Return to Transcripts main page
Wolf
CENTCOM Twitter, YouTube Hacked; White House Press Briefing
Aired January 12, 2015 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BOB BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: But the fact is these people are capable of carrying on propaganda on the Internet as well as recruiting and the rest of it. And we are at war with them in cyberspace. The fact that they did so well on those execution tapes. It was a shock just as it was a shock for the French, those attacks in Paris. They're getting more sophisticated, not less.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Josh Earnest just walked into the briefing room. He's making some preliminary announcements. Once he starts taking reporters questions, I want to listen in and hear what he has to say. Let's go there, in fact, right now.
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: -- over the course of the briefing today.
However, before we do, let me note something else important that happened. House Republicans put forward Department of Homeland Security funding through the end of 2015. Unfortunately, Republicans have also unveiled plans to muck around with the legislation, the legislation that fund our efforts to protect our ports and our borders. It provides aviation security. It bolsters our cyber security. It coordinates with state and local authorities to improve our counter-terrorism resilience with communities across the country. And, yes, it enforces our immigration laws. There's never a good time for Republican to do this, but right now seems like a particularly bad time for them to do so. Republicans say they're doing this because they have a political or ideological objection to the president's executive action on immigration. So let me repeat what you've heard me say before. The president's plan would bring some badly needed accountability to our immigration system by requiring undocumented workers -- I'm sorry -- undocumented immigrants, who have been in this country for more than five years, to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, submit to a background check, and pay taxes. The Republican plan would undo all of that and send the country back in the direction of doing nothing, which is something that no less of an authority than Marco Rubio has said is amnesty. So I guess that means there's probably a lot of reasons to think that what Republicans are planning on the DHS funding bill is a bad idea.
With that, Jim, you want to get started with questions today?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Just to follow up on that, so the president would veto this legislation that the House assembled?
EARNEST: We've made clear, dating back to last fall, that the president would oppose any legislative effort to undermine the executive actions he took to add greater accountability to our immigration system, so yes?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you tell us anything about this hacking of CENTCOM? How disruptive is it? Do you have any information on it?
EARNEST: Jim, I don't have a lot of information on this. It just occurred, you know, within the last hour or so. I can tell you this is something we're obviously looking into and something that we take seriously.
However, a note of caution to folks covering this story. It's a pretty significant difference between what is a large data breach and the hacking of a Twitter account. We're examining and investigating the extent of this incident. But I don't have any information beyond that for you.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: On the topic de jour, why didn't President Obama or Vice President Biden or Eric Holder attend the Paris solidarity march?
EARNEST: Well, Jim, I can tell you what was on the television screens of people across this country and I think even across the globe was a remarkable display of unity by the French people in the face of these terrible terror attacks. And the way that that country has come together, I do think struck a chord and inspired people all across the world and throughout this country. It was a remarkable display. There were also a number of other world leaders who were there to participate and show their support as well. Some have asked whether or not the United States should have sent someone with a higher profile than the ambassador to France. And I think it's fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.
That said, there is no doubt that the American people and this administration stands four square behind our allies in France as they face down this threat. That was evident throughout last week when you saw that the president's counter-terrorism adviser here at the White House was in touch with her French counterpart minutes after these reports of this terror attack emerged. You saw later in the day that the president of the United States telephoned phone him to express his concerns and to pledge any needed cooperation and assistance to conduct the investigation and bring to justice those who were responsible for the terror attacks. I can tell you that that kind of coordination that is the backbone of the strong relationship between the United States and France. It continued throughout the weekend and continues today. The French ambassador to the United States will be here at the White House later today to meet with Lisa Monaco, the president's top counterterrorism adviser.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: How much higher profile does the president think should have been there? Eric Holder was in the city, did television talk shows that morning. Should he have been the person representing the U.S.? At what level would the president be satisfied with?
