property house description

mr. earnest: goodafternoon, everybody. you look likeyou're staying cool. i do not have any commentsto make at the top, so we can go straightto your questions. josh, you want to go first? the press: thanks, josh. let's start with thepandemonium in philadelphia. (laughter) does the president feel thatwhat we're seeing the last

couple days in the partyhurts the party's unity, heading into the general? does he think the emailsshow favoritism by the dnc towards clintonduring the primary? and does he have anythoughts on who should be the next leader ofthe democratic party? the press: well, josh, he'sobviously -- well, let me start it this way. there are plenty of peoplewho are in philadelphia who

can speak to the currentstate of our party and the current efforts to organizeour party for success in the general election, and i'lllet them speak to that. there are also a varietyof ways to measure that. one measure that i thinkis relevant is the crowd reaction when the first ladyof the united states speaks tonight. and i do feel confident thatwhen mrs. obama walks out on stage, that everybody inthe crowd is going to be on

their feed applauding. that, i think, is a strongindication of their strong support for the first ladyand the deep admiration and respect that theyhave for her. she's also going to begiving voice to the kinds of values and priorities thatthis administration has been fighting for, for sevenand a half years now. and there is strong supportall across the democratic party for the agenda thatpresident obama has pursued

and the vigor withwhich he has pursued it. as it relates to thesituation at the, the president has been clearabout a couple of things. the first is he deeplyappreciates what congresswoman wassermanschultz has done during her five-year-plus tenure at the democratic national committee. she took the helm at the dncat a critically important time in presidentobama's career.

she had to, on a prettyshort turnaround, work to prepare the dnc for thegeneral election in 2012. and obviously the presidentwon that reelection campaign with more than 50percent of the vote. he's the first presidentsince eisenhower to both be elected and reelected withmore than 50 percent of the vote. and that certainly speaksto some of congresswoman wasserman schultz's skillsbecause the apparatus at the

dnc was an importantpart of that effort. so that's the first thing. and i think the presidentconveyed that appreciation in the context of thestatement that we issued last night. what's also true, and what'sbeen true for some time, is that the president believesthat the leadership at the dnc is something that shouldbe determined by the party nominee.

the ability of the partyapparatus and the democratic nominee's campaign workingeffectively together will be important to oursuccess in the fall. and so as the leader ofthe party, that's the president's interest. so he's long said that it'sthe party nominee that should make the decisionsabout the leadership of the dnc. and he certainly has beenunequivocal in his support

for secretary clinton, thepresumptive nominee, and her ability to makethat decision. the press: does he thinkwasserman schultz was fair to sanders in the primary? mr. earnest: listen, i'mnot going to get into the content of the email. obviously there are plentyof people with plenty of opinions about that, and iknow that senator sanders, himself, spoke to this alittle bit yesterday and

certainly in those commentshe indicated his unwavering support forsecretary clinton. the press: turning to theinvestigation into this hack that the fbi is now leading,after the sony hack, you were all relatively quick topoint the finger at north korea. are you prepared at thispoint to say anything about whether russia was involvedin this hack and whether it may have been an attempt bya foreign state to try and

sway the electiontowards donald trump? mr. earnest: at this point,josh -- well, let's go back to the sony situationback in late 2014. there was a careful andintensive law enforcement investigationinto that hack. obviously it generatedlots of headlines. and an assessment wasreached by a variety of national security agencies,including the fbi, that the actor involved was clear andthe impact that it would

have on the investigation torelease the conclusions that they'd reached about theattribution would be beneficial. so those are two separatedeterminations that have to be reached. ultimately those conclusionswill be reached by these national security agencieswho are focused on the national security of theunited states and the successful completionof the investigation. so i know that there's beena lot of public reporting

about this particular matterand i know that there are some private sector entitiesthat have conducted their own investigations and evenreleased their own reports on these investigations. i'm not in a position tospeak to the veracity of what conclusions have beenreached by private sector entities. at this point, it's myresponsibility to protect the ability of the fbi andother national security

agencies to do theirwork, to conduct these investigations and to followthe facts where they lead. so if there's a decisionthat is made by our national security professionalsto release additional information about whatthey've learned in the context of thisinvestigation, it seems likely, as was the case in2014, that they will be the first to releasethat information. so the fbi has put out astatement indicating that

they are investigating thissituation, and the president and his team obviously havemade cybersecurity a top priority. we know that there are avariety of actors, both state and criminal, who arelooking for vulnerabilities in the cybersecurity of theunited states, and that includes russia. but as it relates to thissituation, we're going to conduct -- the fbi isgoing to lead a careful

investigation, and if thereis a decision that's made to release information aboutconclusions that have been reached about theattribution of this attack, then it's likely that thefbi would be the first one to make that announcement,as they were with regard to the sony hack in 2014. the press: just one on thepresident's endorsement for kamala harris. congresswoman lorettasanchez pretty strongly

implied that the presidentendorsed the attorney general over her becausethey're both african american. do you take issue withthat characterization? mr. earnest: well, josh,i know that shortly after doing that interview thatcongresswoman sanchez issued a statement indicating thatshe did not mean to imply that that was the reason forthe president's endorsement of attorney generalkamala harris.

i'm not really sure whatshe intended to imply. i think you'dhave to ask her. the president's endorsement,though, i think spoke volumes about his deepappreciation for attorney general harris'sservice and her skill. and that's led presidentobama to conclude that she would make an excellentsuccessor to barbara boxer, representing california inthe united states senate. the president certainlystands by that endorsement

and is quiteenthusiastic about it. roberta. the press: donald trump saidthis weekend that he would be willing to pull the u.s. out of the world tradeorganization if wto stood in the way of his plan to puttariffs on certain imports. i guess i'm just wonderingwhether the white house has a reaction to this generalidea, the possibility of the u.s. leaving the wto.

mr. earnest: well, i'll letthe republican nominee make his own case for thepolicies that he hopes to pursue. but i think there are acouple of relevant facts that i'll just point outin terms of the way that president obama hasmanaged the u.s. relationship with othercountries in the wto. given the increasinglyinterconnected nature of the global economy, the unitedstates benefits from

effective tradingrelationships with countries around the world. the president has used theexample of the american auto industry when highlightinghow damaging it would be to try to wall off the unitedstates from the global supply chain. there are parts for americancars that are made around the world, and manythousands of american jobs would be put at risk ifthe united states and u.s.

