducted a couple of launches into the sea of japan. the united states, as we always do, is closely monitoring the situation on the korean missile. launches using ballistic missile technology are a clear violation of multiple un security council resolutions. north korea should refrain from actions that further tensions in the region, and instead focus on taking concrete steps to fulfill

obligations. as you point out, the united states has worked with the international community to apply additional pressure, and to further isolate and already deeply isolated country in north korea. that includes imposing on north korea sanctions that go beyond go beyond sections that had previously been imposed on the country, and i guess the other way you can argue this is that north korea is feeling the pressure -- they are feeling that isolation, and they are, you know, acting out against it. at some point, we hope that they in theannel that anxiety direction of coming into compliance with generally accepted international commitments and obligations. if they do, that is the path back toward greater integration with the international community, greater integration

with the international economy. that certainly would be great for the north korean people, and the good news is the net estate is not the only country making that case. we have support from the chinese, the russians, and allies in south korea and japan all making that case, and that serves to illustrate just how isolated north korea is, but it will be up to them to decide if they will change their strategy. in brusselsy police have conducted some raids and they may have shot one of the paris attackers. i am wondering if the white house has been informed and if you have any details on that. sec. earnest: i saw the report before i came out here, and i can tell you even in the minutes after the paris attacks back in november, u.s. officials have been in close touch with the national security and law-enforcement officials in

france and belgium, as it except to try to protect their country. the united states obviously has significant resources and capabilities, and we have used them to assist the french and the belgians as they have conducted investigations into the attacks, and as they have taken steps to try to safeguard the country. so, we're going to continue to try to stay in close touch with them on this. i do not know at this point if the president has been briefed, but i'm confident he will get an update on this latest developments today. >> i always wanted -- also about the letter sent by senator sanders about the pfizer deal -- asking the white house to set new rules to shut that down. does the white house have any reaction to senator sanders sanded treasury department should be more aggressive to stop this deal from happening? sec. earnest: i cannot comment on private financial

transactions, but as a general matter, this is menstruation has been urging congress to close the inversions loophole that essentially allows large businesses to essentially renounce their american citizenship, and execute a financial transaction that allows them to avoid at least some, if not all of the taxes that they pay here in the united states. that is unfair. middle-class families certainly not have the opportunity to engage in a slick financial transaction that allows them to avoid paying taxes. in fact, most middle-class families do is they step up and fulfill responsibilities to this country and they pay the amount of taxes that are required. friendly, we believe those kinds of rules and values -- frankly, we believe those kinds of rules and values should apply to large corporations that choose to benefit from the business climate, the labor supply, and the infrastructure that exists here in this country. that is only fair.

it has been disappointing that we have seen republicans block any effort to close this loophole, and, in fact, take steps to try to protect the ability of large businesses to benefit from the inversions loophole. that is not fair, and i think it is an indication that the priorities of some republicans in congress are entirely mixed up, and certainly not consistent with the priorities of most americans. this has been a priority for us. we have been urging congress to take action, because we have indicated that only through congressional action can we effectively close the loophole. we acknowledged there may be some steps to administration can take using executive authority to reduce the incentive some copies have to engage these transactions. some of these steps have been announced. there might be additional steps that can be taken, but honestly,

the treasury department and secretary lou would be the one lew wouldhow and -- be the one to decide how and when to move forward with these steps, and you have heard secretary lew say this is a priority of his. this has our attention. >> you called it a slick financial transaction. senator sanders called it a scam. would you go as far to use that language? sec. earnest: well, i think he is referring to a specific private transaction. i am not commenting on any specific transaction. i'm just talking about this general strategy that we have --n some as this is businesses engage in, and it is entirely unfair, and it is the kind of financial maneuver that indicates that the system is not fair, primarily because it is

not the kind of benefit that is available to middle-class families, and it does allow businesses to continue to remain in the united states and benefit from our favorable business climate, our ample supply of highly skilled and highly motivated workers, and benefit from the instructor in this country that is paid for by taxpayer dollars, yet they are not contributing to the improvement of our country, and that is not fair. it is unjust. congress should act. it is unfortunate that republicans have not. we are certainly going to consider additional steps that may be able to be taken to reduce the incentive that some companies have to engage in these transactions. >> more on the supreme court -- lets a senate vote on the recess, comes back, and have a change of heart and want to go on with the hearing -- sec. earnest: that would be good news. >> but say they do that, and they decide that a republican

led senate does not want to confirm the nominee for principled reasons, his records, based on something it should be decided in the election -- if they do that, do you think you to havee enough time another nomination, like we had with robert bork in 1970, or conversation, and basically allow the election to decide? sec. earnest: let me make an observation that will require all of us to venture deep into the minds of republicans, so you have been warned. theypect there is a reason are resisting even holding hearings, and i suspect that reason is they know that somebody that has chief judge garland's intellect and experience is going to perform quite well in the setting of a judiciary committee hearing. there is a reason that they do not want to have him in public,

under oath, on camera, asking questions, because if that happens, we will have tangible evidence for the world to see that he would be a great supreme court justice, and that is why republicans are resisting the hearings. it is motivated purely by politics. we have heard senator ron johnson, a republican from wisconsin, acknowledge as much. he has acknowledged that republicans are treating president obama's nominee to the supreme court differently than they would carry -- a candidate put forward by the -- a republican president. it is often to do with chief judge garland. -- it does not have anything to do with chief judge garland. it has everything to do with republicans concerned about a democratic president fulfilling his constitutional duty to

appointed justice to the supreme court. that is not the way the system is supposed to work. in fact, our system is supposed to work to prevent that kind of political calculation being made around appointments to the supreme court. so, i think you pose a provocative question, but i think the answer, quite plainly is that the scenario you laid out is not the scenario republicans expect, and that is precisely why they continue to hold fast to not even holding hearings, and giving a fair hearing to the president's nominee. chip. chip: thanks, josh. sec. earnest: nice to see today. chip: good to see. it has been a long time. sec. earnest: it has been a long time. welcome back. , you saidarland

yesterday, and i'm sure you said the day before, there is no deal that if a democrat were elected in november, there is no deal that they would confirm garland in a lame-duck session. any discussions from republicans even raising that idea what the white house? sec. earnest: not that i am aware of. there are obviously extensive consultations that the race in advance of the president making this decision, and we have been in frequent touch with members of congress as well. you would have to ask is a book and senators if this is something they have floated with us, but i can tell you with a lot of confidence that everybody here who works in the white house believes that chief judge garland and his nomination should not be delayed to the lame-duck. there is no skews for that. first of all, -- there is no excuse for that. first of all, it is not as if

