Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Obama Respond to Speech ; White House Press Briefing

Aired March 03, 2015 - 13:57   ET

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

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Tell me when everybody's in.

Everybody's all set? All right.

Well, this is going to be the first opportunity that I have to get an extensive debriefing from Secretary Carter, who took a trip last week to Afghanistan and other parts of the region. He'll be giving me some impressions about how we're planning our drawdown and transition in Afghanistan, and talk about some other regional issues.

One issue that we will be discussing is Iran. And obviously, that's been a topic of great interest today. So let me just make a couple comments on that. I did not have a chance to watch Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech. I was on a video conference with our European partners with respect to Ukraine. I did have a chance to take a look at the transcript. And as far as I can tell, there was nothing new. The prime minister I think appropriately pointed out that the bond between the United States and America is unbreakable, and on that point, I thoroughly agree.

He also pointed out that Iran has been a dangerous regime and continues to engage in activities that are contrary to the interest of the United States, to Israel, and to the region. And on that, we agree. He also pointed out the fact that Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel and engaged in the most venomous of anti-Semitic statements. And no one can dispute that.

But on the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region. The prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives.

So let's be clear about what exactly the central concern should be, both for the United States and for Israel. I've said since before I became president that one of my primary goals in foreign policy would be preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And with the help of Congress and our international partners, we constructed an extraordinarily effective sanctions regime that pressured Iran to come to enable - to the table to negotiate in a serious fashion.

They have now been negotiating over the last year. And during that period, Iran has, in fact, frozen its program, rolled back some of its most dangerous highly enriched uranium and subjected itself to the kinds of verification and inspections that we had not previously seen. Keep in mind that when we shaped that interim deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu made almost the precise same speech about how dangerous that deal was going to be. And yet, over a year later, even Israeli intelligence officers and in some cases members of the Israeli government have to acknowledge that, in fact, it has kept Iran from further pursuing its nuclear program.

Now, the deal that we are trying to negotiate that is not yet completed would cut off the different pathways for Iran to advance its nuclear capabilities. It would roll back some elements of its program. It would ensure that it did not have what we call a breakout capacity that was shorter than a year's time. And it would subject Iran to the most vigorous inspections and verifications regimes that have ever been put in place.

Now, the alternative that the prime minister offers is, no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin, once again, pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they're doing, and without constraint. And his essential argument is, is that if we just double down on sanctions, Iran won't want to do that. Well, we have evidence from the past decade that sanctions alone are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. And if it, in fact, does not have some sense that sanctions will be removed, it will not have an interest in avoiding the path that it's currently on.

So the bottom line is this. We don't yet have a deal. It may be that Iran cannot say yes to a good deal. I have repeatedly said that I would rather have no deal than a bad deal. But if we're successful in negotiating, then, in fact, this will be the best deal possible to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Nothing else comes close. Sanctions won't do it. Even military action would not be as successful as the deal that we have put forward.

And I think it is very important not to be distracted by the nature of the Iranian regimes' ambitions when it comes to territory or terrorism. All issues which we share a concern with Israel about and are working consistently with Israel on. Because we know that if, in fact, they obtained a nuclear weapon, all those problems would be worse.

So we're staying focused on the central issue here. How do we prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? The path that we proposed, if successful, by far is the best way to do that. That's demonstrable. And Prime Minister Netanyahu has not offered any kind of viable alternative that would achieve the same verifiable mechanisms that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

So I would urge the members of Congress who were there to, you know, continue to express their strong support for Israel's security, to continue to express their strong interest in providing the assistance Israel needs to repel attacks. I think it's important for members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to be unified in pushing back against terrorism in the region and destabilizing efforts that Iran may have engaged with with our partners. Those are all things on which this administration and Israel agree. But when it comes to this nuclear deal, let's wait until there's

actually a deal on the table that Iran has agreed to, at which point everybody can evaluate it. We don't have to speculate. And what I can guarantee is that if it's a deal I've signed off on, I will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And for us to pass up on that potential opportunity would be a grave mistake. It's not one that I intend to make and I will take that case to every member of Congress once we actually have a deal.