automakers were not able tobenefit from this global market both in terms ofbeing able to make the products, but also in termsof being able to sell them. and withdrawing from thewto could certainly rupture those relationships in away that would have starkly negative consequencesfor the u.s. economy and foramerican workers. now, what's also true isthat the wto has been an effective location for theunited states to enforce our

trade rights. in fact, earlier this month,the united states launched a wto case against china forexport duties that were -- or are levied on rawmaterials that have critical input from manyindustrial products. this is the 13th wtocomplaint that the united states has broughtagainst china. over all, thisadministration has brought 22 wto complaints againstother countries, 13 of them

against china. that's more cases than anyother country has brought both against chinaindividually, and overall at the wto, over the courseof the last eight years. and it's notable thatof the cases that this administration has broughtforward at the wto that have been decided, we'vewon every single one. so that's an indication thatthe wto actually does end up being a very effective venuefor enforcing the rights of

u.s. workers and u.s. companies in a way that haspositive consequences for the u.s. economy. so, again, i'll let othercandidates make their own case, but i think what hasbeen proven under president obama's leadershipis that u.s. involvement in the wtocontributes significantly to the overall health of oureconomy and to our ability to enforce the trade rightsof the american people.

the press: what does thepresident make of tim kaine's shift on tpp? he was supportive ofit; right now he's not supportive of it. and secondly, howenthusiastically does the president plan to speakabout tpp in his speech at the convention this week? mr. earnest: well, i don'thave any aspects of the president's speech topreview at this point.

but stay tuned. if we can get you someinformation in advance, we will. as it relates to senatorkaine, obviously the president, as was notedover the weekend, is quite enthusiastic aboutsecretary clinton's choice. president obama knowssenator kaine well. then-governor kaine endorsedpresident obama's first presidential campaign backin 2007, at a time when few other people were willingto make that commitment.

but, again, then-governorkaine did that, and the president deeplyrespected that decision. ultimately -- i guess it'sa little ironic now -- i'm just sort of putting thistogether -- many democrats were unwilling to commit tosupporting senator obama's campaign that early becausethen-senator clinton was the prohibitive favorite and notmany people were willing to take a risk of rupturingtheir relationship with senator clinton in orderto support senator obama.

and governor kainedemonstrated a lot of courage, so much so thatpresident obama, after he was elected, askthen-governor kaine to take on the significantresponsibility of running the dnc. so president obama knowssenator kaine well. senator kaine is somebodywho early in his career was a civil rights attorney,spent time as a missionary and aid worker in honduras,and he's been somebody who's

been fighting for valuesand fighting for people throughout his career inpublic life, including as an elected official. that's something that deeplyresonates with a president who began his careerin public service as a community organizer. so president obama is prettyexcited about the fact that senator kaine has beenadded to the ballot. i'll let senator kainediscuss his position on the

trans-pacific partnership. obviously president obamaand our administration believes we have a verystrong case to make about how the american people andour economy would benefit from a trade agreementlike the trans-pacific partnership that raisesenvironmental standards, that raises labor standards,that makes them enforceable, that protects intellectualproperty that's developed here in the united states.

and our failure to enterinto these kinds of agreements, particularlywith countries in southeast asia that have some of thefastest-growing economies in the world, only gives chinaan opportunity to write the rules of the road in away that would further disadvantage the u.s. economy and u.s. workers and u.s. businesses. so we've got astrong case to make. it's a persuasive one,it's one that recent polls

indicate the majority ofamericans in both parties support. but i'll let senator kainemake his own case or explain his own positionon this issue. michelle. how does the president oryou feel about what was in those emailsthat were leaked? mr. earnest: well, listen,i have very little insight into the inner workings ofthe democratic national

committee, so i'll refer youto the dnc and the clinton campaign to describe thecontent of those emails and what it says about theoperations of the dnc. the press: that's really thewhole story here and part of the argument for abreakdown in unity. so is the president aware ofthe emails themselves and what was in them? mr. earnest: well, i'mconfident the president read the newspaper today so i'msure that he's aware of

this story. but i haven't gotten -- idon't have a reaction of his to convey to you. the press: so you don't havea feeling on whether that was -- whether it seemed tobe an attempt to undermine bernie sanders whilethis was going on? mr. earnest: again, i can'tspeak to the veracity of the emails. i'd refer you to the dnc.

the press: and what roledid the president play in wasserman schultzstepping down? did he want that to happen? and i know the conversationhappened afterwards, but how did the president makehis feeling known in the process? mr. earnest: well, i thinkwhat has -- the president's view is that the democrat atthe top of the ticket in the fall is the one who shouldmake decisions about the

leadership of the dnc. it's been the president'sview for quite some time. the president obviously hadthat prerogative when he was running in 2008. the president had thatprerogative when he was at the top of theticket in 2012. but his name is noton the ballot in 2016. and what the president doesknow, from having run and won in 2008 and 2012, isthat the party benefits when

the party's nominee and theapparatus of the dnc are effectively integrated. and that's why it makessense to him that the person at the top of the ticketshould get to decide. and that is something thatwas clear to congresswoman wasserman schultz andto the clinton campaign. so, ultimately, the clintoncampaign had to determine what they believed was inthe best interest of their campaign and the bestinterest of the party.

and that's what they did. the substance of the phonecall yesterday was simply the president taking theopportunity to express his appreciation tocongresswoman wasserman schultz for her serviceto the country and to the party. and he certainly continuesto be enthusiastic about her reelection campaign -- heendorsed her earlier this year. and he believes that thepeople of south florida have

been remarkably well-servedby having her represent their interests in theunited states congress, and he believes they'll -- as hesaid in his statement that we issued earlier thisspring -- he made clear that he supports her reelection. the press: the timing ofthis -- i mean, obviously, it was timed for a reason. what does he think about howthis affects democrats right now and what this does justbefore the convention and so

close to thegeneral election? mr. earnest: well, listen, ican't speak to the motives of the individual who mayhave released -- leaked this material. obviously, at this point, ican't even speak to who is responsible for obtainingthe material in the first place. the press: i'm askingreally about the reaction. mr. earnest: well, again,i think that most of the reaction i've seen is fromjournalists who are covering

the convention, andi think that's fine. ultimately, i think thereare a variety of ways to assess how the state of thedemocratic party -- and there will be a lot ofpeople who will be spending a lot of time doing thatover the course of the next few days -- but one measurethat i would recommend is to consider the reaction of thecrowd when mrs. obama speaks tonight. the press: i was just goingto ask you about that,

because here we have thechairman having to step down a day before the convention. bernie sanders supportersright now are rallying on the bridge to philadelphia. he just gave this fieryspeech -- he's going to speak again tonight. how can you say that ameasure of the unity of the democratic party right nowis based on how well the crowd receives thefirst lady's speech?