the senate is doing important business right now. they cannot complain they have some crowded agenda they have to get through. the fact of the matter is, even if they did, they would be hard-pressed to make the case that somehow this wasn't as important as other things they were considering. the other thing i will say is that the average time that a supreme court nominee has had to wait for the confirmation is 67 days, so i guess the last point i would make about this is that if for some reason republicans are concerned that they have a bunch of other things they need then why not go ahead and fulfill constitutional duties, take care of this business, and move on to the pressing items they claim to be focused on. --p: a question about cuba i'm wondering if there is an update on planning for a meeting with dissidents? one there been objections the people the president wants to meet with, and is this a

negotiation -- we would like to meet with this person, they push back, or is it my way or the highway -- the president saying i'm going to meet with these people? sec. earnest: the president -- the list of people invited to meet with the president in cuba is nonnegotiable. the white house and the president will determine who he meets with. i would not be surprised if there might be people on the list that the cuban government would prefer that we not meet i do not know whether or not they have raised those concerns or not, but i can tell you that the president is going to move forward and host meetings, and have a conversation about human rights with the people he chooses to meet with. that is how this will move forward, and we will have some names we can share with you about the president meets with on the trip, and we will also have an opportunity for the press pool that accompanies the president in cuba to at least get a photograph of the meeting.

chip: will the list of people include people that are currently in prison, and has there been an increase in the number of human rights activists detained since the president announced he was going? sec. earnest: i have not seen the list of the president -- of the people the president is going to meet with, but we are certainly expecting the president to have the opportunity to meet with everybody that is invited and chooses to come. as it relates to the broader climate on the island of cuba when it comes to human rights, we have seen reports that there have been political prisoners in recent days that have been released. that is certainly what we have been urging the castro government to do, and will continue to advocate for that. chip: there are some groups that complain that while they are releasing some people, they are detaining others, and overall,

there is an uptick. sec. earnest: what we have seen over the last 50 or 60 years is the cuban government wanting me -- wanting lee obtain people that have questions about the cuban government. for over 50 years we had the strategy of why don't we just try to ignore the cubans and see if they change their mind on their own? surprisingly, that did not work very well. we are trying a new approach. the president of the united states is going to get on air cuba,one, fly to havana, sit down with the leader of cuba and say you need to do a better job protecting the human rights of the people. he will give a speech to the cuban population -- the cuban people, one that will be carried on tv, according to the cuban government, where the president will advocate for better respect for human rights, and the president, while he is in cuba, will sit down in a meeting, that all of you will have an opportunity to at least see part

of, and visit with people that have been victimized by the government, and encourage them to continue to fight for the universal human rights that we deeply cherished in this country. that is effective advocacy for american values. that is effective advocacy for the consequence of both that we cherish in this country and in our government, and it is, by the way, and approach strongly supported by the vast majority of the cuban people. ron. ron: specific, there is a man who reportedly met with ben rose a couple of weeks ago, then went back to cuba, was arrested, and detained. is that true? sec. earnest: i'm not aware of those reports. we can look into that and get you an answer. happened on the 14th or so, and within days of going back, he was arrested. this list -- it is nonnegotiable -- i do not understand how that works. you did not answer the question as to whether some of the people

the president wants to meet our .n fact in jail now why would he not want to meet people that are in jail, in the worst of circumstances? sec. earnest: once we have a list that i have seen, i can be in a better position to discuss the status of those individuals and why those individuals are on a list to meet with the president of the united states. there are plenty of people the president would be interested in having a conversation with, but for the purposes of a useful conversation, we will not have hundreds of people in the room, but we will have an opportunity for the president to visit with a small, representative group of, you know, leading advocates for human rights in cuba, and we will be able to talk about why those people were chosen wednesday may public who has been -- make public who has been chosen. ron: you cannot say what the criteria is, what groups have been consulted? sec. earnest: i would point out this is not a unique engagement for the president to engage in.

whenever the president travels around the world, he looks for opportunities to visit with people, particularly when we are have noties that observed the basic printable the democracy that we cherish in this country. traveledthe president to burma, he met with opposition figures. there are other places -- even in china -- where the president has spent time talking to people who are not enthusiastic supporters of their government. so, you know, we can -- i will provide you -- we can provide you some more concrete examples of where the president has done this in other countries. my point is we have a process for doing this. what the president likes to do is spend time talking to leaders of organizations who are advocating for a more robust civil society, and in many cases that means people that are rights ofor the

people that are oppressed, who are otherwise considered minorities. there is one example that is coming to mind. when the president was in kenya, he hosted this meeting one morning with a group of advocates in nairobi, and these were individuals advocating for a wide variety of causes. in some cases it was trying to combat wildlife trafficking, and were looking out for the environment in kenya. in other cases it was people who were trying to, you know, advocate for the rights of certain minority populations, or even a more effective civil society that in some cases would be able to more effectively raise their concerns with the government. so, this is something the president frequently does in other countries, and we will

apply those principles in cuba. efforts, has these there ever been a circumstance where the president has wanted to see someone and the government has said no? sec. earnest: off the top of my head, i do not remember one, but i will check with colleagues to see if there is an example. i am confident there are places where the president has gone and met with people that the host government would prefer that he not talk to, but i do not think i can recall the situation off the top of my head for the president has been prevented from meeting with a private citizen by the host government. ron: even someone that is in custody or jail -- sec. earnest: again -- ron: i think people looking at this whole cuba situation would argue, and not with a lot of detail, necessarily, but you would think some of the worst offenders are in government custody, so, if in fact the president has not met with -- i guess it is just strange.

it leads you to question are these the most prominent dissidents in this country. sec. earnest: you will have an opportunity to evaluate that when we properly. ron: one more theoretical question about 2016 -- looking ahead, you are saying none of that is going to happen -- were when will that happen -- i think you said he will remain balanced until a certain point. what can you expect -- what you think we can expect to see the president's role look like in that broader campaign, and what do you think -- what can we expect to see in the campaign taking place now to push judge garland through the process? i imagine they will merge to some extent. sec. earnest: that remains to be seen. ironically, i think that is what republicans are hoping for.

