Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Sanders Campaign Threatens to Sue DNC; President Obama's Press Conference. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 18, 2015 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[14:00:00] DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And I'm - and I'm speaking as neutral as I possibly can. I don't have an allegiance to anyone but the Democratic National Committee. But I hope that we are able to get this done, that we're able to review all of our safeguards to ensure that no data breach was done, nothing was removed, and that the campaigns can do back to doing what they're doing, which is reaching out to the American people, telling the country what we're going to do to keep the country safe, secure and prosperous. And I do believe that the next president of the United States will be a Democrat. But this is a family fight and we're going to get through it.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It could be a family fight, S.E., but, remember, tomorrow night is another Democratic presidential debate.

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

BLITZER: Three Democratic presidential candidates. I assume, and I'm anxious to get your thoughts, S.E., that Bernie Sanders - we know Bernie Sanders. He's going to be very, very angry. And he might not be as nice in this next debate, as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, as he has been in the earlier ones.

CUPP: Yes, maybe not. I mean there have always been this sort of, you know, grumblings on everyone not named Hillary Clinton's campaign that the DNC was favoring Hillary Clinton. So I assume you'll see sort of an angrier, gruffer Bernie Sanders.

But I was talking to Donna earlier and I said, you know, finally it's you guys and not us. We're always talking about the fights between, you know, our candidates and the RNC. And I think Donna wouldn't mind if I said, yes, this is like Trump taking on the RNC. I couldn't have said it better myself.

BRAZILE: Well, it's like, we're giving a little popcorn to the Republicans. Now, but, look, this is a serious matter and that's why the DNC has taken the steps that they are taking. I know that the DNC staff and officials are in touch with both the Sanders campaigns, in touch with the Clinton campaign and for that reason I hope they're in touch with O'Malley's campaign. Everyone needs to be reassured that their data, that our data, is safe and secure as well.

BLITZER: Let me get Jake Tapper to weigh in on this. It's pretty ugly right now this feud that has developed between the DNC and the Bernie Sanders campaign. JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR, "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER": Well, two

things. One, the Sanders campaign is the one at fault here. I mean their staffer is the one who, by their own admission, breached what - this data and improperly looked at it. Now that said, does the Sanders campaign have legitimate rights when it comes to the DNC? Absolutely. I don't know anybody in Washington who disagree with that. The idea that the number of debates has been limited and they've been scheduled on Saturday nights when viewership is the smallest, the audience is the smallest. There's going to be one again this Saturday night. These are on networks and yet the ones - the debates that the cable has put on during the week have been much, much higher. Even the Democratic debates. The one that Anderson hosted. It's nothing - I mean it's just - it is what it is. They are trying to have a small audience. That's - it's just - there's no other reason.

BLITZER: And the accusation that would be against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC is they're trying, at least indirectly, to promote Hillary Clinton's campaign.

TAPPER: Yes, there's no other reason to do it. Now, I happen to think that that actually isn't smart for any number of reasons. One, it gives Sanders and O'Malley a reason to complain, a legitimate reason to complain, that everybody in Washington can say, well, it makes sense. And, two, I actually think Hillary Clinton is a pretty good debater. I think she bested Barack Obama in most of the debates in 2007/2008. And I think she quits herself fine against Sanders and O'Malley. So I don't really understand it. It's an opportunity for her to get her message out unfiltered. That said, it seems pretty clear that that's why it was done.

However, all that said, Sanders campaign is the one that messed up here. They're the ones who violated the rules. And I don't understand really why they think that this is an opportunity for them to put on their martyr shawl and act as if they've been aggrieved when they are the ones who aggrieved.

BLITZER: Well, Jeff Weaver says it was the vender's fault and the DNC's fault for having a bad vender which allowed young staffers to inadvertently go in there and check out sensitive information.

CUPP: Right.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's like saying -

TAPPER: But that's like saying -

BLITZER: That was their argument.