i mean, what does that haveto do with everything else that's going on right now? mr. earnest: i think whatthe first lady will give voice to are the kinds ofvalues and priorities that have guided this presidentand this administration. and it's not just thatdemocrats are quite enthusiastic about thosevalues and priorities -- democrats all across thecountry strongly support them. they are unifiedbehind them.

so, again, i think that'sone indication of the condition of thedemocratic party. i recognize that there willbe some skeptics who will cite other data points. that's not illegitimate. i think there are a lot ofways to assess the state of the democratic party. and there may be someskeptics who might overlook the fact that the democraticparty is enthusiastic about

the values and agenda andpriorities that president obama has pursued over thelast seven and a half years. so, again, i think there area lot of ways to reach this analysis, and i'll mostlyleave that to other people -- except when it comes tothe first lady of the united states, who i think is goingto give a great speech and one that will be warmlyreceived by democrats in the hall and allacross the country. the press: just so it'sclear, and quickly, can you

just give us your assessmentof the unity of the party right now? mr. earnest: there areplenty of other people who are on hand and in aposition to do that. mr. earnest:thanks, michelle. mike. the press: juston that hack also. has the president spokenwith president putin about that hack, or have otherhigh-level administration

officials spoken withrussian officials about this hack? mr. earnest: i'm not awarethat the president has mentioned any of thesereports to president putin in their conversations. i know the issue ofcybersecurity is one that president obama hasprioritized, and i feel confident that at one pointor another, that issue has come up in his previousconversations with

president putin. but i'm not aware that thisparticular incident, or the reports of this particularincident have been a subject of conversation betweenpresident obama and the press: do you have asense of the motive for this attack? and would it possibly havebeen to interfere with the electoral process? mr. earnest: well, asthe fbi conducts their

investigation, theycertainly would be looking to ascribe someresponsibility for this breach, and, in doing so,i'm sure they will consider potential motives. the press: you don't -- theadministration doesn't have an opinion on thatat this point? mr. earnest: again, thisparticular situation is still being investigated bythe fbi, and i just don't want to do anything thatwould make their -- or say

anything that would maketheir investigation more complicated thanit already is. the press: have you saidanything to the russian government at this pointabout, hey, we don't think it's kosher for you tointerfere in our political process? the press: kosher? the press: we don't acceptyou interfering with our have you sent any preemptivemessage, that regardless of

whether or not they wereresponsible for this hack, that they shouldn'tinterfere with the election? mr. earnest: well, again,i'm not aware of any communication like that atleast from the white house, in part because this is thesubject of an ongoing fbi investigation. but i'm not aware of amessage like that being sent. the press: you mentionedtwo criteria that the administration examined indeciding to reveal that

north korea was thesource of the sony leak. one was clarity of evidence,and the other was a determination by theintelligence agencies that it was beneficial to theunited states to release that information. in this case, would therebe other criteria you would consider? and would that decision beshaped by the possibility that this would be anattempt to interfere with

the u.s. electoral process? mr. earnest: well, listen,what i can tell you is that this investigation will beguided by the facts and not by the politicalimplications, or potential political implications. the fbi and other nationalsecurity agencies are focused on this, and theyhave experts that they can use to examinethis situation. and they will use thatexpertise and they will

follow the facts where theylead to reach conclusions, and then they willdetermine, based on broader policy implications, howmuch of that they can discuss publicly. so this is a processthat is ongoing. and again, there's just notthat much that i can say about it as the president'sspokesperson that doesn't risk potentially interferingor somehow making their investigation even morecomplicated than it

already is. the press: when joshasked whether you and the administration thought thatdebbie wasserman schultz and the dnc have been fairto bernie sanders, you demurred, saying, "well,we're not going to comment on the email." but you and presidentobama and others in the administration know a thingor two about politics. looking at it, looking atthe way it's played out, do

you think she and the dnchave been fair to bernie sanders, as you, as astutepolitical observers, can determine from the outside? mr. earnest: well, listen, ithink what is true is that there are going to be peoplewith intense passions with a variety of points of view. and given the fact that idon't have much insight into the inner workings of thednc beyond what i guess what we've all read in the --

thepress: -- what we all saw. mr. earnest: yes, based onwhat we've all read in the newspaper, that's givenplenty of people an opportunity to develop theirown perspective and, in some cases, share theirpoint of view. i just don't have muchinsight into the inner workings of the dnc,particularly over the course of this campaign. so i'll let other peoplemake up their own minds

on this. but what is true is thatsenator sanders himself has indicated that even in lightof all this news and some of these emails, his supportfor secretary clinton hasn't changed. and so i guess in some ways,when it comes to the view of the dnc and whether theywere fair to senator sanders, the person whoseopinion matters the most is not mine, it'ssenator sanders's.

and so he's spoken of thisa little bit, i suspect not for the last time. the press: and lastly this-- just slightly different than what people have askedbefore, but not too distant. is the president happy thathe kept ms. schultz in charge of the dnc up through this point -- mr. earnest: congresswoman wasserman schultz has done -- the press: -- throughthis primary process? mr. earnest: look, thepresident believes that

congresswoman wassermanschultz, over the course of the last five years that shewas leading the dnc, did an excellent job. and again, i think theresults speak for themselves in terms of the president'ssuccess in winning reelection with more thana majority of the vote. obviously the dnc made animportant contribution to that effort. and congresswoman wassermanschultz has also been

responsible for leading theparty through a competitive democratic primary process. and the prospects -- again,based on the -- there are many people, publicly, whohave taken a look at the election and have concludedthat the democratic party is in good shape in thegeneral election. and certainly the conditionof the democratic party is something that congresswomanwasserman schultz deserves credit for.

i would just add thatthere's nobody who thinks that being the chair of anational party is an easy job, or is a job where awhole bunch of people come up to you and say thank you. and having worked fortwo previous dnc chairs directly, i can speakfirsthand to that. so it's not just thatcongresswoman wasserman schultz served for fiveyears; it's not just that she did an excellentjob both in helping the

president get reelected butalso in positioning the party for success in 2016;it's that this is a job that's really hard and issubject to a lot of intense criticism. and again, i think given allof that, the president felt it was appropriate to giveher a call yesterday and convey to her once again howdeeply appreciative he is of her service to the partyand to the country, and how strongly supportive he isof her reelection campaign.