it is clear that republicans are in a situation where they are suggesting that they are hoping their obstruction of a supreme court justice can benefit their presidential candidate, and that is a pretty unfortunate thing. we heard leader mcconnell indicate this in an interview on wednesday,re er on wednesday, where he was talking about the specific goal of blocking votes for the nominee, and leader mcconnell's reply was the point here is to elect the next president. his eye is not on the constitution. his eye is on a look a republican to the white house. what is compensated about that is he has also said he would run negative ads against the republican front-runner if he

ends up being the nominee. i will let him reconcile that with all of you. my objection is not about who the republican nominee is in this instance, but rather the principle at stake. the supreme court has long been an institution of government that we have tried to shield from the worst of our government -- politics. the fact is there is a clear president for the united states senate voting in a presidential election year to approve a nominee to the supreme court. it happened in 1988, and the reason it is relevant is because the situations were reversed. you know, people often say wouldn't democrats be doing the same thing if they were in leader mcconnell's shoes. the fact is democrats were in leader mcconnell's shoes in a canadian, and democrats actually did -- shoes, and the fact is the democrats did actually vote for president reagan's nominee even though they were in the midst of a figures presidential

campaign. that this has become a partisan issue, is the president going to make it a campaign issue when he is out there? sec. earnest: the president's case that he will be making on the campaign trail in 2016 in the general election will be focused on whether or not the country continues to build on the progress we have made over the last seven years, and again, even leader mcconnell has acknowledged earlier this year that america is better off than we were seven years ago, and that, i think, is going to make president obama a particularly persuasive advocate on the trail in communities all across the country. just about any poll you take a isk at, president obama actually the most popular politician in america. so, i think democrats are going to be enthusiastic about having his support and having him make the case for democratic leadership in washington, d.c. right now, based on the unprecedented artisan obstruction and refusal --

partisan obstruction and refusal to govern republicans in the senate have displayed, they are making a good case for democrats, to. kevin. , josh.thank you a campaign has been launched includinged fugitives a pair of cop killers living in cuba. people are wondering why the return of such few does it is fugitives is not a required -- egypt is is not a requirement for -- fugitives is not a requirement for normalization? sec. earnest: we have raised our concerns, and there are fugitives that have sought safe haven in cuba, and we are seeking the return. there has been a law-enforcement dialogue established between our two countries to seek the return of these fugitives so that they can be brought to justice. this is a priority, and again, i

would just make the case some of these fugitives, including the one that i know that police officers in new jersey are justifiably concerned about has been in cuba for a long time -- a couple of decades, i think, and the policy that was in place before president obama announced the change did not get us anywhere closer to bringing that fugitive back to the united states to face justice, but the president of the united states, because of our normalization process, has begun a dialogue to affect the returns of those feeders, and i'm confident that members of the u.s. delegation i'm confidentand that members of the u.s. delegation will be working to secure the return of wanted fugitives. feinstein isr working on encryption legislation that would force companies to build mandated backdoors, requiring that all data the available to law

enforcement in unencrypted form. you may or may not have read it all, however senator feinstein has said she has already , and that the white house will ultimately determine its fate. i am wondering, in light of the president's comments at sxsw, do you think the white house will support this effort? at this point, it is too early to tell. the administration has committed to working with congress to discuss these issues. these issues are complicated. obviously they are a top priority. the president has indicated that he believes in the robust and limitation of strong encryption. at the same time, the president has also acknowledged that we need to make sure that our law enforcement and our national security professionals within the appropriate confines of the law can do their job to keep us safe. and i would acknowledge, as the president has, that there is

some tension in those principles. we need to resolve them, and we need to resolve them in a way that does not undermine the basic civil liberties and privacy protections that are and thatto our country the president prioritizes. so, we will engage in a conversation with congress about this, but i will repeat skepticism you have heard me express before. there is a reason to doubt the ability of the dysfunctional congress, particularly one that is led by republicans who have refused to embrace the responsibility to govern, that they would be able to handle and successfully pass legislation that would address this issue. i am a little skeptical that congress is going to be able to handle this effectively, but that is not going to prevent us from engaging with them to try to help them get it right. but i am not going to be sitting over here holding my breath that

they are eventually going to do that this year. you wouldt to follow, acknowledge, as you put it, the tension, that a lot of americans might feel about this notion of backdoors, and the ability to essentially break into phones. left unfettered in the hands of law enforcement or the government -- sec. earnest: no one is suggesting it should be unfettered. the tension i was referring to is the need for robust supplementation of strong encryption, and i think what also is a pretty common-sense notion, that our law-enforcement officials have tools that are appropriately governed, including by the third branch of government, the judicial branch, so they can do their job to keep us safe. i think the vast majority of the american people, and a significant number of people that specialize in this field acknowledge that terrorists, terminals, and child pornographers should not have a safe haven in cyberspace.

we need to find a way that we can protect the country, protect our kids, while at the same time protect privacy that ensures effective commerce, ensures that individual citizens don't get adversaries ensures around the world that could potentially try to disrupt operations in the united states are not able to do so. so, this is complicated, made only more complicated by the fact that this is a complicated environment. technology is always changing. that is a good thing. we certainly do not want to do something that is going to stifle innovation, but we do want to make sure we have an appropriate policy that strikes the right balance between these two critically important principles. kevin: couple more. a source familiar with the andtiations with ben

security advisor rice to testify before the select commission on benghazi have reported that initially the white house declined the request. fox news has also learned that chairman gaudi person negotiated a meeting with mr. rose and mrs. rice. i am curious if you're familiar with that, and whether or not they actually did have conversations during that time? sec. earnest: well, i will just say as a general matter that the white house and the administration has, despite what republicans acknowledge is the pure political motivation of have sought to cool operate with them only because they are a co-equal branch of government. but we had the second-highest ranking of a can in the house of representatives acknowledge that this committee was formed and motivated specifically and driving down hillary clinton's

poll numbers. despite of that, we have cooperated, divided them access to thousands of pages of documents, e-mails, and other materials that could be relevant to their investigation. the fact is this is an investigation that has been going on longer than the investigation into 9/11 and the kennedy assassination, and it is purely politically motivated, and they have not arrived a different conclusion than the seven other public in-led committees that have looked at -- republican-led committees that have looked into this and found anything other than this was a tragedy and something that should not be subjected to partisan politics. kevin: what is the number one goal for the president, if you were talking to you privately, or to the american citizens publicly -- his main goal with his trip to havana is what? sec. earnest: i think the president is looking for an opportunity to try to deepen our relations with cuba. that we can try to facilitate

more effective economic ties between the two countries. there are a number of u.s. business leaders that will be into it at the same time -- cuba at the same time as the president. we are hopeful this will facilitate more robust economic ties. the reason for that is simple -- it certainly would expand economic opportunity on the island of cuba in a way that could bring about some reforms into their economy, there government, that would be good, but it would also expand economic opportunity back here in the united states. if american farmers have more markets they can sell to in cuba, that will be good for growing our economy. that is just one example. -- that a reason why over at the chamber of commerce here on the other side of the park, they are not typically enthusiastic advocates of policies advanced by the obama administration, but they sure are enthusiastic about this one, because they recognize there is an important economic opportunity here that is going to be good for the u.s. economy, but i do not think our goals are

only economic. i think the president is looking to send a clear signal to citizens in cuba, to citizens in the night states, and, frankly, to citizens -- united states, and frank lee, to citizens throughout the western hemisphere that the united states is taking appropriate measures to know modulations with cuba. there are issues we have to work through, but by deepening those ties and solidifying our efforts to normalize relations between we can bringries, about the kind of change we have long sought on the island nation of cuba, and we can do it in a way that ends up being good for the american people and the american economy. michelle. michelle: not at the belgian government has confirmed they have captured salah abdeslam, what can you say about the u.s.'s role? did the u.s. play a role?