EARNEST: I can tell you, Jim, that had the circumstances been a little different, I think the president himself would have liked to have had the opportunity to be there. Well, the fact is that this is obviously a march that the planning for which only began on Friday night and 36 hours later it has begun. What's also clear is that the security requirements around a presidential level visitor or even a vice president level visitor are onerous and significant. In a situation like this, they have a pretty significant impact on the other citizens who are trying to participate in a large public event like this. We talked about this a lot when it comes to the president attending a basketball game. But the fact of the matter is, there were not just thousands of people at the event. There were millions. It wasn't just an arena that need to be secured but a large outdoor area that poses significant security challenges. I'm confident that the professionals at the Secret Service could overcome those challenges but it would have been difficult to do so without significantly having impacted the ability of common citizens to participate in this march. After all, what I think was so impressive about this display is it demonstrated the unity of the French people. And that is something that we are always mindful of in situations like this, of interfering with those who are trying to attend an event, particularly when the purpose of the event is to demonstrate the unity of spirit and purpose of the people who are coming together.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Consideration of perhaps having a more prominent presence there, is that there something that's being considered at the White House today or is it something you considered doing on Friday when you first knew (INAUDIBLE)?
EARNEST: Well, Jim, I'm not going to unpack all of the planning and discussions that went into this. But I think, you know, suffice it to say, there should not be and is not any doubt in the minds of the people in France or people around the world and certainly not among our enemies about how committed to a strong relationship that the United States is with France and committed to the same kinds of values that they are. I think in some ways most importantly, the people who understand this best of all are the French people themselves. I did note that the French ambassador was on television earlier today in which he described the French people as overwhelmed by the expression of solidarity and grief from all corners of the American people, including from the highest levels of administration.
Steve?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Did you consider having the president go or was it something that was just developing too late to actually pull together in time?
EARNEST: Well, see, as I mentioned to Jim, I'm just not going to be in a position to unpack the scheduling, planning, discussions that we have here. But what I can tell you is that there are some who are suggested that the U.S. presence at the march could have been represented by someone with a higher profile than the ambassador to France. I guess what I'm saying is that we here at the White House agree that somebody with a higher profile should have also included.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Did the French ask you to come?
EARNEST: See, I'm not aware of all of the conversations that may have occurred between French officials and American officials here. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: There's plenty of criticism about this. Is
this criticism fair?
EARNEST: Criticism from whom?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: A wide variety of people.
EARNEST: Anybody that comes to mind?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Well, actually --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I can give you --
(CROSSTALK)
ERNEST: Go ahead, Steve. It's your turn to ask the question. So you can --
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Ted Cruz.
EARNEST: Ted Cruz. Jake Tapper did have some criticism. I saw that, too.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Marco Rubio.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: There are other Republicans, too.
EARNEST: So, Steve, you're asking?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Is this criticism fair?
EARNEST: It is certainly a free country and people have the opportunity to subject their elected officials to criticism and make it clear when they disagree with a decision or an action that's been taken by the administration. And I certainly wouldn't quibble that hair right to do so. To the extent there are those out there saying that the administration should have sent someone with a higher profile to have participated in the march, I guess what I'm saying we agree we should have sent one with a higher profile. Again, in addition to the ambassador of France.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Let me ask one more thing, related to this. President Hollande has called the Paris attacks an act of war. How does this change your strategy toward going after Islamic State? Are the French now going to be stronger in partners? How do you interpret this?
EARNEST: There's an important leap made in the construct of the question there, which is there is still an investigation ongoing to determine exactly what the links were between these individuals who were responsible for these terror attacks in France and their communications and support from extremists in other locations around the globe. There's some public reporting that indicates that these individuals may have had links to or even traveled to Yemen. I know that there is video that's emerged today that we're still reviewing here in which one of the terrorists indicate some sympathy and support from ISIL. We're reviewing all of this and trying to assist the French as they take the lead on the investigation, as they should, about who is responsible, what kind of support they had, and what links that has to other extremist groups around the world.
Laura?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE). How did the president follow the demonstration yesterday? What was his -- when he was looking at all of the American channels airing the demonstration for hours?