margaret. the press: josh, itnow appears that the congresswoman will not begaveling at the dnc to kick it off officially. does the white house have aview on the appropriate role -- this is a diminishedrole -- if that's something you're disappointed withgiven the praise that you just outlined? mr. earnest: again, theseare the kinds of decisions

that secretary clinton andher team will make as the presumptive nominee ofthe democratic party. the focus of this conventionis on formally nominating secretary clinton and givingher a venue to make a speech. so when it comes to theday-to-day functioning of the convention i'd referyou to convention staff and secretary clinton's team. the press: was there ameeting here at the white house over the weekendregarding the dnc hack?

mr. earnest: well, i knowthat there have been some reports about nationalsecurity officials discussing this breach. i don't have any specificmeetings to tell you about. what i can tell you is thatit shouldn't be a surprise that there are nationalsecurity officials that meet on a regular basis here atthe white house to discuss cybersecurity. the president has made thata top priority and obviously

the cybersecurity, boththe public sector but also private sector, entities isimportant to our national security. and this is something thatis discussed frequently by national security officialsacross the government, but including here atthe white house. the press: so you can't say? mr. earnest: i can't speakto any specific meetings. the press: but more thanthat -- you can't read it out?

mr. earnest: i think whati'm trying to convey is that there are regular meetingsat the white house that are focused on cybersecurity. and i can't speak to anyspecific meetings or any specific agenda items, butcybersecurity is obviously a priority of thisadministration and our national security agencies,and this is a subject that they need todiscuss regularly. the press: you outlined thatit's going to be a very

deliberate process, and youcan't say whether or not officially thatrussia is behind this. but the clinton campaignis being pretty direct in attributing thisattack to russia. do you think they'rejumping the gun? mr. earnest: well, they'renot the only ones that have been pretty direct. i know that a number of yournews organizations have been quite direct indrawing that link.

and there are also someprivate sector -- at least one high-profile privatesector group that's issued a report drawing that linkin rather bright lines. the press: -- credibilityto it, you're saying. mr. earnest: so i'm sayingthat this is an observation that other people have madeand at least one private sector entity that haslooked at this matter provided a whole lot ofevidence that's appeared in all of your newsreports about this.

i'd refer you to thatcompany or to the dnc or the clinton campaign aboutthose conclusions. right now, the united statesgovernment is conducting an investigation to formulateour own conclusions about this situation, and i justdon't want to get ahead of their investigationfrom here. the fbi is the lead in thatinvestigation, and when they're ready to make --when they're ready to share some information about whatthey've learned they'll be

the first to do so. the press: josh, i mean thething that's different is it wouldn't be unprecedentedfor russia to hack the administration. they recently have hackedunclassified systems at state and the whitehouse, and that's been acknowledged. when it comes to thisparticular thing, though, this seems a different levelto be directly interfering

in an election. this is something thatrussia does in its own backyard, meddlingin other states. to do it here in the stateswould make this seem to be a whole other level of attack. can you explain howyou're thinking of this? mr. earnest: i actuallydon't believe, at least from here, we have been directabout ascribing any attribution for the otherbreaches that you mentioned,

including at the statedepartment and here at the white house. that's not because wedon't take those breaches seriously. i assure you that we do. and those breaches have beenthoroughly investigated and there are a number of stepsthat have been taken to prevent futurebreaches of that sort. so this is something thatwe're vigilant about and

will be moving forward. we take those matters quiteseriously, and the fact that i'm unwilling to talk inmuch detail about this situation is not anindication that somehow the administration or ournational security agencies take this lightly. in fact, i think it might bean indication of just how seriously we treat thismatter that i don't want to say something that could,as a representative of the

white house and as aspokesperson for the president, that would makethis investigation even more so that's why i'm beinga little circumspect. and i would acknowledgethat fact on the front end. the press: onemore question. it appears that the lasthospitals remaining in aleppo, syria have beendestroyed by the syrian air force, with the backing ofthe russians, according to u.s.-backed syrianopposition.

there's claims of 400,000civilians in immediate risk and in need of aid. france has calledthis a war crime. do you agree with that? and what is the u.s. doing? mr. earnest: well, margaret,i have seen the news reports of the situation in aleppo,and it's gut-wrenching. the targeting of medicalfacilities that treat civilians is somethingthat's impossible to justify.

unfortunately, these reportsout of syria are not unique. we know there's been aspecific strategy carried out by the assad regime touse their country's military might and attackinnocent people. it's why the united statesand the rest of the international community-- almost the rest of the entire internationalcommunity -- has concluded that president assad haslost the legitimacy to lead in syria.

we believe that he must go. and it's just not possiblefor him to make a credible case that he is the rightperson to unify that country when he's spent so much timeand energy and resources attacking the citizensof the country. so we continue to bedeeply concerned about the situation in syria, andparticularly the situation in aleppo. that's why we are redoublingour efforts to try to get

the russians and the assadregime to live up to the commitments that they madein the context of the cessation of hostilities. we've tried to dothat for two reasons. the first is, byimplementing the cessation of hostilities, we can firstand foremost try to bring humanitarian relief toinnocent people that have been caught in the crossfire for years now -- the press: the french called that a smokescreen

today, that the ceasefire, the cessation of hostilities has just been a smokescreen for russia andsyria to continue to do this. mr. earnest: there have beenplaces where implementing the cessation of hostilitiessuccessfully has allowed hundreds of thousands ofpeople in syria to get some humanitarian relief. there are placeswhere it has worked.

and i think it's importantwe not overlook those, because that essentiallyserves as a model for what we would like to do in otherplaces in the country. at the same time, margaret,i would readily agree that there are some places wherethe russians and the syrians have not lived up to thecommitments that they've made, where they haveengaged in the kinds of actions that are not allowedunder the and as a result, thehumanitarian situation

has worsened. so we continue to be quiteconcerned about that. the other reason that we'reconcerned about it is that it's impossible to brokerpolitical talks between government representativesand the opposition as long as there'sfighting going on. so we're trying to get thefighting to stop so that we can bring the much-neededhumanitarian relief, but also to try to kick-startthe kind of political

transition that everybodyacknowledges -- everybody except for bashar alassad -- acknowledges is necessary. so that's the state of play. and, again, what's happeningin aleppo is deeply, deeply concerning. and we condemn in thestrongest terms the effort by anybody to target medicalfacilities that treat civilians. that's completelyunacceptable and contravenes

just about everyinternational agreement that applies to thesekinds of situations. kevin. speaking of syria, at lastcheck, according to state department figures, thereare about 6,900 syrian refugees that have beenadmitted to the u.s. in fiscal 2016. that number seems to beaccelerated by some 1,500 since july.