michelle, i can tell you that u.s. officials have been working closely with french and belgian security official since november to help officials in those countries safeguard their -- the country -- to track down the perpetrators of the terrible terrorist incident that occurred .ack in november obviously, the united states has deep ties to our allies across europe, but that is usually true when it comes to france and belgium. the united states does have unique capabilities that we can use, and we have shared with them a lot of information and expertise, and i know that they have found that to be useful as they have conducted this investigation and taken other steps to protect their two countries. we obviously stand with them as they confront this threat. michelle: given that working

together has been so close, it is it accurate to say the u.s. worked closely with those authorities in this particular operation? sec. earnest: i do not have specific details about this particular operation to share, but i can tell you operations like this are possible because of the long-standing commitment this administration has demonstrated to using our resources and expertise to support the french and the belgians as they protect their country and their citizens. michelle: let's talk about some other things the president said in this last interview with npr -- some of the words he used in describing the scenario around garland's nomination. he used words like "or zone," "hurricane," "circus." this was the same president a couple of weeks ago during a bilateral meeting said he understands the political pressures the republicans are under. he sympathizes with them as

someone that has gone with a filibuster in the past. so, describing this as a war zone -- what is that reflecting? it is not really gel is it accurate to say this is a work zone?/ mr. earnest: i don't think the president has ever had sympathy for the republican position, that the nominee does not aserve a fair hearing and timely yes or no vote. the president does not have any empathy. this is a responsibility that every congress since 1875 has fulfilled which is to say every congress has given the president's supreme court nominee a hearing or a vote. what the republicans are vowing to do is unprecedented. i think that is why you have seen an onslaught, a color for word, of editorials from

newspapers all across the country being harshly critical ofthe partisan tactics republican senators that are refusing to do their dute. i think what they. i think the president has sympathy for those that are deeply engaged in the process of all of this, the people who have succeeded in wrapping up the inkes of the politics judicial confirmation battles are going to be applying pressure to republicans to put politics ahead of their constitutional duty. he understands it is probably not fun for republicans to be on the receiving end of republican partisans who are suggesting they should ignore their constitutional duties and just focus on the politics. that is not what they were elected to do. the president has sympathy for

the fact that getting all of those angry phone calls and letters is probably a little uncomfortable, but nobody forced them to take this job. this is a job they signed up for. on their first day on the job, every single one of them put their hand of a religious scripture of one sort or another, raised their right hand and took an oath. that included a commitment, a sworn obligation to follow the constitution. now, tootely, right many republicans refusing to do that. >> does it add fuel to the fire and does the president view this as a battle that can be called a war zone? mr. earnest: i think the president was using a metaphor. >> we have not seen any bullets. mr. earnest: i think when mr. trump promises the host riots, he is not speaking

metaphorically. i think the president understands there will be partisans on both sides who are going to be injecting themselves into the debate. the real question is how are senators going to respond to that. i have seen republican senators to that.e ad tod >> taking this attack could lead an endless tit for tat, saying that, does that mean it will cause democrats to do the same thing? he is also decrying the philosophy behind this. you would say that democrats would then do this too. mr. earnest: i think it is certainly possible. -- and republicans like to say what if the shoe was on the other foot? it was in 1988.

you did have a republican president who was advocating for the senate to confirm his nominee in his last year in office. you had democratic majority listening to that republican president and actually following through. they held a vote in president reagan's last year in office and many democrats, including vice president biden, voted for justice kennedy. they have set partisan politics aside, and actually lived up to their constitutional duties. we believe republicans should do the same thing. >> how would this lead to a tit for tat though? this is going to keep happening on both sides. he does not believe in -- it is ting republicans for doing this, that this is a republican thing. he is also saying this would lead to a tit for tat. mr. earnest: i think the point the president is making is on

what basis -- if remote -- republicans follow through, that it is unprecedented and they say it is being pursued for purely political reasons. that is not a claim we are making. that is what ron johnson acknowledged. >> is the president threatening back? mr. earnest: no, because the president is not going to be office and 10 months. argument could republican senators make that democratic senators should consider a nominee put forward by republican president? i don't know what it would be. they are blocking barack obama's nominee because barack obama is a democrat. that is the case. there is one other aspect that is important to this which is this is the debate we have had for the last four or five weeks.

so, i think even i have to remind myself the president has now put forward a nominee and put forward a nominee that even republicans described as the consensus nominee. summit he even republicans was in the second highest court in the land by other republicans that are still in the senate. i think you could actually make a strong case that the president actually had fulfilled his constitutional duty to appoint the right person for the job. he also has taken the kind of step that should be viewed and has been viewed as an attempt at de-escalation. the president has appointed somebody that should be easy for republicans. somebody republicans have previously supported and advocated for in the past. unfortunately, republicans have not changed their partisan position. >> the right person for the job

means -- it is indistinguishable from a consensus candidate. it felt like that was what the president was saying. mr. earnest: that is not what i'm saying and not with the president is saying. the president believes chief land is the right person for the job because he has more experience. when you take a look at the long track record of experience, about 19 years now, you have a judge who has demonstrated commitment to rule of law and interpreting the law, and not advancing a political view. that is his track record. hopefully, he will have the opportunity to have a hearing where republicans and democrats will take a look at the record. that is why the president chose him. at the same time, by choosing him and by choosing somebody who republicans have acknowledged is a consensus nominee. we have also made it easier for republicans to fulfill their constitutional duties in a way

that does not really require mis -- copper compromise. this is someone that they have supported. they say he belongs in the court, so just follow through and vote for the guy. here's the thing -- i will end with this -- i wonder what republican reaction would be if president mitt romney had nominated chief judge garla nd or some other republican president put forward chief judge garland? ould think that a lot of republicans will continue to say that chief judge garland is a consensus nominee and he is somebody that has strong support of the united states senate. ok? all right. democraticck to the

thehas the president said candidates will be less than fully supportive of judge garland's confirmation? bernie sanders even said he would look for some of you else. theearnest: no, looking at statements from both democrats running for president, both of them had said chief judge garland is eminently qualified, that he would do a good job on the supreme court and they have urged republicans to hold hearings and up and down votes. my point is they are very much on message. i'm not questioning the fact that if you have there ranked list of supreme court nominees that there may be somebody that thaneir mind ranks higher garland.