All right?

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Hold on, hold on, hold on. I'll take one question. Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now that you've had a chance to (INAUDIBLE), do you feel like the speech he gave was appropriate considering his upcoming election and the upcoming deadline? You also talked to other foreign leaders today (INAUDIBLE). Did Iran come up at all? And are you expecting any kind of support from them (INAUDIBLE) your position (INAUDIBLE)?

OBAMA: No, I - the - well, all the folks on the call today share my position, that we should see if we can get this deal done. It was not a topic of conversation.

With respect to the decision of the speaker to offer up the House chamber two weeks before Mr. Netanyahu's election to make this case, I think that question should be directed to Mr. Boehner. As I said, it is very important for us not to politicize the relationship between Israel and the United States. It's very important for all of us Americans to realize that we have a system of government in which foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels. And I think it's important for us to stay focused on the problem at hand.

And the specific problem that is being debated right now is not whether we trust the Iranian regime or not. We don't trust them. It's not whether Iran engages in destabilizing activities. Everybody agrees with that. The central question is, how can we stop them from getting a nuclear weapon? And what we know is that if we're able to get a deal, not only do we cut off all the various pathways for Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but we also know that we'll have a verification mechanism and an inspection mechanism where if they cheat and if they engage in a covert program, we are far more likely to see it in time to do something about it.

What I also know is, if we don't have a deal, as Prime Minister Netanyahu suggested, if, in fact, he's right that they're not trustworthy, they intend to pursue a covert program and they cheat, we'll be far less aware of it until it is potentially too late. What I also know is, is that he made the same argument before this current interim deal. And even as officials in his own government had had to acknowledge that Iran has, in fact, maintained their end of the bargain. So what I'm focused on right now is solving this problem. I'm not

focused on the politics of it. I'm not focused on the theater of it. And my strong suggestion would be that members of Congress, as they evaluate it, stay similarly focused.

All right? Thank you, guys.

(CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: Appreciate it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

OBAMA: Thanks.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: There he is, the president of the United States. Eleven minutes, making his case why he believes he's right, the prime minister of Israel is wrong, as far as this ongoing negotiation for a possible nuclear deal with Iran. Very strong back and forth between the president of the United States, the prime minister of Israel. Not every day you hear that. In fact, I don't think we've ever heard that kind of back and forth between a president of the United States and a prime minister of Israel, at least in public.

John King is here. Gloria Borger is here.

They're pretty angry at each other and it's presumably going to get worse.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: You kind of feel like you're eavesdropping on a private conversation that two leaders two disagree might be having about a large issue, except the whole world is watching and the whole world is hearing this.

And the president made it very clear, I think, that he was frustrated, right? That he said, why don't we wait until we've actually got something to talk about before we talk about it, right? And that, you know, he just made the point that if Iran cheats, we're far more likely to find out about it if we have some kind of a deal than if we don't and it would - and it would be too late. But then he went on to say, I'm not focused on the politics of it.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Just, wow.

BORGER: Yes.

KING: Just, wow.

BORGER: Yes.

KING: Forget the details for a minute. This is the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel within an hour or two of each other. The president said he didn't see the speech, he just read it. Imagine if he had seen it because it's pretty clear the prime minister is under his skin and under his skin pretty good. So he takes 11 minutes. He didn't just say, nothing new, move on, no questions, go. He took 11 minutes to rebut the arguments.

Prime minister Netanyahu stood up there and said, you know, the president can't be trusted on this, he's too naive, he doesn't get it. He's negotiating an agreement he says takes away Iran's nuclear capability. It actually gives them a nuclear capability. Then you have the president of the United States, a couple hours later, saying, this is (INAUDIBLE), he's been saying this forever, the prime minister, forget him, don't believe him, I'm doing the right thing.

