Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

White House Press Briefing; White House Hopeful Spending Bill Will Pass; White House Reacts To CIA Torture Report; Support for Brennan; Brennan to Speak; World Reaction to CIA Report

Aired December 11, 2014 - 12:56   ET

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

DBORAH FEYERICK, CNN HOST: Let's Listen.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: (In progress) -- in funding to make progress against the goal that the president has set out, which is expanding access to high-quality, early childhood education programs for every child in America. This $750 million funding level locks in a funding increase that was originally agreed to last year. So we certainly are pleased to see the financial support for those programs continue.

The second domestic priority, something the president has talked about quite a bit, which is Wall Street reform. This funding proposal includes double-digit increases for both the CFTC and the SEC. These are two independent regulatory agencies that have a very important role to play, and now a larger role to play as a result of the passage of Wall Street reform in terms of protecting the stability of our financial system and of the U.S. economy.

Importantly, on previous pieces of must-pass legislation, we've seen Republicans attempt to add ideological riders that would essentially gut the authority of the CFPB. The CFPB is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is something that the president fought for and created as a result of the Wall Street reform legislation. He believes it's important for consumers to have a voice in Washington. That's exactly what the CFPB does.

And Democrats, with the strong support of the administration, were able to fight off Republican attempts to add riders that would gut the authority of the CFPB.

The third priority that we are pleased to see is receiving an appropriate level of funding in the -- this compromise proposal is related to our efforts to fight climate change. We are pleased to see that the variety of agencies that are involved in implementing the climate action plan are funded at a level appropriate to perform the functions that they need to perform in order to carry out that strategy that the president laid out earlier this year, and we certainly are gratified by that.

Importantly, this is another area where Republicans have identified efforts or acknowledged efforts to try to undermine our ability to act on this important priority. There are no riders included in this legislation that would significantly impair our ability to make progress against some of these climate priorities the president's identified.

EARNEST: The president has identified these priorities because it's good for the health and safety of the American people. It's good for our ongoing efforts to fight climate change, and it's good for the economy.

If we lay out a clear strategy in advance for trying to deal with the consequences of climate change, we can make the kinds of investments in -- in renewable energy that are going to be good for creating jobs and strengthening economy growth.

The third and final category that I will touch on lightly here is that there are two areas at the beginning of this budget process that Republicans identified as significant targets for them.

These are two areas that Republicans have long opposed administration, and these are two areas where the administration has been very focused on following through in terms of implementation to make sure we can make progress in these areas.

And those two areas are the Affordable Care Act and immigration.

And this compromised proposal does not include riders that would significantly gut the president's ability to implement the Affordable Care Act or to implement the executive actions that would reform our broken immigration system.

So those are the reasons that we believe that -- those are just some of the reasons that we believe that this compromised proposal merits bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, and hopefully will arrive on the president's desk in the next few days, and he -- if it does, he will sign it.

QUESTION: This is very different than what some of the Democrats on the Hill are saying. Some of them are angered and thinking of opposing this bill.

Is the president or the White House encouraging them to vote for it, and if they oppose it, do you fear that you could be in a worse position negotiating in the new year?

EARNEST: Well, I'll say a couple things about that.

The first is I think the message that you just heard from me about the reasons that the administration supports this legislation is -- I think are reasons that we believe the Democrats should give careful consideration to as they vote their conscience. Somebody asked me yesterday, you know, how we thought Democrats should vote on this thing. Our position yesterday is the same as it was today, which is we believe the Democrats should vote their conscience.

Somebody asked me yesterday, you know, how we thought the Democrats should vote on this thing. Our position yesterday is the same as it was today which is we believe Democrats should vote their conscience. If there are Democrats who do choose to support this piece of legislation, there's ample reason for them to do so. But, again, that will be their decision.

As it relates to future negotiating position, there's no doubt that the amount of leverage that Democrats have on Capitol Hill will be reduced as a result of the Republican gains made in the last midterm election. That's certainly not an eventuality that we're pleased by but that's a fact. And so, anyway, that's the answer to your question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Specifically, they're angered by a couple provisions, predominantly the rollback of Dodd-Frank and the political contributions. What is the president's position on those parts of the bill?

EARNEST: The president opposes both of them. And you will recall, and I can explain why if you would like, as it relates to the Wall Street reform provision that has attracted a lot of criticism among Democrats on Capitol Hill, that is a provision that the president strongly disagrees with as well.

In fact, when this provision was put on the floor in a standalone measure in the House of Representatives, this administration put out a statement of administration position indicating the president's opposition and indicating the president's intent to veto that proposal if it arrived on his desk. So, we've been very clear, for some time now, that we do not support that provision.

As it relates to the campaign finance proposal that's included in here, that is also one -- that is also a provision that the administration does not support. And the reason for that is slightly different. The president has spoken at length in a variety of settings about concerns that he has about our campaign finance system in this country. He believes it's in need of significant reform, particularly in light of the landmark Supreme Court decision from three or four years ago.