they are not suggesting that chief judge garland is not -- does not deserve to be on the supreme court. they think he should. and that the senate should act. i raised this example prior to the nomination. the question before the senate is not is chief judge garland your number one pick? the president is the person who makes that decision. the president is the person who decides who is at the top of his list. the senate then considers whether or not that individual should have a lifetime appointment of the supreme court. the answer to that question is unquestionably yes. republicans don't want to be forced into a position to make that decision. my point is that senator sanders and secretary clinton are making exactly the same case that i'm making which is he is eminently qualified. he is someone who should be trusted to interpret the law fairly. he understands his job is not to advance a political agenda and

somebody who should be confirmed by the united states senate because the president was elected to a four-year term and is required by the constitution to appoint somebody. the united states senate is required to offer up advice and consent based on his qualifications. there is no reason he should not be confirmed. >> senator sanders said he would nominate somebody more progressive, trying to distance himself from the white house. mr. earnest: i certainly did not. he is entitled to his own opinion. if he is elected president, presumably he will have a vacancy or two you will have the opportunity to evaluate the candidates and put some before. the president, the sitting president, the current president has already done that as required by the constitution. he has availed his duty. it is time for the senate to fulfill theirs and am gratified we have seen secretary clinton and senator sanders acknowledge that chief judge garland is qualified, who do a good job and

they have been pretty aggressive in suggesting the senate should move forward. >> you brought up donald trump's comment about riots. earlier this week, we heard republican comments. president the himself trying to take down the rhetoric currently happening? ty toesponsabili make that process more peaceful. mr. earnest: i think he has known he has this response ibility. on tuesday, is an indication he will embrace the response ibility. there was prominent mention in the state of the union address back in january. i guess while we are talking about it, the president and the

supreme court might be the best example about that. we do see disagreements between democrats and republicans. you do see what many people see as a top priority of the united states in terms of filling a vacancy in the supreme court. the president put forward a qualified nominee that even republicans described as a consensus nominee. the president availed his responsibility. i think you can interpret this as a legitimate effort on the part of the president to try to bridge these differences. i think when we are trying to put blame on who is responsible for the divisiveness in washington, you can look at the response from republicans to a consensus nominee being put forward. they are refusing to do their jobs, even considering that person for this report. i guess the put it in legal terms, i think the case is closed when it comes to judging

senate republicans for their rol e in contributing to the stark polarization in washington, d.c. >> more overtures from along these lines from the president in the coming weeks? mr. earnest: i would not rule it out whether it is his comments about of particular issue or the tone of the debate. we have long talk about the list of other priorities that we would like to advance on capitol hill. these are the kinds of priorities that republicans have advocated. it has been a while since i went through the list. criminal justice reform, approving the transpacific partnership, investments in cancer research, fighting poverty by reforming the earned income tax credit and expanding it to include workers with no children. we talked about how opioid addiction and heroine abuse is a problem that democrats and republicans in congress and on the campaign trail have talked

about. even the republican president of candidates have talked about this being a priority. that should be an opportunity where we can work together. reform and assistance being provided to puerto rico as they deal with some of the financial challenges they have encountered. even passing opposition to use military force against isil, that is something democrats and republicans believe is the responssibility of the congress and we are working with them. mark? >> can you describe the kind of operation now in place at the white house to get a hearing and a vote for chief judge garland to get him confirmed? -- i put it i think in a couple of different categories -- the first would be obviously significant weight shifts to our legislative affairs team.

as i mentioned, there were several consultations the white house had with members of the congress in advance of choosing a nominee. at a staff level, we contacted the office of every single senator. in some ways, there will be more robust conversations now that we have chosen a nominee. that is setting up private nominees with individual members of the senate. trying to be responsive of question senators have about chief judge garland's record. that will require a lot of administrative work, handling that communication. we take seriously the senate's role to offer advice and consent in this matter. will beginhing that happening is working with garland's hearings. those senate judiciary committee hearings, as a mentioned in the past, has typically been rather

wide-ranging. they have been long and they have been detailed. they have been characterized by difficult questions from both democrats and republicans. we would expect chief judge garland would have to do the same thing, that he will have to swear an oath, testify under oath, in public and answered tough questions for hours. we will begin the process of preparing for that process as well. >> you describe it as a war room operation. mr. earnest: i would not describe it that way. maybe it will evolve, but right now it is an operation that is focused on outreach to capitol hill and on preparing chief judge garland for what should be a serious, robust judiciary hearing committee. >> is president obama using his weekly address tomorrow about the nomination? mr. earnest: the weekly addresses typically until 6 a.m.

tomorrow -- 6 p.m. tomorrow. i think you can expect the president to talk about why it is important for the united states senate to fill their constitutional duty and confirm chief judge garland to the supreme court. >> his public schedule today is -- what is he doing today? mr. earnest: this was the day we that was originally marked in our calendar for president netanyahu to visit the white house. that requires quite a bit of time. lastly, the president's schedule got more freed. given how busy this week has been and how next week will be with the president's trip to cuba and argentina, the president has been quite busy today and has more time to handle those before he leaves the country on sunday. ok? gardner. >> can you talk a little bit talks the president will

give or others from the white house to talk about chief judge garland. for infants, sunday news programs stuff, what you guys go out in full force for the next few days to make this case are the country that he needs to be considered? mr. earnest: i would anticipate that the administration will continue to make a forceful case for chief judge garland's confirmation. i don't have any events to announce right now, but we certainly will be looking for opportunities for the president, the vice president and for other senior officials in the of administration to make this case. the vice president is somebody who has a particular knowledge and next her credibility in talking about this issue. the situation in 1988 is what i cited a couple of times. that was a last time a supreme court nominee was elected on a

presidential election year. vice president biden understands how this process should work even in a presidential election year. he understands this process does not and because of a presidential election year. you will hear from the vice president as well who can be a pretty persuasive advocate when it comes to these kinds of issues. >> sunday at aipac, do you president'sn the absence next week to continue talking about this issue? mr. earnest: i would not expect for this to get much play at aipac. i would not rule out that vice president might have the occasion to talk about this next week. stay tuned. >> one other just -- you may laurie robertson, which would make her the first female to have a combat command.