TAPPER: That the burglar alarm that you set up in your house was faulty and did not go off, therefore the person who went into your house and stole your money is really not at fault. It's so tempting. These are adults on a campaign. They were - somebody said something about kids. These are not kids. These are adults on a campaign and they are expected to abide by laws and rules. GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: But the Sanders campaign

is also saying, in its own defense, sort of, that two months ago there was this firewall breach and they were worried about their own information and they told the DNC about it and the DNC assured them that everything was going to be fine. And that obviously it wasn't.

Now, obviously, their over staffers, and we don't know if it was during this same breach or not, that their own staffers irresponsibly accessed Hillary Clinton campaign data. But they are saying that this is something we had actually warned the DNC about and nothing was done about it. So - right. OK. Right. I'm just saying - I'm just saying what they say.

[14:05:17] BLITZER: But the president would -

TAPPER: You're saying what they say, but it's ludicrous.

BORGER: But, again, it's -

BLITZER: We're told, by the way, the president's about to walk out and open with a statement. I assume he'll open with a statement, then answer reporters' questions. I assume that will go on at least for one hour, and then the president might be asked about this feud between the Bernie Sanders campaign and the DNC, although I think most of the questions will focus in on the war on terror.

This is a huge issue right now. In fact, if you believe the public opinion polls, the number one concern of the American public right now is fear of another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland.

Jim Sciutto, as we await the president, we'll also be anxious to hear if he says in public now what he apparently said during a private meeting with columnists at the White House earlier in the week.

SCIUTTO: He has a tendency to do that, to justify his position. I mean he's sticking to his strategy. There's been a lot of criticism, but in each public forum recently, whether it's at the NCTC or the Pentagon, we've see the president stick to his guns in effect on saying that a large ground operation, for instance, won't be worthwhile, one, and there would be tremendous loss of blood in treasure in pursuing that kind of strategy. And that's been a familiar argument from him. That's one thing.

But again, he has an enormous need here, you'll hear from many in both parties, to come out and acknowledge there is fear and to give people confidence. But the polls don't show a tremendous amount of confidence. Seventy-seven percent of people think the government cannot - the authorities cannot prevent a lone wolf style attack. The fact is, that's kind of recognizing reality because it's very hard to prevent a lone wolf attack.

BLITZER: Here comes the president. Let's listen in.

[14:06:50]

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good afternoon, everybody. Clearly, this is not the most important event that's taking place in the White House today. There is a screening of Star Wars for Gold Star families and children coming up. So I'll try to be relatively succinct. Let me say a few words about the year behind us and the year ahead and then I'll take a few questions.

As I look back on this year, the one thing I see is that so much of our steady persistent work over the years is paying off for the American people in big, tangible ways. Our early actions to rescue the economy set the stage for the longest streak of private sector job growth on record, with 13.7 million new jobs in that time. The unemployment rate has been cut in half, down to 5 percent. And most importantly, wages grew faster than at any time since the recovery began.

So over the course of this year, a lot of the decisions that we made early on have paid off. Years of steady implementation of the Affordable Care Act helped to drive the rate of the uninsured in America below 10 percent for 10 percent for the first time since records were kept on that. Health care prices have grown at their lowest level in five decades. Seventeen million more Americans have gained coverage, and we now know that 6 million people have signed up through healthcare.gov for coverage beginning on January, 1st -- 600,000 on Tuesday alone.

New customers are up one-third over last year, and the more who sign up, the stronger the system becomes. And that's good news for every American who no longer has to worry about being just one illness or accident away from financial hardship.

On climate, our early investment in clean energy ignited a clean energy industry boom. Our actions to help reduce our carbon emissions brought China to the table and last week in Paris nearly 200 nations forged a historic agreement that was only possible because of American leadership. Around the world, from reaching the deal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, to re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, to concluding a landmark trade agreement that will make sure that American workers and American businesses are operating on a level playing field and that we, rather than China or other countries, are setting the rules for global trade. We have shone what is possible when America leads.

And after decades of dedicated advocacy, marriage equality became a reality in all 50 states.