Publicly, to your point, allies are supposed to do this in private. This is spilling out so publicly, the two leaders themselves with the whole world watching, with Secretary Kerry in Switzerland at the table with Iran at this very moment. Remember, the remarkable part for me is that, remember where Prime Minister Netanyahu was speaking, standing in that spot in the House of Representatives where just six weeks ago the president gave his State of the Union address and said, trust me, I'm on top of these negotiations, this will be a good deal if we can get it. Prime Minister Netanyahu coming in and saying, no.

BORGER: Now, even if they say that this isn't political, the point is, it's gotten incredibly personal between these two men. And the larger question is, how does this personal problem that these two men clearly have spill over into the larger geopolitical debate, not only about sanctions but about the sacrosanct relationship between the United States and Israel, which has always been bipartisan. And I think that's a question we're going to be discussing, particularly after we see what happens in the elections coming up.

BLITZER: And, John, you know, the president basically said the prime minister, he didn't say anything new. He didn't watch the speech, but he said he read the transcript. There was nothing new there. The prime minister of Israel, he minced no words. He basically suggested and said in no uncertain terms the president is wrong, this is a horrible deal, a bad deal. Not only will it endanger Israel's security but potentially even Israel's very survival.

KING: He's betting the security of the world. That's what Prime Minister Netanyahu said of President Obama. So you have the president -- look, if the president didn't think the prime minister's speech was effective, he would not have just taken 11 minutes to try to rebut it. If the president didn't think that even though he disagrees with everything the prime minister said, that the prime minister didn't just make his job harder, didn't just complicate the negotiations for Secretary Kerry and then didn't complicate his sales pitch to the Congress, if he gets a deal, which is still a big if. Underline that, bold face it, a big if. If he did - if the president didn't think the prime minister was quite effective standing up there today, you would not have seen that.

The question is, what happens now? What's the fallout, a, with regards to these negotiations, but, b, with the relationships? The poor new defense secretary, Ash Carter, a good man, sitting there, what does he do now? What leeway does the president give him when Israel wants a new weapons program or Israel objects to some arms sale to Jordan or somebody else in the region, when there's things going on? This is going to domino effect across the government. BORGER: Well, and these -

BLITZER: Or (INAUDIBLE) Israel needs protection -

KING: Right.

BLITZER: At the United Nation's Security Council -

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: Or the United Nation's General Assembly, for international forums. The United States has been there to help Israel, to avoid its isolation. Is that -- hold on one second because we're told the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, is got -- answering some more questions on this.

(WHITE HOUSE PRESS BRIEFING - JOINED IN PROGRESS)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, (INAUDIBLE), what I can tell you is that very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees of the Obama administration should use their official e-mail accounts when they're conducting official government business.

However, when there are situations where personal e-mail accounts are used, it is important for those records to be preserved, consistent with the Federal Records Act. In fact, the president signed into law a bill at the end of last year that clarified the guidelines for how those personal e-mails can be properly stored and maintained.

This is part of why the State Department has asked all of the previous secretaries of state who have used any e-mail as they were conducting official U.S. business, to send their e-mails to the State Department so they could be properly preserved and maintained. Secretary Clinton's team, in response to that request, reviewed her e-mails and complied with that request by sending all of the e-mails on her personal account that pertain to her official responsibilities as secretary of state. They did that even though many of the records were already maintained on the state system because those records were e- mails between the secretary of state and State Department employees using their official government e-mail address.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So are you saying that her use of her personal e-mail solely was appropriate, or was it a violation of this policy?