EARNEST: Well, Laura, I don't know how much of the march the president watched on television. But I can tell you that the comments that I have reiterated today about the rather impressive display of unity and solidarity from the French people is something that the president made note of as well. And these are messages that were most importantly sent by the citizens of France but they were echoed by people all across the globe. There are many ways that people can demonstrate that expression of support, from an op-ed to a tweet to a speech at the Golden Globe Awards last night. I think that is indicative of the kind of solidarity that the American people feel with our allies in France, not just because of the terrible tragedy they've endured but because of the kinds of values that they fight for. These are the same kind of values that we hold dear in this country. That's why the bond between the United States and France is so strong today.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The demonstration began at 1:00 in the afternoon in Paris. The White House sent a message at 7:00 in the morning by e-mail saying there would be a summit to fight extremists. What is your point there? What do you expect from this summit?
EARNEST: Let me say a couple of things about this. This effort to counter violent extremism is something we've talked about quite a bit over the years. This has long been a focal point of our planning when it comes to our counter-terrorism strategy.
The other thing that I would anticipate that we would expect to discuss in the context of the summit is to invite leaders from the private sector and technology community to discuss how extremists are using social media platforms to try to inspire acts of violence, and inspire extremisms, expressions of extremism by other people. We want to talk about strategies that we can employ to better promote pluralism, inclusion and resilience in communities all across the country.
One of the other things that we would expect to talk about in a summit like this would be to highlight the experience of some pilot programs that have been operating in cities, like Boston, Los Angeles, and the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, where local officials have really employed some pioneering techniques to try to work very closely in their communities to, again, root out efforts to inspire and recruit extremists in a way that's not good for the country and certainly not good for the communities where that may be occurring. There are some interesting innovative techniques being employed and we want to share those best practices with other local officials who participate in the summit.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You speak about the matter against Islamic extremists?
EARNEST: Well, all forms of violent extremism would certainly be discussed in the context of the summit. But obviously the threat that we see from you know violent extremism in which individuals invoke the name of Islam, an otherwise peaceful religion, as they carry out these attacks would certainly be a priority in the discussion here.
Ed?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) that we are going to take on violent extremism? You said all forms of violent extremism.
(CROSSTALK)
EARNEST: She asked me what we would discuss, and all forms of violent extremism would be discussed. And obviously, the most potent and certainly the most, you know, photographic display that we've seen in recent days, again, is motivated by those individuals who seem to invoke the name of Islam to carry out the violent attacks. That's something we want to work very hard to counter and mitigate. And we've got a strategy we've been discussing for some time to exactly do that
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: According to you, of extremist, why isn't the summit on countering Islamic extremism?
EARNEST: Because violent extremism is something we want to be focused on. It's not just Islamic violent extremism that we want to counter. There are other forms --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Paris, Australia, Canada, isn't the thread, through them, that it's Islamic extremism?
EARNEST: Well, certainly, those are individuals who have cited Islam as they've carried out acts of violence. There's no argument.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You said several times we should have sent someone higher than the ambassador --
(CROSSTALK)
EARNEST: With the higher profile than the ambassador. That's right.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Question, why didn't you?
EARNEST: Well, Ed, I've sort of tried to describe to you the situation here. We're talking about a march that came together with essentially 36 hours notice, and a march that occurred outdoors with an obviously very large number of people who participated. We are mindful anytime the president goes to a public place, or the vice president for that matter, that we don't want to, or at least we want to mitigate the impact that the security precautions would have on those for this participating in the public event. There's no doubt had the president or the vice president gone to participate in this event that took place outdoors with more than a million people in attendance that it would have significantly impacted the ability of those attending the march to participate in the way that they did yesterday.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The president's safety is of utmost. It's not an issue at all. Of course, his security is important. And you don't want to detract from the event. How do you explain that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made it there? He's a huge a target, obviously, unfortunately.
EARNEST: I will allow the Israelis to discuss what security precautions they had in place.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: A dozens from various countries that are very important. They're not American but they're very important.
(CROSSTALK)
EARNEST: Ed, you should talk to them about the security precautions they have in place.