So I just want to point out I said at the beginning of this year that interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter, and we are only halfway through.

I do want to thank Congress for ending the year on a high note. I got to sign an education bill that is going to fix some of the challenges that we had with No Child Left Behind, and promises to invest more in high-quality early childhood education.

We signed a transportation bill that, although not as robust as I think we need, still allows states and local governments to plan and actually get moving putting people back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges. We got Ex-Im Bank back to work supporting American exports.

And today they passed a bipartisan budget deal. I'm not wild about everything in it. I'm sure that's true for everybody. But it is a budget that, as I insisted, invests in our military and our middle class without ideological provisions that would have weakened Wall Street reform or rules on big polluters. It's part of an agreement that will permanently extend tax credits to 24 million working families. It includes some long-sought wins like strengthening America's leadership at the IMF.

And because it eliminates the possibility of a shutdown for the first nine months of next year, Congress and I have a long way to get important things done on behalf of the American people.

Now there's still a lot of work to do. For example, there's still a lot more that Congress can do to promote job growth and increase wages in this country. I still want to work with Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to reform our criminal justice system.

And earlier today I commuted the sentences of 95 men and women who had served their debt to society, and another step forward in upholding our ideals of justice and fairness.

And of course, our most important job is to keep Americans safe. I've had a lot to say about that this week, but let me reiterate. The United States continues to lead a global coalition in our mission to destroy ISIL. ISIL's already lost about 40 percent of the populated areas it once controlled in Iraq, and it's losing territory in Syria.

As we keep up the pressure, our air campaign will continue to hit ISIL harder than ever, taking out their leaders, their commanders and their forces. We're stepping up our support for partners on the ground as they push ISIL back. Our men and women in uniform are carrying out their mission with a trademark professionalism and courage. And this holiday season all of us are united in our gratitude for their service, and we are thankful to their families as well because they serve alongside those who are actually deployed.

Squeezing ISIL's heart at its core in Syria and Iraq will make it harder for them to pump their terror and propaganda to the rest of the world. At the same time, as we know from San Bernardino, where I'll visit with families later today, we have to remain vigilant here at home. Our counter-terrorism, intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement communities are working 24/7 to protect our homeland. And all of us can do our part by staying vigilant, by saying something if we see something that is suspicious, by refusing to be terrorized, and staying united as one American family.

In short for all the very real progress America's made over the past seven years, we still have some unfinished business. And I plan on doing everything I can with every minute of every day that I have left as president to deliver on behalf of the American people.

Since taking this office, I have never been more optimistic about a year ahead than I am right now. And in 2016 I'm going to leave it out all on the field. So with that, let me take some questions.

I'll start with Roberta Ranton (ph) on Reuters.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you're going to California today. And as you said earlier this week, you told the nation that there's no specific or credible threat of a similar attack, but how is it really possible to know? I mean, aren't similar plots going to be just as hard to detect beforehand? And some lawmakers are saying that your government should review the social media of all people applying for visas to come to this country. What do you think of that idea? Should that be mandatory?

OBAMA: Well, Roberta, you're absolutely right that it is very difficult for us to detect lone wolf plots or plots involving a husband and wife, in this case, because despite the incredible vigilance of all of our law enforcement, homeland security, et cetera, it's not that different from us trying to detect the next mass shooter. You don't always see it. They're not always communicating publicly, and if you're not catching what they say publicly, then it becomes a challenge.

We are continuing to work at every level, to make sure that there's no slip between information-sharing among agencies.

We're continuing to strengthen our information sharing with foreign countries, and because in part of the tragedy in Paris, I think you're seeing much greater cooperation from our European partners on these issues.

But this is a different kind of challenge than the sort that we had with an organization like Al Qaida, that involved highly trained operatives who were working as cells or as a network.

Here, essentially, you have ISIL trying to encourage or induce somebody who may be prey to this kind of propaganda, and it becomes more difficult to -- to see.