is the white house concernedat all by the inflow of refugees given what hashappened in germany over the past week? three of the four deadlyattacks there have been carried out by refugees. mr. earnest: kevin, therefugee process in the united states involvesthorough screening and vetting. in fact, individualsentering the united states as a refugee undergo morerigorous screening than

anybody else who tries toenter the united states. that means that theseindividuals, before they're allowed to enter thecountry, that they're subjected to interviews;that biometric information is collected about them -- the press: mental health screening? mr. earnest: well, i can'tspeak to the specifics of those but you certainlycan check with the state department that can provideyou some more incite.

but once that information iscollected, it then is run through a wide varietyof databases, including databases that aremaintained by the intelligence community,by the military, by law enforcement organizations,including international law enforcement organizations,to make sure that this person is appropriate toadmit to the united states. so that's why the presidenthas confidence in ramping up the number of refugees thatare admitted to the united

states, because obviouslyalmost all of them are innocent people fleeingviolence in their home country. some of them are peoplewho are fleeing genocide. and the president feels likethe united states has a responsibility to do ourpart to try to provide relief to people who arefleeing that kind of violence and includingpeople who are fleeing genocide. the press: is it anirrational concern, then, to

have more refugees come tothe country, given what's happening in germany? mr. earnest: concern forthe united states and our national security is thepresident's top priority. so i can understand whypeople are concerned about our national security -- thepresident is concerned about our national security. in fact, that is why he hasensured that refugees who are admitted to the unitedstates are subjected to all

of the screening thati just described. they undergo more screeningthan anybody else who tries to enter the united states. they undergo more screeningthan somebody who tries to enter the unitedstates as a tourist. they undergo more screeningthan anybody who enters the united states todo business here. so the screeningis thorough. and the president has madeclear that even as we

increase the number ofrefugees that are admitted to the united states, we'renot going to cut corners when it comesto our security. the president has madeclear that those kinds of shortcuts arenot appropriate. so we can do the rigorousscreening, even as the united states fulfills ourresponsibility to our fellow human beings that areinnocently caught in the middle of a conflict.

the press: i want to drawyour attention to something else. house democrats are pressingthe president to take action on nuclear weaponsbefore he leaves office. you may be familiar witha letter sent by five democrats urging thepresident to take bold action and implement ano-first-use policy. what is the president'sbelief about a no-first-use policy?

and would he be interestedin pursuing that given the brevity of histime in office? he has not to this point. mr. earnest: well, kevin,the president has made counter-proliferation --preventing the spread of nuclear weaponsa top priority. and the president organizedi believe on four or five different occasions anuclear security summit, where, essentially, worldleaders gathered in one

place -- twice in theunited states -- to have a discussion about whatadditional steps could be implemented to prevent thefurther spread of nuclear weapons. so this has been a toppriority when it comes to the president'sforeign policy agenda. so i don't have any news tomake about any sort of new policy or any additionalsteps that the president may take.

but the president iscertainly interested in taking advantage ofopportunities that are available over the last sixmonths that he has in office to further move us toward avision that presidents in both parties havearticulated, which is a world withoutnuclear weapons. and it's a long-term goal. it's not likely to happen --it's obviously not going to happen in thisadministration.

it's probably not goingto happen in any of our lifetimes. but the president certainlydoes believe that our world would be safer and theamerican people would be more secure if we couldsucceed in that effort. the press: and to put abutton on that, then is it fair to say he is, inprinciple, supportive of a no-first-use idea? or not?

mr. earnest: well, again, idon't have any news to make when it comes to laying outany new sort of principles when it comes to theuse of nuclear weapons. the president's view is thatobviously it's a dangerous world, and we're aware ofthe fact that some of our adversaries do havea nuclear stockpile. and the work that we haveengaged in over the course of this administration hasbeen to prevent particular tools or some equipment, oreven some nuclear material,

falling into the hands ofrogue actors -- whether they're terrorists orcriminal entities, or even some other countries -- thatwould allow them to develop nuclear capability. and we have made progress insafeguarding that material. we've made progress inreaching an international agreement with iran toprevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. so we've made importantprogress in stemming the

proliferation of nuclearmaterials and nuclear weapons. that enhances ournation's security. but we've also been able towork effectively, through diplomacy, to try to getother countries to reduce their nuclear stockpile. now, there's more progresson this that we would like to make, but this has been apriority and one that we're going to continue to track. the press: you mentioned thefirst lady -- just one more

-- values and agendaand priorities that the democrats stand for. can you give us sort of apreview of what we should expect to hear from hertonight, and why it's so important that she reallytake on the mantle of healer, if you will, givenwhat's been happening in the last couple dayswith the democrats? mr. earnest: i don't thinkthat's how she sees her role. i think what you can expectfrom mrs. obama is for her

to make a very forcefulcase, obviously in support of secretary clinton. and mrs. obama's case willbe rooted in her own sense of values and in the sense-- and in the values that she wants to instillin her children. i think, like manyamericans, she considers her choice in this election fromthe perspective of a parent who deeply loves her kids. she's also a first ladythat's had an opportunity to

travel all across thecountry and meet parents and kids in communities allacross the country. and she certainly knows thather husband, when he was sitting in the oval officemaking decisions about our country, whether it wasrelated to domestic or foreign policy -- that hehad the best interests of the country and the bestinterests of our country's kids in mind. that certainly is whatmrs. obama believes is

important as people considerwho to support in the next election. and she'll make a forcefulcase that when it comes to the next president lookingout for our kids and their interests, she's made thedecision to strongly support secretary clinton. but she'll make that casemuch more eloquently than i just did, and i certainlywould encourage people to tune in and check it out.