You've been to enough events where the president is attending a conference or a summit with other world leaders, and I think that you've seen first hand that the security precautions that are in place for the president of the United States -- it's been true for previous presidents, too -- are sometimes more onerous that the precautions that are put in place for other world leaders.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: At the Mandela funeral, there were dozens of leaders. American security might be more but it comes up in short notice. Unfortunately, Mandela dies. And he wanted to be there. He made it. How did that come together?
EARNEST: The difference with President Mandela is there had been discussions that had been going on for frankly a number of years about the ceremony that would take place in the event of his death. There is a much clearer plan that was already in place that could be followed for executing that event on a short time frame. There obviously was nothing in place because I don't think anybody contemplated the kind of attack we saw in Paris.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You said the president personally wishes he would have liked to have gone. Why did he? What was he doing on Sunday? We haven't gotten an accounting of what he did Sunday.
EARNEST: I haven't spoken with the president about what he did yesterday.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You obviously prepared for this and you've said it was the most transparent administration. What was the president doing?
EARNEST: I guess I prepared for a lot of questions today but I did not prepare on a question based on what the president was actually doing.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris and they put out a statement from his office saying he had very important meetings. No one would counter that counter-terror meetings were very important. One would assume that the French officials who attended those meetings, some of them went to the rally. And the attorney general's office says he had to get back to Washington on Sunday afternoon. That's one reason he could make the rally. Why couldn't the attorney general? He was in that city. There's no issue of -- security was already in place. How could he not attend?
EARNEST: I'm not aware of the detail of the attorney general's schedule for yesterday. But if you're asking whether or not somebody like the attorney general should have attended or should have been asked by the White House to attend, what I'm telling you is that, yes, we believe somebody with a higher profile should have been asked to attend --
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: What about the rally in D.C.? There was a rally, a march from the museum to the French embassy. The president did go to the French embassy last week. He signed the condolence book. He expressed his solidarity for the French people. But I understand that the president is not going to go marching through the streets of D.C., but the White House chief of staff, the vice president -- having a secretary somewhere. How come you didn't have somebody at D.C. at a rally?
EARNEST: Well, and I know there were a number of administration officials that did participate in that rally, or in that march. I think a lot of them participated -- would have done so even if they weren't members of the administration. I can tell you, Ed, that for all of the talk, there is no doubt and should be no doubt about the commitment of the administration and of the American people standing should to shoulder with allies in France as they deal with the after aftermath and terrible terror attacks and as they continue to fight for the kinds of values we hold so dear on both sides of the Atlantic.
Justin?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I want to talk about the anti-extremism summit. It was delayed a couple times. Can you talk about why that was delayed and didn't happen in October?
EARNEST: There have been a number of discussions about how exactly -- about how this was going to come together and trying to schedule among state and local leaders, leaders in the private sector, community leaders from other places across the country, is difficult. But I guess I can say that -- what I would say is this is something we've been focused on quite some time. This notion of counter violent extremism has been a focal point of our terrorism strategy dating back February 2010, when then-assistant to the president for Homeland Security and current CIA director, John Brennan, gave a speech at the NYU Islamic Center and Islamic Law Association at NYU, where they discussed the need to counter efforts to recruit people in the name of extremism and need to work with local law enforcement and community leaders to try to counter that message.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So was scheduling incidental, like you were able to corral everyone or was Paris an impetus that enabled you to bring everybody in for this next month?
EARNEST: My guess I would say certainly -- the tragic events we saw in Paris last week are a reminder of how important it is for us to be vigilant about this specific issue. And this summit will be an important opportunity to talk about strategies we have in place, to mitigate messages in social media to try to recruit people in the name of violent extremism. We certainly also look forward to the opportunity from hearing are from local officials and leaders of communities across the country about how they've worked together in a way to mitigate those messages and counter them. It should be an opportunity for those kinds of best practices to be shared from local officials all across the country that will participate.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The president said today he's going to announce legislation tomorrow to encourage collaboration between companies and the government on cyber security practices and information. It sounds a lot like SISBO, the legislation on Capitol Hill for a couple of years. You guys had voiced concerns about that before. I'm wondering has that changed or are we going to hear a different version of that legislation tomorrow?