is that going to happen and how important is that that a woman is in that job? mr. earnest: the president does intend to nominate general rory robertson to be the next commander of norad and u.s. northern command. general robertson is an extremely talented air force officer. she serves as the commander of u.s. air force pacific. she has served in a variety of leadership positions in the air force. she has distinguished herself as a particularly effective leader. the president is pleased to be making this historic announcement. this is the first time a woman would serve in the position of being a combatant commander. there is no question that she is eminently qualified and exactly the right person for the job. >> thanks. mr. earnest: john. >> when the president in

december of 2014 announced his policy change towards cuba, he said at the time the human rights situation must improve on the island. the human weeks ago, rights situation in cuba has not improved and in some ways it has gotten worse in the past 18 months. what has changed to the extent that the president is going back on that vow not to travel to cuba unless the human rights situation improves on the island? mr. earnest: i recall the president said he would travel to cuba when the time was right. edgednk what ben acknowl when he talked about this a month or so ago is that we have seen some areas of improvement in cuba when it comes to the human rights situation there. some places them we have not seen nearly as much improvement as we would like to see. the case the president will make

is a pretty simple one. for more than 50 years, the united states tried to encounter the situation by ostracizing cuba. that had the effect of actually making it harder for the united states to advocate for changes in cuba but because we did not have access to the island, but also because other countries in the western hemisphere that did have leverage with the cuban government were more angry at the united states for a policy towards cuba than they were at the cuban government for the policy towards their own people. by removing this impediment to our relationship in the western -- with other countries in the western hemisphere, we have shined bright light on human rights situation in cuba that dozens of ways actually put more pressure on them to implement the kinds of long overdue political and economic reforms there. the other thing is this -- it will be powerful for the president of united states to land air force one in havana and

off the plane and spend a couple of days meeting with leaders of the cuban government, speaking to the cuban people and speaking to people who have been victimized by the cuban government. that is an effective, persuasive, forceful advocacy of human rights in american values. the president is proud to be engaged in this historic effort. the pressure that you speak of, it has not really changed anything in the human rights situation in the past 15 months. i realized that is not a long amount of time, but still, the pressure has not changed anything. wouldn't you agree? mr. earnest: i don't think i would entirely agree. there are places we have not seen or as much improvement as we would like but there have been some places where we have started to see improvements in cuba. we are certainly going to go and try those changes. we saw the announcement from the cuban government yesterday that they intended to remove the 10%

tax that was imposed on a u.s. currency exchange in cuba. that actually and's up being a really good thing for the cuban people. early in his presidency in 2009, the president loosened up the restrictions that were placed on payments from individuals in the united states to citizens in cuba. typically, when people would receive those remittances, they would have to change the dollars into euro. the government would apply a 10% tax to those exchanges. that is something the cuban government has now committed to removing. that obviously is going to be widely praised by the cuban people and will expand economic opportunity for the cuban people. you can now use that money to take advantage of the greater access to have to information thanks to the changes we put forward in terms of giving people more regular access to internet on the island.

we have seen some important progress, but i think the aspects of your country -- question i would agree with is there is no doubt that there is a lot more that we need to see happen in cuba. the president will be traveling there on sunday to advocate that. >> one last thing in terms of the itinerary you put out over the course of the days the president will be there. a lot of tourism for the president. would you say the most important public thing that the president will take part in, that americans can see back home, is the meetings that he will have with the political dissidents. ? mr. earnest: well, i think it is hard to decide among the three. i think the meetings are critically important and traveling to cuba, sitting down with president castro and advocating for normalized relations between our countries and better human rights in cuba,

think that is a powerful thing. i expect the president using the believable but in cuba -- the bully pulpit in cuba and giving a speech that will be given to cuban people. that will be quite powerful. i think that will be a powerful message. that will be effective in a dancing our proposed reforms. the symbolism of the president sitting down with political dissidents in cuba is quite powerful too. these are individuals who for decades have been persecuted by the government because of the political views. these individuals have made great personal sacrifice is, spent exterior -- extended periods of time in jail. the symbolism of the president sitting down with them in their home country and showing support for their cause will be a powerful thing. ok? sarah. >> thanks. notn what you said about

seeing a scenario in which the president will drop his support of chief judge garland, with that support continue beyond obama's presidency. what he recommend -- would he recommend that they also nominate him if he had not been voted on the court by that point? mr. earnest: president obama believes chief judge garland should be on the court. it would be a real tragedy for him to be denied that position purely because of the president's political affiliation. it has nothing to do with principle, the constitution, with chief judge garland. the republican motivation is entirely because the president is a democrat. that situation comes the past, and i hope it won't, but if it did, you can expect the president would say and continue to believe that chief

judge garland should be on the supreme court. at the same time, think the president with and acknowledge that the president has the duty to try again. >> he might offer advice to the next president? mr. earnest: i think he would recommend the next president, and democrat or republican, give chief consideration for chief judge garland as a person to fil l the spot. >> will he be doing that i had of his trip? mr. earnest: if it comes to pass, we will you know. ok? >> on cuba, does the president believe his trip there -- mr. earnest: i think the president believes ihis t rip will advance the reforms

that are long overdue in cuba. that the president will advocate those reforms in his private meetings with the government and dissidents, but also advocates those reforms in a speech. i think that is what makes this trip so historic. it is why something that is strongly supported by the cuban people. it is also a trip that has strong bipartisan support in the united states. traveling along with the president will be democratic and republican members of congress who believe that these reforms need to be implemented and the embargo should be lifted. regarding topic donald trump. that there be riots possibly. we have seen pockets of violence on the campaign trail. if he wins the election in november, is the president concerned that democrats could possibly resort to violence, or

pockets of violence could rise? mr. earnest: the president, as he has said, is not concerned about the potential that donald trump will be elected president. he does not think it will happen. >> it seems like it is revving up democrats, too. that there are a lot of emotions. theyou guys also calling on protesters they go to the events? mr. earnest: we would call on everyone to refrain from violence. there is no political justification, no political dispute among citizens that would justify an act of violence. that said, i don't think i would use the word popularity in describing mr. trump. i think there are a significant number of republicans in his own party that would say they would not vote for him. i noted it was even the wall street journal editorial that

secretary clinton has one million more votes than mr. trump. i recognize it is not a fact he likes to enjoy often, but it is true. will bey the president a forceful advocate of -- in support of democratic nominee we merges because the stakes of the next election will be significant and the president will have a forceful case to make that the values and priorities that has been championed by democrats on the campaign trail are important to the future success of our country, in particular with the rhetoric being said by a variety of republican candidates, not just one. y, it was said the president didn't have a chance to talk about in the last day. mr. earnest: i have seen him but not talked to him about this

specific story. i will see if i can get you better reaction. the last one and that we will do the week ahead. ofdo you see any incidents international groups will push the way to cuba? mr. earnest: you are talking about victims of genocide in iraq and syria? obviously, the state department announced their judgment yesterday, that applying the label of genocide to a religious minority in iraq and syria lebanon victimized by isil -- who have been victimized by isil. they are christians, iyazi di, muslims. ee have talked it up how th

targeting of religious minorities is the reason why the president wants to take aggressive action against isil. there have been a number of air strikes that have reached 11,000. that is robust military action and represents the gravity of the situation there. -- theinded that we did united states house of representatives came forward in bipartisan fashion and pass the resolution urging that the genocide label be applied in this situation. passing of that resolution would not have much impact in our decision-making, but it does beg the question about what exactly congress is doing about it. ,hey are passing resolutions making a political statement. not necessarily a political statement we disagree with obviously, but there is more they could be doing. they can certainly be, for example, giving the u.s. government more resources to help those who are fleeing