hans. the press: josh, i want tomake sure i have this all clear in response to theanswer on the genocide question on isis and --you used genocide twice. and mark was askingabout aleppo as well. i just want to make sure whothe genocide designation is currently applied to. mr. earnest: well, thestate department makes that designation, so they cansort of walk you through

the particulars. i know that they've madean announcement about a determination they'vemade over there. the press: you weren'textending that. you're keeping this justgenocide for isil, not beyond. mr. earnest: the point thati'm making is that there are a large number of people whoare fleeing syria because of the violence that hastorn that country apart. and too often, some peoplethat may even have a

political agenda have triedto describe those people as would-be terrorists. i don't think that's anaccurate description. this is a group ofindividuals that i think can best be described as almostentirely innocent people fleeing violence. in some cases, these arepeople who are fleeing violence that could bedirected at them because of their religion, or becauseof their ethnicity, or for

reasons that couldpotentially put them at risk of genocide. now, there is a concern thathas been expressed by our intelligence community thatterrorists could try to capitalize on this situationin a way that could undermine ournational security. and that's why the presidenthas insisted on protecting these rigorous screeningstandards and making sure that any refugee that'sadmitted to the united

states undergoes screeningthat involves background checks, in-personinterviews, collecting biometric information andmaking sure that it's cycled through all these databases. and he does that -- thepresident advocates this point of view not because hebelieves that most of these people are likely terroristsand we just need to find the innocent people among them;rather, we understand that almost every individualin this group is somebody

that's fleeing violencein their hometown. in some cases, it's anindividual who is and we need to make surethat we're doing rigorous screening to preventterrorist organizations from capitalizing onthe situation. and by doing this kind ofscreening, we can certainly and significantly reduce thelikelihood that terrorist organizations are going tobe able to capitalize on this chaos and sneaksomebody into the united states.

the press: but you're nottrying to broaden the definition of entities who'sbeing tagged by the state department with genocide? mr. earnest: no. again, i'm just trying tohelp people understand the context in which thesedecisions are made. and the truth is, almostevery single person that's being considered for refugeestatus is a person that's fleeing violencein their country.

and the united states has aresponsibility to step up and respond to the call ofproviding for at least some of those people. the press: and if i couldjust go back to the dnc issue. when robin mook said thismorning that they have information that it isrussia that is doing this, that's behind this, you'resaying that's solely based on private intelligentand private assessment? there's nothing then fromthe government that has

given them that indicationthat russia is behind it? mr. earnest: yes,that's a good question. you should ask mr. mookexactly what information he was relying on. the point that i was makingis that there's plenty of outside analysis that's beendone that has reached the same conclusion that hearticulated over the weekend. the federal government,using tools that -- using a variety of tools -- isworking to complete our

own assessment. and that work isbeing done by the fbi. and there's not a whole loti can say about that because i don't want to compromisetheir investigation. the press: are you awareof any official government communication from theunited states government or the fbi or the white houseto either the clinton campaign or the dnc thatthey'd been hacked? mr. earnest: i can'tspeak to any of that.

the press: because in 2008,i mean, josh bolten called -- when the chinese hackedthe mccain campaign and the obama campaign, when youwere on the obama campaign, it was josh bolten whocalled up david plouffe. and there was somethingofficial, that they weren't just relying onprivate assessments. mr. earnest: well, look,what i'm sure is true is that as the fbi conductstheir investigation into what happened at thednc, they'll have some

interaction with the dncas they conduct their investigation. but i can't speak to anyspecific conversations that have taken place. the press: so they couldbe relying, though, on something from the fbi thatsaid -- telling them that they were hacked? mr. earnest: well, again, idon't know whether or not the fbi has providedthem any information.

i guess the point that i'mtrying to make is there is always a lot of publicspeculation out there, including some evidence thathas been marshalled by a private sector entity, andbased on that evidence, that this outside group that is agroup of experts -- i'm not trying to diminish them --but they've reached their own conclusions about this. so it certainly is possiblethat mr. mook was relying on that publiclyavailable information.

you'd have to ask himif that's the case. the press: but it's alsopossible that he's heard from the fbi orthe white house? mr. earnest: well, again,you'd have to ask him who he has spoken to. david. the press: justa couple topics. one is last week you talkedabout the president not watching the rnc convention.

and you also suggested thathe would certainly watch his wife, but you weren't clearwho else he would watch other than maybesecretary clinton. i'm wondering if you couldtell us whether he plans to tune into bernie sanders'sspeech tonight, considering sanders's role in thisprimary process and leading up to this? mr. earnest: i don't knowwhether or not he'll watch senator sanders'sspeech tonight.

but i'll see if i can findout tomorrow if he watched it and we'll let you know. the press: thatwould be great. on another topic. susan rice -- ambassadorrice was in beijing today, had a meeting with a numberof chinese officials. in the readout from thewhite house and i think some brief remarks that shemade in her meeting with president xi -- they talkedabout a range of issues but

did not specifically mentionthe south china sea. i'm wondering if you couldtell us if that issue was -- and the recent ruling by thetribunal was brought up by ambassador rice, what kindof message she delivered on that point, and if she gotany reassurances from either state councilor yang orpresident xi about china's behavior in that region --whether they'll tone down some of theirprovocative behavior. mr. earnest: david, i didnot get a detailed readout

from ambassador rice and herteam who are traveling in china right now. what i can tell you isthat there were a range of maritime issues on heragenda when she went to meet with president xi. so it certainly was herexpectation that it would come up in theirconversation, so i expect that it did. i'm not able to speak to thereaction from the chinese

leader when it wasdiscussed at this point. but this was certainly amongthe wide range of issues that ambassador rice wasprepared to discuss with chinese officials,including president xi. this included conversationsabout the upcoming g20 meeting -- the president,of course, is planning to attend and i wouldanticipate he'll do a bilateral meeting withpresident xi when he's there. they spent some timepreparing for

that conversation. i know that she alsodiscussed with them things like human rights andthe treatment of u.s. businesses and ngos in china-- something that we've raised concernsabout in the past. there also was anopportunity for them to talk about a couple of issues inwhich the united states and china have been able tocoordinate effectively. both in terms of trying todenuclearize the korean

peninsula and to makeprogress on climate change, and obviously we've talkeda lot in the past about how the ability of the unitedstates and china to work together on fighting carbonpollution was essential to the broader internationaleffort to reach a climate change agreement atthe end of last year. the press: overall, thewhite house readout seemed fairly positive. it talked about cooperationat unprecedented levels and

a very fruitful meetingbetween the ambassador and president xi. i mean, there are others whowould suggest that the sort of differences among thetwo countries are also pronounced at this moment. and under the currentpresident of china, things have, in some ways,deteriorated in these other areas. why was it such anoptimistic sort of readout

on this? and when you call it afruitful meeting, there wasn't a lot of detail aboutwhat fruit it delivered between ambassadorrice and the president. could you be more specificabout what the outcomes were? mr. earnest: well, i thinkour expectation is that moving forward, that thesekinds of meetings are intended to lay thegroundwork for positive results down the road.