It does mean that they are less likely to be able to carry out large, complex attacks, but as we saw in San Bernardino, obviously, you can still do enormous damage.

The issue of reviewing social media for those who are obtaining visas, I think, may have gotten garbled a little bit, because there may be -- it's important to distinguish between posts that are public -- social media on a Facebook page -- versus private communications through various social media or apps.

And our law enforcement and intelligence professionals are constantly monitoring public posts, and that is part of the visa review process, that -- that people are investigating what individuals have said publicly, and questioned about any statements that they maybe made.

But if you have a private communication between two individuals, that's harder to discern, by definition. And one of the things we'll be doing is engaging with the high-tech community to find out how we can, in an appropriate way, do a better job, if we have a lead, to be able to track a suspected terrorist.

But we're gonna have to recognize that no government is gonna have the capacity to read every single person's texts or e-mails or social media. If -- if it's not posted publicly, then there are gonna be feasibility issues that are -- that are probably insurmountable at some level.

And, you know, it raises questions about our values. I mean, keep in mind it was only a couple years ago where we were having a major debate about whether the government was becoming too much like Big Brother. And, overall, I think we have struck the right balance in protecting civil liberties and making sure that U.S. citizens' privacy is preserved, that we are making sure that there's oversight to what our intelligence agencies do.

But, you know, we're going to have to continue to balance our needs for security with people's legitimate concerns about privacy. And because the Internet is global and communications systems are global, you know, the values that we apply here often times are ones that folks who are trying to come into the country are also benefiting from, because they're using the same technologies.

But this is precisely why we're working very hard to bring law enforcement, intelligence and high-tech companies together, because we're gonna have to really review what we can do, both technically as well as consistent with our laws and values, in order to try to discern more rapidly some of the potential threats that may be out there.

OK. David Jackson.

QUESTION: Mr. President, a Gitmo question. Congress has made it pretty clear that they are just (ph) not gonna let you transfer prisoners to the United States for trial. But some people think you already have the executive authority to transfer those prisoners and -- and close Gitmo itself next year.

My question is, do you believe you have that authority, and are you willing to exercise it to close that (inaudible)?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, we have been working systematically, another example of persistence, in reducing the population. We have a review process for those who are eligible for transfer. We locate (ph), in countries that have accepted some of these detainees, they monitor them, and it's been determined that they can be transferred.

And my expectation is, by the early (ph) -- by early next year, we should have reduced that population below 100. And we will continue -- continue to steadily chip away at the numbers in Guantanamo.

There's gonna come to a point where we have an irreducible population -- people who pose a significant threat, but for various reasons, it's difficult for us to try them in an Article III court.

Some of those folks are going through the military commission process. But there's going to be a challenge there. Now, at that stage, I'm presenting a plan to Congress about how we can close Guantanamo.

I'm not going to automatically assume that Congress says no. I'm not being coy, David. I think it's fair to say that there's gonna be significant resistance from some quarters, to that.

But I think we can make a very strong argument that it doesn't make sense for us to be spending an extra $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, $500 million, $1 billion, to have a -- a secure setting for 50, 60, 70 people.

And we will wait until Congress has said definitively no to a well thought out plan with numbers attached to it, before we say anything definitive about my executive authority here. I think it's far preferable if I can get stuff done with Congress.

QUESTION: It's an election year. You know they're not gonna do it (ph). (inaudible) on your own?

OBAMA: David, as -- as I said -- you know, and I think you've seen me, on a whole bunch of issues, like immigration, I'm not gonna -- I'm not gonna be forward-leaning on what I can do without Congress before I've tested what I can do with Congress.

And every once in a while, they'll surprise you, and -- and this may be one of those places, because we can make a really strong argument Guantanamo continues to be one of the key magnets for Jihadi recruitment. You know, to Roberta's (ph) question earlier about how do they propagandize and convince somebody here in the United States, who may not have a criminal record or a history of terrorist activity, to start shooting, this is part of what they feed. This notion of a gross injustice, that America's not living up to its professed ideals.