EARNEST: Well, we'll save tomorrow's news for tomorrow. You have heard me say on a number of occasions we've been pretty disappointed that Congress has not fulfilled their responsibility to deal with this important issue. That's why you heard the president talk about legislative proposals he's going to send up in the name of strengthening consumer protections and making sure consumers and students get the kind of protection and insurances they deserve when it comes to their privacy. We would hope that would not be something that would get bogged down in partisan debates. This is something we should all agree on. We'll see. I think the same thing -- same description could apply to cyber legislation the president will talk about tomorrow. For the details on that, we'll have more on that for you.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The Senator issued a statement saying the president had gone absent on the cyber security measures. I asked a couple of weeks ago if you were bringing people in for briefings or pushing this type of thing. One of the proposals the president unveiled today is a recast of 2011 proposal. Now it's 30 days, instead of 60, to trigger on data breach notification. Why is it different? What are you going to do different to encourage it to move?
EARNEST: I do think certainly in the after math of more recent cyber attacks we've seen that have been carried out against a number of private companies including most recently the Sony, hopefully that got the attention of people on Capitol Hill. They need to fulfill their responsibilities to make progress on this issue. The proposal that we have sent up or will send up is one that does have the strong support of consumer groups. They recognize how important it is for companies to fulfill obligations to communicate with consumers and customers to make sure customers take steps to protect their privacy and protect against identity theft. At the same time, this is also welcome news to industry. This clarity associated with one specific national standard would make clear to them what sort of obligations they need to fulfill to their customers. Right now, there's a hodgepodge of requirements that vary by state. By putting in place a tough national standard, it will add some clarity to businesses and make them more effective in their response and more effective in communicating with their customers in a time line that's appropriate and will insure customers keep their privacy safe. OK?
John?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Josh, will the United States take part --
BLITZER: Let's break away momentarily. We'll continue to monitor the press secretary, Josh Earnest.
But he acknowledged something really rare. It doesn't happen often at all. He acknowledges the White House made a mistake. They erred in not sending a higher level U.S. representative to that rally in Paris yesterday. Listen to what the White House press secretary just said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EARNEST: Some have asked whether or not the United States should have sent someone with a higher profile than the ambassador to France. I think it's fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there. That said, there is no doubt that the American people and this administration stands four square behind our allies in France as they face down this threat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right. There you have it. White House acknowledging they made a mistake.
Our chief Washington correspondent, the anchor of "The Lead," Jake Tapper, is joining us from Paris now.
Jake, you've covered the White House. I've covered the White House. You don't hear that often from the press secretary, do you?
JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: You don't hear it much from politicians at all. In addition to the fact that Josh was acknowledging a reality that most people feel like the United States should have had a higher profile representative at the march, Josh was doing something smart when it comes to public relations, admit an error, admit it early, acknowledge it, and move on. It stops the bleeding in terms of crisis like this.
Look, this was something that people obviously, within the White House and in the Obama administration, were privately expressing agreement with when some people, including myself, said that we wish there had higher level higher profile person. If the security is too big an issue for the president to attend, there's Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Hagel and others. It is rare in politics to do so but in some cases it's a rather wise thing to do.
BLITZER: Certainly is. You make a mistake, everybody understands that. Everybody is human and makes mistakes. You move on. What I didn't hear him explain though is how they made that mistake. They knew Friday this major rally was going to take place in Paris. They knew world leader were coming. He didn't tell why they made the decision that it would be the ambassador of France representing the United States. Did you hear why they screwed up?
TAPPER: No. The term that Josh used, which other press secretaries have used before him, "I'm not going to unpack that for you. I'm not going into the back story." That will be left for, I'm sure, some White House correspondents to find out why that happened. It's unclear why the White House didn't send somebody, if they thought the France ambassador would be sufficient. No one is saying specifically President Obama should have been there. Obviously, there were heightened security concerns. Although, you could argue if you have the British prime minister, Turkish prime minister, the Israeli prime minister, the German chancellor, the president of France, president of Palestinian Authority, the king of Jordan and on and on, in aggregate, is there any more security there could be in that half block space when they shot that image of these world leaders marching?