and ambassador rice wasexplicit about in her conversations with chineseofficials -- and not just her counterpart but also thechinese president -- that she's interested in --that the administration is interested in a constructiverelationship with the chinese. it doesn't mean therewon't be disagreements. obviously there are a rangeof disagreements, including on cyber issues. so those of you who knowambassador rice know that

she is unlikely to shy awayfrom being blunt about those differences. but we've also worked hardin the context of our relationship with chinato make sure that those differences don't preventus from making progress in and certainly when it comesto things like climate change and thedenuclearization of the korean peninsula, andeven some aspects of our military-to-militaryrelationship, we've made

some important progress thathas enhanced the standing and status of citizensin both our countries. so there are definitelydifferences of opinion. i'm confident those werediscussed in these meetings that ambassador rice had. but i'm confident that it'sin the context of these discussions, she went togreat lengths to make clear that, even despite ourdifferences, let's look for opportunities to makesome progress together.

and when the united statesand china can cooperate on something, thesky is the limit. megan. the press: josh, a questionfor you on the u.n. report that's out showing arecord number of civilian casualties in afghanistan inthe first six months of this year. the majority of thoseit would show were anti-government forceslike the taliban, but a

significant number werepro-government forces. what is theconcern of the u.s. as the u.s. is getting more involved orrenewing its commitment to work with afghan securityforces for these numbers? specifically, there's a hugenumber of children that have been killed or injured. mr. earnest: well, obviouslythere was a bombing in afghanistan over the weekendin which dozens of innocent people were killed andmany more were injured.

almost all of thosewere citizens. and, again, based solely onthe public reports, it does appear that the individualor individuals who carried out that attack wereintentionally trying to harm civilians. this is a tactic thatwe've seen from isil. it's a tactic we've seenfrom other terrorist organizations. and it's one of the manythings that distinguishes

terrorists from therest of the world. the united states, andcertainly the afghan government, go to greatlengths to try to prevent civilian casualties. and i would anticipate thatas we see the performance of afghan security forcesimprove, their ability to successfully preventcivilian casualties when they're carrying outoperations will also improve. but there's just -- it'simportant not to draw an

equivalent betweenorganizations that set out to harm civilians andgovernment forces, including those backed by the unitedstates, that go to great lengths to try to protectthose civilian -- innocent civilians. and it doesn't meanafghanistan is not a dangerous place;it surely is. but this administration andthis country places a high priority on preventingcivilian casualties and

that's not going to change. the press: but whatrole does the u.s. play? the report showed a 47percent increase in the number of civilians killedby pro-government forces. so what role does the u.s. play? or how does the u.s. play into that? mr. earnest: well, theunited states is certainly playing an important role inenhancing the training of afghan forces.

and improved trainingcertainly will have a positive impact on theirability to prevent i think that's the mostdirect impact that we can have on thatparticular situation. i would also expect thatas afghan security forces continue to make progressagainst the taliban and other extremists that areoperating in afghanistan, as the situation stabilizes,that also makes it less likely that innocentcivilians could be in

harm's way. and that's why a lot of thefocus that we've been -- that afghan forces have madea priority is on stabilizing the security situation inafghanistan's major cities. but again, these kinds ofcivilian casualties are a tragedy. and that's why the unitedstates goes to such great lengths to avoid them, andit's also part of why we go to such great lengths tosupport the afghan people

and afghan government andafghan security forces as they take the fight to thetaliban and other extremist organizationsin afghanistan. the press: thank you, josh. one question on theconvention and hillary clinton and trustworthiness. cnn and cbs have polls outshowing record highs in terms of the number ofamerican people that don't believe that hillaryclinton is trustworthy.

what can, or is thereanything the president and first lady will say in theirremarks that could help hillary clintonin this area? mr. earnest: well, whenit comes to the campaign strategy, i'd referyou to the campaign. i think certainly somethingthat you've heard the president say before is he'sin a unique position to offer up his own assessmentof secretary clinton. he worked closely withsecretary clinton when she

was secretary of statein his administration. he obviously competedagainst secretary clinton in an historic democraticprimary campaign. they served together for abrief time in the united states senate. through their extensive workrelationship they've become friends. so his firsthandexperience is relevant. and that firsthandexperience is not just drawn

from the fact that he is thecurrent president of the united states, but it's alsodrawn from the fact that he knows her personally, andhe can speak with his own personal knowledge of herskills and her character. and he's already done that. he certainly did that in thejoint campaign event that they did in charlotte backin -- i guess it was just a couple of weeks ago now,seems like a long time ago. but i certainly wouldanticipate that you'll hear

the president make that casein his convention speech and in his future advocacy forher campaign down the line. he's got a uniqueperspective to relate based on his own personalexperience with and i imagine that somepeople will find that quite persuasive. the press: will the firstlady be speaking about her relationship withhillary clinton? was there any interactionbetween the first lady and

hillary clinton overher remarks tonight? mr. earnest: well, obviouslymrs. obama has had an opportunity to get to knowmrs. clinton a little bit as well. but the nature of theirrelationship is different. so much of president obama'sinteractions with secretary clinton have taken place ina professional context, and that is the context throughwhich he can evaluate her skills and her character.

mrs. obama's relationshipwith secretary clinton is a little bit different. yes, ma'am. the press: two quickfollow-ups on germany. one, i know that there arebig differences between how the u.s. admits refugees and thesituation in germany, but are you concerned that therewill be a political backlash here, given this recentstring of attacks? and also, has the u.s.