We know that. We see the -- the Internet traffic. We see how Guantanamo has been used to create this mythology that America is at war with Islam. And -- you know, for us to close it is part of our counterterrorism strategy that is supported by our military, our diplomatic and our intelligence teams.

So when you combine that with the fact that it's really expensive, and that we are -- you know, essentially, at this point, detaining a handful of people, and each person is costing several million dollars to detain, when there are more efficient ways of doing it, you know, I think we can make a strong argument.

I -- I -- I'm -- but I'll take -- you know, I'll take your point, that it'll be an uphill battle. Every battle I've had with Congress over the last five years have been -- has been uphill, and -- but we keep on surprising you by actually getting some stuff done.

QUESTION: (inaudible) on an immigration bill (ph)?

OBAMA: Sometimes -- sometimes that may prove necessary, but -- you know, we try not to get out ahead of ourselves on that.

Julie Pace. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Wanted to ask you about the broader challenges in the Middle East.

OBAMA: Yeah.

QUESTION: Who (ph) of the Republicans who are running for president have argued that the Mid-East and the United States would be safer if you hadn't (ph) had regime changes, places (ph) like Iraq, Libya, and Egypt.

And having gone through the experience of the Arab Spring and the aftermath, I wonder what you now see of (ph) the U.S. role in the Middle East in terms of trying to push dictators out of power.

Would you advise future presidents to call for authoritarian leaders to step down, as you did? And just specifically on Syria, at this point, is it your expectation that Bashar Assad's presidency will outlast yours?

OBAMA: You know, there's been a lot of revisionist history, sometimes by the same people, making different arguments depending on the situation. So maybe it's useful just for us to go back over some of these issues.

We did not depose Hosni Mubarak. Millions of Egyptians did because of their dissatisfaction with the corruption and authoritarianism of the regime. We had a working relationship with Mubarak. We didn't trigger the Arab Spring, and the notion that somehow the U.S. was in a position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the Arab world, I think is -- is mistaken.

What is true is that at the point at which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people or trying to find some transition, we believed and I would still argue that it was more sensible for us to find a peaceful transition to the Egyptian situation.

With respect to Libya, Libya is sort of an alternative version of Syria in some ways, because by the time the international coalition interceded in Syria, chaos had already broken out. You already had the makings of a civil war. You had a dictator who was threatening and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people. And we worked under U.N. mandate with a coalition of folks in order to try to avert a big humanitarian catastrophe that would not have good for us.

Those who now argue in retrospect, we should have left Gadhafi in there, seem to forget that he had already lost legitimacy and control of his country and we could have -- instead of what we have in Libya now, we could have had another Syria in Libya now. The -- the problem with Libya was the fact that there was a failure on the part of the entire international community, and I think that the United States has some accountability for not moving swiftly enough and underestimating the need to rebuild government there quickly, and as a consequence, you now have a very bad situation. As far as Syria goes, I think it is entirely right and proper for the

United States of America to speak out on behalf of its (ph) values. And when you have an authoritarian leader that is killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, the notion that we would just stand by and say nothing is contrary to who we are, and that does not serve our interests, because at that point, us being in collusion with that kind of governance would make us even more of a target for terrorist activity, would...

QUESTION: Do you think that government (ph) can help try to stop (inaudible)?

OBAMA: But -- but the reason that Assad has been a problem in Syria is because that is a majority Sunni country and he had lost the space that he had early on to execute an inclusive transition -- peaceful transition. He chose instead to slaughter people and once that happened, the idea that a minority population there could somehow crush tens of millions of people who oppose him is not feasible. It's not plausible. Even if you were being cold-eyed and hard-heartened about the human toll there, it just wouldn't happen.

And as a consequence, our view has been that you cannot bring peace to Syria, you cannot get an end to the civil war unless you have a government that has -- it is recognized as legitimate by a majority of that country. It will not happen, and this is the argument that I have had repeatedly with Mr. Putin.