genocide. let's see democrats and republicans in congress step up and say they understand how important the genocide label is and ensure that the united states can play our rightful people whotecting are fleeing genocide in their own countries. there was a pretty nasty political debate about this issue about taking in refugees. changehis will start to the tone and tenor of that debate in the united states congress. evidence see any they're interested? mr. earnest: i don't have a lot more i can say about the situation in north korea. obviously, the american citizens were being unjustly held is the top priority. we believe that is exactly the situation in north korea. we are hopeful that the north

korean government will grant a special amnesty to the u.s. citizen that has been detained there. i will do the week ahead. most of you know this so i will do the short version. on sunday, the first family will depart washington, d.c. towards havana, cuba. the president and the first lady will meet with staff of the u.s. embassy in cuba and participate in a walking tour of old havana. on monday, the president will take a tour of the hosjose martn memorial. you will then take an official photo with president castro and participate in an official welcoming ceremony at the palace of the revolution. afterwards, the president will hold a bilateral meeting with president castro and have an opportunity to deliver statements about the meeting to all of you. in the afternoon, the president will take part in an event focused on entrepreneurship for the cuban people. in the evening, u.s. business leaders traveling will also

participate. in the evening, the president and first lady will attend the state dinner. i'm sorry? air. was thrown up in the mr. earnest: the plan is for the two leaders to make statements. obviously, the president typically will take questions from the media after an important meeting like this so we will keep you up-to-date on this. on tuesday, the president will deliver remarks to the people of cuba. later in the morning, the president -- the cuban government is committed to airing those remarks on television. later in the morning, the president will meet with members of civil society including some political opponents, political dissidents. following the meeting, the first family will attend an mlb exhibition game between the tampa bay rays and the cuban national baseball team. americans and cubans share a love of baseball.

it is a powerful reminder that the kinship between our people and the progress we can achieve when we leverage those national ties. that afternoon, the first family will depart cuba and travel to buenos aires, argentina where they will be overnight. on wednesday, the president will participate in a bilateral meeting with argentinian president. in the afternoon, the president will participate in a news conference. afterwards come the president will participate in the tour and wreathlaying ceremony at the cathedral. you will meet with staff of the u.s. embassy to argentina and hold a town hall with young people to talk about relationship between united states and latin america, and the young latin american leaders initiative. in the evening, the president and first lady will attend a state dinner. on thursday, the president will travel to the memorial. the first family will depart buenos aires and travel. they will visit cultural

landmarks. in the evening, the first family will depart and returned to when buenos aires where the first family will depart back to washington. theriday, good friday, first family will arrive back in washington after an overnight flight. i do not anticipate the president will have a public schedule that day. all right? have a good weekend, everybody. enjoy some march madness. >> here's a look at the primetime schedule on the c-span networks. 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, secretaryom defense ashton carter on u.s. defense policy and national security issues. president, naacp cornell brooks discusses civil rights and criminal justice reform. on c-span3, testimony from the consumer financial protection

bureau on his agency's missions and future actions. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact year. coming up saturday morning, david shepherdson joins us to discuss this week's congressional hearing on the flint, michigan water crisis. will be on toer talk about the potential for a contested or brokered convention within the republican party, and what campaigns are doing behind the scenes to influence delegates. then the deputy director and senior fellow of the center for strategic and international studies joins us to talk about russian president villeneuve putin'-- vladimir putin's decision to withdraw forces from syria. watch washington journal saturday morning at 7 a.m. eastern. join the discussion.

, who is brian kegley on a -- brian pegliano? guest: a former state department employee, contractor, and clinton campaign worker who was hired by hillary clinton to install a private server to do all of her private and government e-mail correspondence at her home in new york. u.s. simultaneously employed by her as a computer advisor at the state department. host: he has been granted immunity? guest: federal prosecutors at the department of justice granted him immunity, according to published reports. host: what does that mean? guest: if it is statutory immunity, where you go before a judge and the prosecutors wants to ask questions in front of a grand jury, anything he says in

the grand jury or in the interviews with fbi and prosecutors can never be used against him. more importantly, anything he says can never be used to develop a lead against him, which means that, invariably, when granted immunity, you can never be prosecuted for the crimes for which you had been granted immunity. host: you talked about statutory immunity. is there another type? immunity, where the prosecutor hans your attorney a letter that says we will not prosecute you against anything you tell us in an interview, but we can use it as a lead in the investigation. sometimes people will have their attorneys deal with the prosecutor because they want to get out of a case and talk, and the lawyers make a profit. they tell prosecutors what the witness will say. if prosecutors like it, they handed a letter of a mean eddie, saying whatever you tell us

cannot be used against you directly. but we can use it to develop leads. host: do we know for a fact mr. pegliano has been granted immunity? the houseawyers told committee he has been. and also the press. what we do not know is what kind it is. given his centrality to the entire story of the private server in new york, it is statutory immunity, which means there is a grand jury sitting which at least issued subpoenas. host: what is the significance? means, notwithstanding what ms. clinton and what her supporters have been saying which is "it is only a security review of her computer," it is not. it is formally a federal criminal investigation conducted by the fbi with assistance of criminal andthe

national security divisions of the department of justice. host: does there have to be intent in a criminal case? guest: in most criminal cases, intent is required. sometimes just the intent to do the attack. the specific intent that you want to murder someone, sometimes. in these cases, there are two prices of intent to you in the criminal investigation on whether or not classified --ormation was classified was compromise, there is something called gross negligence. if you mishandle classified information -- do not store it properly, send it to people not entitled to it, put it on it private server, send it to someone without a security clearance -- that is called gross negligence. that does not require intent other than the intent of actually compromising it. intent.ot need evil

in espionage statues, you have to knowingly compromise information. no you are do something -- know that you are doing something bad. both are at play. host: do you think there was criminal intent or gross negligence? i asked myself what what i do if i were the u.s. attorney investigating this? the first thing you knew -- you do is you look at what the former head of the nsa has called the original sin. their original sin was setting up a private server in a private residence in new york, upon which all of the secretary's government business would be conducted. she would have no .gov account, only the account in the private server. if you look at that and think why would someone do that, the question i ask myself and the answer i get is to avoid disclosure. even a.

prevent people -- evade. prevent people from finding out what is going on. if it is a public server, thousands could find out. if it is a private server, that is the intent to evade and hide. if there is a subpoena in a case,m of information they would say they do not have information, because it is on mrs. clinton's private server. that is exactly what has happened. judge emmet sullivan has thereered nobody told me is no government account. now that we know there is a private server, i want testimony from everyone involved. digenova is our guest. he has been a u.s. attorney for the district of columbia during the reagan administration. hinkley, has john

been in the -- he is named special counsel by the house of representatives to 19k into teamsters in the 90's. several different positions. he and his wife have their own law firm here in washington, d.c., focusing on criminal issues? guest: criminal, regulatory. i was present at the creation of c-span with the vote in the senate to televise senate proceedings, along with my boss, the senator from maryland. we helped launch c-span, one of my proudest moments. the senator favorite cameras everywhere, including federal courts. he is not around today.