taken any steps in recentdays to increase security cooperation withthe germans? mr. earnest: well, i cancertainly tell you that german officials-- german and u.s. officials have been intouch in recent days. and we've been saddened bythe violence that we've seen in germany over the lastweek or so that has harmed a number of innocent people. and of course, the unitedstates stands resolute

alongside our german alliesas they confront the forces of extremism intheir own country. i can't speak to anyspecific steps that have been taken, but the unitedstates is certainly interested in doing whateverwe can to support the german government and the germanpeople and german national security agencies as theysafeguard their own country. with regard to the politicalsituation in germany, i'll let more informedindividuals offer up their

own analysis of thepolitical situation in germany. but what i will just say asa general matter is that one of the things that makes thealliance between the united states and germany so strongis our shared values and our shared commitmentto those values. and those values includeprotecting innocent civilians and offeringhumanitarian relief to those in need, and not treatingpeople differently just

because of their religion. and those values are notunique to the united states and germany, but our shared,deep commitment to those values certainlystrengthens our alliance. yes, sir, i'll giveyou the last one. the press: thanks so much. on turkey, josh, a coupleof questions, if i may. just today, there are about42 journalists -- issued arrest warrant for 42journalists -- there's

another warrant for arrestfor another 19 journalists. these are the only reportedwarrants, and there are many other across turkey. a crackdown goes on. it has been 10 days sincethe coup attempt failed. are you watching what'sgoing on in turkey in terms of a government's, somecall purge, some other call crackdown after the coup? mr. earnest: president obamawas asked about this on

friday, and i think thepresident spoke quite directly about thesituation in turkey. i think it should be evidentfrom his response that it's not just that the unitedstates government is closely following thesituation in turkey. president obama ispersonally following the situation in turkeyquite closely. turkey is an importantally of the united states. and there's a reason thatthe united states was one of

the first countries aroundthe world to issue our own swift condemnation of thecoup attempt in turkey. the united states valuesour alliance and certainly deeply respects thedemocratic traditions inside of turkey. and when president obama hadan opportunity to speak with president erdogan on thetelephone last week, president obama conveyed hisview that turkish democratic institutions areworth protecting.

it's those very institutionsand traditions that were critical to repelling thecoup in the first place. and there's strong supportamong the turkish people and within the turkishgovernment for those democratic institutions. in fact, in the midst of thecoup, you saw the parties in the turkish parliament comeforward issuing their own sweeping condemnation of thecoup attempt, even though some of those partieshave vigorous political

disagreements withpresident erdogan. so these kinds of democraticinstitutions and traditions, the democratic values thatare enshrined in turkey's constitution are allworth protecting. and even as the turkishgovernment conducts the kind of investigation that'snecessary to get to the bottom of what happened inthe context of the failed coup, it's also importantfor them to keep in mind that those democraticinstitutions were

instrumental from preventingthe coup from succeeding. the press: do you think thatthese many journalists being detained or arrested,is it justified? mr. earnest: well, freedomof the press is one of the rights that's enshrined inthe turkish constitution. and president obama on morethan one occasion has had a conversation with presidenterdogan about the united states' own viewand the u.s. government's own view thatprotecting those rights

is important. and the president certainlyhas conveyed that to president erdogan in thepast, even before the coup took place. so the united states'commitment to those values and those principles,including the freedom of the press, is rock solid. and we certainly have-- well, i'll just say, president obama hascertainly conveyed our

rock-solid commitment tothose issues to president erdogan in the hopes thathe'll demonstrate a similar commitment to them. the press: so you thinkit's not justified? can you -- mr. earnest:well, again, i can't from here render ajudgment on that. but president obama madeclear that he's personally watching thesituation closely. u.s. officials continue to bein close touch with their

turkish counterparts, and wecertainly believe that it's important, even as theturkish government goes to great lengths to determinewhat exactly happened in the context of the failedcoup -- and to bring some accountability to those whomay have been complicit in that effort -- that it'scritically important that the turkish government notalso undermine the very democratic institutionsthat, ostensibly, they're trying to protect.

the press: in the same pressconference, president obama last week stated that someof the rumors "that the u.s. involved" about coup wouldthreaten critical alliance between turkey and u.s. yet over the weekend,turkish justice minister said that however knowshis name is obama and u.s. also knows that itis behind the coup. this came fromjustice minister. and today, very staunchpro-government newspaper

headline accusing the formergeneral campbell is behind the coup -- who operated andcoordinated the coup from turkey -- visiting turkeyseveral times in recent months -- with apicture and the name. do you think your messagehas been listened to in turkey? mr. earnest: well, listen,the allegation against general campbell is baselessand barely worth a response. president obama was, to usehis word, unequivocal in the

east room about the unitedstates and our strong commitment to ouralliance with turkey. the president wasunequivocal in his condemnation of the attemptby some members of the military to overthrow thedemocratically elected civilian governmentof turkey. there's some pretty goodevidence to indicate that we mean what we say. the united states was amongthe first countries to issue

a statement critical ofthe failed coup attempt. so president obama canobviously speak to this more authoritatively than i can,and he did, as recently as last friday in saying thatthe united states was, of course, not just notinvolved in the coup attempt but rather was and has beencritical of the failed coup attempt and stronglysupportive of the democratically electedgovernment of turkey. the press: final question.

there is an amnestyinternational report saying that there is credibleevidence of torture, including rape, applied todetainees -- over 10,000 people so far havebeen detained. have you seen the report? do you have acomment on that? mr. earnest: i've beenbriefed on the report. what i can tell you isthat there are important democratic institutions andtraditions inside of turkey

that are worth protecting. there are rights enshrinedin turkey's constitution these basic human rights arean important part of the alliance between the unitedstates and turkey -- both the united states and turkeyare strongly committed to those universal human rightsand strongly committed to protecting thoseuniversal human rights. and it's important, evenas turkey conducts an investigation to determinewho may have been

responsible for the failedcoup attempt, that they protect those basic humanrights moving forward. and that is something thatpresident obama has conveyed directly in privateto president erdogan. it's something thatpresident obama discussed publicly yesterday --or on friday in his news conferences. and it's something ianticipate that the administration will continueto watch closely

moving forward. the press: turkey suspendedthe human rights convention, so it is not bound to it. and also there is a state ofemergency in turkey right now. so you have been mentioningthe (inaudible) suspend in turkey. mr. earnest: well, what alsohappened in turkey, as you pointed out, was just 10days ago there was an

attempt by some members ofthe military to overthrow the democratically electedcivilian government of turkey. so it's understandable thatthe turkish government and the turkish people wouldbe interested in a full investigation and insome accountability. so the situationin turkey is tense. people areunderstandably on edge. but what is clear is thatit's important for turkey's

government to protectthe kinds of democratic institutions and traditionsthat turkey has long stood for. ostensibly, that is what thegovernment is protecting -- is the turkish democracy. and as they protect theturkish democracy, it's important that they areprotective of the principles that form the foundationof that democracy. thanks, everybody.

we'll see you tomorrow.