EARNEST: Well, what you should do is that you should check with the State Department, who is responsible for administering this policy. But the policy, as a general matter, allows individuals to use their personal e-mail address as long as those e-mails are maintained and sent to the State Department, which, if you ask Secretary Clinton's team, that's what they completed in the last month or two.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Given that she's not the first person to use personal e-mail, does there need to be some sort of system for archiving personal e-mails of high-ranking government officials like this? EARNEST: Well, that is part of this law that I referred to, that the

president signed into law at the end of last year, that it does establish clear guidelines for how individuals, if they are using their personal e-mail to conduct official business, can ensure that those records are properly maintained. Now, the official guidance that we offer to administration employees, and it's certainly the guidance that I've followed here personally when I've been at the White House, is that I use my official government e-mail address when I'm conducting official government business. It saves me the additional step of having to take a personal e-mail and forward it to my government e-mail so that it can be properly maintained.

Now, it's not incredibly uncommon for one of you or one of your colleagues to send an e-mail to my personal address. A few of them - a few of you have it. But when I do that, I will answer the e-mails, which I try to be pretty good about doing, but then I will take that response and forward the e-mail to my official account so that the record of that e-mail exchange can be properly preserved.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you respond to the announcement from the House that they will vote on a Homeland Security funding bill without restrictions?

EARNEST: Well, Nedra (ph), as you heard me say yesterday, the White House has been urging the Congress for months now to do the right thing and that is pass a full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security that does not include any politically motivated riders. And the benefit of that is, is that it will allow the Department of Homeland Security to plan and take the necessary steps to protect the American people.

And at the end of last year, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill got together and worked to hammer out an agreement about the appropriate funding levels for that agency. That agreement was reached at the end of last year, but for several months now, congressional Republicans have prevented votes on that compromise because they were trying to figure out a way that they could capitalize on a political opportunity. The fact is, trying to politicize something as fundamental to our national security as funding for the Department of Homeland Security is completely inappropriate and we are pleased that congressional leaders in the House have apparently relented, they've abandoned the search for political advantage, and are instead just trying to move forward to do the right thing, which is to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Roberta.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: When Secretary Clinton was using her private e- mail address to do her work as secretary, was the White House counsel's office aware of that? And did it sanction that?

EARNEST: Well, the responsibility for ensuring that agency records are properly preserved and maintained is the responsibility of agency officials in coordination with the National Archives and Records Administration. This is a, you know, a fairly bureaucratic function, but yet an important one. These records need to be maintained for a variety of reasons. One is that it's not hard to imagine that historians in the future will want to review these records to conduct their academic analysis about things that occurred in the administration. They also need to -- the records also need to be preserved and maintained so that legitimate requests, either from private citizens or from Congress, to review that information can be fulfilled.

So it's the responsibility of the agencies to maintain their own records management plan, if you will. But they certainly do that in close coordination with the experts at the - at NARA, at the National Archives and Records Administration.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So White House officials that she may have been e-mailing with, they didn't raise this at any point in time as, you know, you might want to use your official government -- or why aren't you using your official government account? Was it - was it just OK with everybody?

EARNEST: Well, as I pointed out, Roberta, in response to Nedra's question, it is the responsibility of agencies to preserve those records, even when those records are -- exist on a personal e-mail account. That is why, in order to make it easier for everybody and to avoid circumstances where an individual may forget to forward an e- mail, we encourage people to use their official government e-mail account when they're conducting official government business.

However, when a personal e-mail account is involved, the law suggests or the law mandates, in fact, that that record be properly preserved, and that can be done by forwarding it to an official government e-mail where it can be preserved on the system. Again, that's what Secretary Clinton's team did, was they reviewed her personal e-mails to capture all of those that pertained to the conduct of her - of official U.S. business and sent them to the State Department so they could be properly maintained.

And, in fact, I understand that hundreds of those records have actually already been provided to Congress in response to a legitimate congressional oversight request. So that is, I think, reflects a commitment on the part of the State Department to not just following the Federal Records Act, but also coordinating and complying with legitimate requests from congressional oversight committees.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Are there security concerns, though, with a high-ranking official like secretary of state using a personal e-mail address for official business?

EARNEST: Well, again, for the specific protocols that are in place at the State Department, you should check with the experts at the - at the State Department. This -- these are their rules for them to manage. The president, what he insists that all the agencies do, is live up to the obligations that they have under the Federal Records Act. OK?