we are talking about the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. the numbers are on the screen. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. we want to show you a little video. this is hillary clinton at a recent debate. [video clip] >> it was not the best choice. i made a mistake. it was not prohibited. not in any way disallowed. it has now come out. my present resources -- my predecessors did the same thing. to cut to the chase, i did not send or receive any e-mails mark pacified at the time. what you are talking about is retroactive classification. is whenon that happened you're asked to make information public, i asked all my e-mails to be made public, the rest of the government gets to weigh in.

some other parts of the government, we are not sure who, concluded some of the e-mails should be retroactively classified. they said the same thing to former secretary colin powell. they say we will retroactively classified e-mails you sent personally. i think he was right when he said this was an absurdity. i think what we got here is a case of overclassification. i am not concerned about it, i am not worried about it, and no democrat or american should be either. [cheering] were did theyn give you permission? >> there was no permission to be asked. my predecessor did it. >> if you get indicted, will you drop out? >> i will not even answer that. guest: what is important from

the entire comment is when mrs. clinton refers to others having done it, like powell, condoleezza rice, and madeleine albright, that is not true. while they have -- while they may have, from time to time, use their private e-mail to send an e-mail to the state department, not one of them had a private e-mail server in the basement of their home from which they conducted their government business. that is what the case is about. the case is about the server. that is the essence of the case. no isis why brian paglia important. that is why sit unit -- that is why documents are subpoenaed from those who provided service for the server. ofclearly relates to the use -- when you have that private server in your home in chappaqua

and it is off the grid -- not encrypted or secured -- and you know everything going through that will theoretically be compomise double -- romisable, and when you and your staff use iphones or androids or ipads through that computer, all of that information is comp romisable. haveecretary, she may never sent a received anything classified. but that is not the standard under the statutes. the espionage and gross negligence statute say nothing about the labels on a piece of paper. what matters is the substance of the information in the communication. of anyone who is signed a nondisclosure agreement one given their top security clearance -- that i know my duty to know what is classified

whether classified or not -- classification markings mean nothing when it comes to whether or not something is classified. host: if you are defending or hired to be on the other side of this issue -- you are not on either side, this is just -- guest: i am not. host: what would you tell her? do not be interviewed by the fbi. if you live, you will be in the same boat as general petraeus. a federalive to investigator, that creates incentive to work harder on the case. but right now, given what the fbi knows, they know who is and who is not lying. they have the case locked in. and publish reports and conversations with former fbi agents, they believe they have a locked case. of howlieve the issue many people in the clinton circle in the state department involved is now a manageable

number. and there may be more people immunized not high in the totem. the key may patrick kennedy, the undersecretary for management. if i were representing mrs. clinton, she will say the state department knew i had this all along. they did not stop me. no one sees the computer. there is no correspondence saying i should not do this. unfortunately, that is not a defense. she is one of the 10 people in the u.s. government who has the generic statutory authority to classify information. there is only 10 people who can do it. she has the power to assist in d classification of that. her duty in terms of knowing things about classified information are higher. so when patrick kennedy does not stop her putting a private enough server in her home, even though after january 2009 that

people may not have known that away mrs. clinton did not have a within aunt, but couple of months, everyone knew. .gov it funny there is no e-mails from her or her staff? that point, she is in line to be president of the united states as secretary of state. to conducther job foreign policy comes the duty to understand and know classified information. that is the envelope from which operating. this is not someone who slips a paper in the wrong file and it stays out on someone's desk. this is someone with the highest class location power to use a private server to conduct all of her government is this. this has nothing to do with politics. it is illegal, per se. the government has a classified

e-mail system to protect national defense information and to prevent its disclosure to unauthorized persons. the existence of that server violates every known federal law on the protection of classified information. host: let's get to calls. joe digenova is our guest. rose is on our democrats line. been thehe should have one to go to the white house -- host: what are you referring to? caller: i am referring to that hillary clinton has so much baggage, it could fill an airplane hangar. you know? she is telling people a fairytale. that is why the fbi is going after her. they want the truth and she will not give it to them.

so they will go after the people she hired to be around her. that is why they are giving them immunity, because they want the truth. host: i think we got the point. when you, as a former prosecutor, would you have gone after brian pagliano? guest: absolutely. departmentd justice prosecutors are doing is right. you try to work your way up. people ask why have you not interviewed hillary clinton? you interview the target of an investigation last. after you talk to everyone else, subpoenaed information. have a full file. you take the people with perhaps a lot of information but no responsibility and build your way up. o is the linchpin of the case. he set up the server. was hired to do so specifically. and he never told the state department he was on the clinton

private payroll. he lied on government disclosure forms. that is why he had to be given immunity. because that lie was a federal crime. misdemeanor or felony depending on what it relates to. the point is when he did not reveal that he had two jobs for mrs. clinton, one off the payroll, that became a crime. everything else taken together, he was the perfect person to immunized. i would have done the same and probably would not have waited as long as they did. they subpoenaed records from third parties about him. bank records. records of his computer service company. that is why there is a grand jury, because they cannot subpoena without a grand jury authorizing it. they did the right thing. et.t: twe thethis point, shouldn't doj appoint an independent

special prosecutor?" guest: there is no independent statute for that anymore. but there is a justice department regulation that allows the bombing of a special counsel when there is a conflict or financial of interest. if i were loretta lynch, i would appoint a special counsel. herselfd she visit upon the responsibility of making this decision in a political year? she has a good reputation, having been year was attorney in brooklyn twice. she seems to be a seasoned prosecutor. she studiously avoided answering questions about the investigation. she did not deny there was a grand jury when she was asked that question recently. acertainly would appoint special counsel under the regulations. no matter what she does, if she

refuses to go for based on the publicly available evidence, i do not know how she will justify it. the evidence requires eight grand jury beyond what -- requires a grand jury beyond what is known. that, it takes time to that perso >> washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. saturday morning, david shepherdson joins us to discuss this week's congressional hearing on the flint, michigan water crisis. wallner will be on to talk about the potential for a contested or brokered convention within the republican party 10 what campaigns are doing behind the scenes to influence delegates. then the deputy director and

senior fellow for the center for strategic and international studies joins us to talk about vladimir putin's decision to a trawl russian forces from syria this week. be sure join the discussion. >> an interview with defense secretary ashton carter. a form on that form on genocide committed by isis. presidential tech -- candidate ted cruz and governor john kasich holding a town meeting in utah. two reporters from politico interviewed ashton carter covering a variety of national security issues including isis, north korea, china, and russia. this is 45 minutes. >> please