Michelle.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, how to you feel about those rules? Wouldn't that rule then allow a big space for e-mails to not be preserved if the use of a personal e-mail on a regular basis is even allowed and thought to be OK long term?

EARNEST: Well, again, Michelle, the guidance that we have certainly given to everybody who works here at the White House -- and I think this is consistent with the guidance that federal employees at agencies across the government have received - is that they should use their official e-mail account when they're conducting official government business.

On those instances in which official business is conducted on personal e-mail accounts, it's important for those records, those personal e- mails, to be forwarded to the agency so that they can be properly maintained. In most cases, at least here at the White House, it's as simple as just forwarding it to your official government account so that those e-mails can be properly maintained and preserved.

KOSINSKI: Yes, but that's a personal responsibility and do you think that the rules need to be tightened up since it seems to leave a big gap there in who's going to forward that e-mail and who's going to make sure that that e-mail is forwarded?

EARNEST: Well, I think the law is pretty clear about what's necessary to comply, which is that it's important to ensure that those e-mails that may exist on one's personal e-mail account are properly maintained. And again, that is why we saw the State Department take the step of asking all of the former secretaries of state who have used e-mail as they've done their work to review their personal e-mail in search of records that relate to the conduct of official U.S. business.

And Secretary Clinton's team complied with that request by reviewing her personal e-mail, pulling together all of the ones that related to her official work as secretary of state and forwarded it to the State Department so that they could preserve and maintain those records and, in fact, use them to respond to legitimate requests from Congress.

KOSINSKI: OK. In the speech we just heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu, his whole premise of hating this potential deal was that Iran is such a threat, it can't be trusted really under any means. Do you think that he overstated that threat, you know, on the basis that a deal is being worked out and do you think that he did betray the trust between allies, as you put it, because he discussed some key points of that potential deal?

EARNEST: Well, Michelle, let me take the first part first, which is, I think Susan Rice, the national security adviser, had a rather cogent way of summarizing our approach to this deal, distrust and verify. As she laid out and even as the president relayed in his comments in the Oval Office, there are a variety of reasons to not trust the Iranians. There are numerous examples of the Iranians not being honest with the international community about their nuclear program. There are a variety of examples of that. One -- in some ways the best example of that is the nuclear facility at Fordo (ph) that the United States and our allies revealed early on in the president's tenure in office, back in 2009. So that is why, as the president mentioned in the Oval Office, any

sort of deal that the United States signs onto will include historically significant verification measures. We're talking about detailed verification measures that would include, of course, as you would expect, the routine inspection of nuclear facilities in Iran, but it would also expand to things like regular inspections of uranium mines that exist in Iran, regular inspection of manufacturing facilities that are related to nuclear equipment that are critical to the functioning of their nuclear program. We're talking about an in- depth, rigorous inspections regime that can verify for the international community that Iran is living up to their end of the deal.

Now, the second part of your question was related to --

KOSINSKI: Right, but the fact that he was talking about these points of a potential deal, should he not have done that? Was that a betrayal of trust?

EARNEST: Well, again, the Israeli prime minister is allowed to make the decisions, as I referred to yesterday, is allowed to make the decisions about what he's going to say based on his own assessment about the best interests of Israeli national security. That's his responsibility as the politically, democratically elected leader of Israel. But the president has made clear that there are other concerns in mind, principally ensuring that the relationship between the United States and Israel isn't subjected to the turbulence of partisan politics.

And that's why the president has chosen a somewhat different approach. It's why the president is not meeting with the prime minister on this visit to the United States. But it does not reflect any change in this administration's or this country's commitment to Israel's national security. OK?

Zeke.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Going back to the e-mails, the president is a noted e-mailer in chief. Has he ever e-mailed with the secretary - the former secretary of state, Clinton, did they e-mail when she was in office?

EARNEST: Zeke, you won't be surprised to hear that I'm not going to talk in a lot in detail about e-mails that are sent to or from the president of the United States. But I will tell you, as a general matter two things. The first is that the president's e-mails are subject to the Presidential Records Act, which does have -- which is a little bit different than the Federal Records Act. Hopefully you guys aren't going to quiz me on that. But they are subjected to the Presidential Records Act that does require those records to be preserved and maintained. They have obvious scholarly value in the future.

The second point that I'll make about that is that if Secretary Clinton did e-mail the president of the United States, that under that protocol, those records would have been preserved. And, again, I think that sort of highlights the situation that Secretary Clinton's team encountered, which is that a large number of the records that they reviewed in response to the State Department request were records that already existed on a State Department system because they were e-mails between her and State Department employees with statedepartment.gov e- mail addresses.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So when somebody in the White House, in the West Wing, had an e-mail to send to the secretary of state, did they just use her, you know, her private e-mail account instead of -- she didn't have a State Department e-mail account. How did they get in contact with her? Did that never raise a flag inside the West Wing?

EARNEST: Well, Zeke, what I'll tell you is that during her four years as secretary of state, she and I did not trade e-mails. So I do not know what her e-mail address is. But I can tell you that if there were e-mails between Secretary Clinton and White House officials, and I'm pretty confident that there were some e-mails, those e-mails weren't just protected by -- or maintained by the White House e-mail system. Those e-mails were reviewed by Secretary Clinton's team, and they were sent to the State Department so they could be properly maintained on their system as well. And again, that is consistent with the requirements of the Federal Records Act.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) the domain the secretary used apparently to send these e-mails was registered just a week before the president took office, the same day her confirmation hearings in the Senate began. It seemed that this was set up for the express purpose of, you know, being the vehicle for her to use e-mail while she was serving as secretary of state. You know the president has openly said multiple times, you know, it's the most transparent administration in history. Was this a conversation that they had before she took office? Was it something that - you know, was this something that anyone at the White House ever flagged for her? And is this consistent with the president's promise to make this a transparent administration?

EARNEST: Well, Zeke, I'm not aware of all of the mechanics that went into setting up the e-mail system that you have just described. I would encourage you to check with Secretary Clinton's team or somebody over at the State Department. But, again, what the president has insisted on from the beginning of his administration, as you alluded to, is a commitment to among other things making sure that e-mailed communication, to the extent that they are official government records, are properly preserved and maintained. Both so that in the future they can be reviewed by historians, but also so that they can be used when necessary to respond to legitimate requests from Congress or the public to review those records.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: One last one. You said that secretary staff reviewed and turned over 55,000 pages of e-mails. That's not 55,000 e-mails. And why should the American people take her word or her staff's word for it? Why is there no independent review? By going through this process, she set it up. It's on her word or her staff's word that these are the only e-mails pertaining to her official business at the State Department. Why should anybody take that at face value? Why shouldn't there be a system in place to have an independent arbiter of that information? EARNEST: In terms of the number, the 55,000 number is something I've

seen reported. I haven't verified that number. I've been careful to avoid using it. I don't know if that refers to pages or e-mails or what. I'm not disputing the number. I'm just saying I don't know what the number is. I know there are a large number of records that numbered in the thousands that were turned over by Secretary Clinton's team at the request of the State Department. Again, this was a request the State Department had made to all previous secretaries of state in both parties.

Again, in the same way that Secretary Clinton's team reviewed her personal e-mail to make sure that they were forwarding on to the State Department e-mails that relate to her conduct of official U.S. business, the same is true of those secretaries of state who served in the Republican administration. And ultimately, that's what the law requires, that if an individual uses a personal e-mail account for official U.S. business, that information, that record should be sent and maintained in the system that's been set up by that specific agency.

And that is why, frankly, we encourage people -- a lot of people don't have a team like Secretary Clinton does. That's why we encourage them not to rely on remembering to forward an e-mail but to just use the official government system set up to ensure those records are maintained.