So, if we're going to reform that system well, should have a public debate about it, there should be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate to engage in a -- in a debate about it. And reforms to that broken system shouldn't be tucked into a 1,600-page must-pass bill. That's not the best way for us to try to solve this problem.

But, more broadly, this sort of goes through back -- goes back to the first point that I made today. This is a long -- this is a long bill, 1,600 pages. There are a lot of different provisions in it. There are a lot of funding provisions, some ideological riders that are included in here that the president does not support. But it is a compromise. It is why Democrats and Republicans can support this piece of legislation. I anticipate that Democrats and Republicans will support this piece of legislation. They will do so not because either side got every single thing that they wanted. The president certainly didn't get everything that he wanted.

If the president were writing this bill himself, this -- it would look a lot different. But it is a compromise and it does fulfill some of the -- many of the top line priorities that the president himself has long identified. And passing this bill and signing it into law would allow us to make additional progress against those priorities.

OK, Jeff. I'll try to shorten my answers here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Josh, what's the backup plan if it doesn't pass and it doesn't end up on the president's desk?

EARNEST: Well, like I said, I think I made -- judging myself here, I think I made a persuasive case at least about why I think a lot of Democrats can support the legislation. I think -- I would anticipate that there are a lot of Republicans who will be supporting this legislation in spite of what I said. That's OK, too. That's how our democracy works. It means that Republicans have taken a look at this legislation and identified things in that bill that they think are think are good for the country. We do have a disagreement about them, but we can't allow a disagreement over one thing to be a deal breaker over all the others. I think this is a pretty good illustration of that principle that the president has been discussing for a few weeks now in the aftermath of the midterm elections.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Some other brief topics.

EARNEST: Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, secretary Lew talked about oil prices today being good for the American economy. But is the White House concerned that the dip in oil prices may hurt the overall world economy as exporters like Saudi Arabia and others are getting less revenue?

EARNEST: Well, I'm certainly no expert in this area so I wouldn't -- I wouldn't disagree with Secretary Lew. I do think that -- just based on my, again, very elemental understanding of this issue, I think that one of the things that's actually depressing oil prices is some weakness in other countries that are large consumers of fossil fuels. So, there is a little bit of a chicken and egg thing, right, that one of the things that's driving down oil prices is the weak economy.

But I guess you're asking if it could have sort of a reinforcing effect. I think there is some debate about that about what the actual impact would be. But, again, I do think that Secretary Lew is correct when he does indicate that lower energy prices is good for middle- class families and is good for the broader economy. It certainly is one of the reasons that this president has long advocated that we make the kinds of investments that are necessary to make America independent of foreign oil. And we've made substantial progress against that goal while the president has been in office and that's because of the all of the above approach that we have taken when it comes to energy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, is it accurate to say, then, that the White House is not concerned about lower oil prices?

EARNEST: Well, again, as we've talked -- when oil prices were sort of at the other end of the spectrum, we talked quite a bit about how -- about how the White House didn't have a lot of direct control over the price of gas or oil in this country and certainly had minimal influence over the global economy or the global oil market as well. So, again, this is something that we're going to closely monitor and we're certainly going to be very cognizant of the impact that any changes in the price of oil would have on our economy.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: The questions on Brennan (INAUDIBLE) --

EARNEST: And something that we'll continue to monitor closely and Secretary Lew and the department that he runs will, obviously, be a -- be a big part of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just lastly then, ahead of the John Brennan press conference later this afternoon, does the president still have confidence in the CIA director?

EARNEST: Yes. And the reason is simply this. I mentioned this a little bit yesterday, but I'm happy to repeat it. John Brennan is a dedicated professional who has dedicated his time in public service to protecting the United States of America. That makes him a patriot and it makes it somebody -- makes him someone who has the full confidence of the president of the United States.

And the president wakes up every morning pleased to know that John Brennan and the men and women of the CIA are at work using their skills and expertise to protect the American people. And the president is pleased to have -- to count him as one of the people who has been a senior member of his national security team since the very beginning of his tenure in office. And the president continues to rely on his advice to this day.

Michelle.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And we saw the CIA director arriving at the White House this morning. Did he meet with the president? Can you talk about that meeting? And was that specifically to discuss this unprecedented press conference that he's having?

EARNEST: Director Brennan participated in the presidential daily briefing today. It's not particularly unusual for him to do that. But that also is going to limit my ability to give you much of a read out from that meeting because the substance of that meeting is just not something I'm in a position to talk about.

KOSINSKI: So, at this press conference, he's likely to say what's already been said in the CIA statements. So, now that he's publicly going to take questions and state, as we expect, that these methods did produce intelligence, is the White House still refusing to say whether it agrees with his statement on that?

EARNEST: Well, Michele, we did go through this at some length yesterday. And let me, again, try to characterize for you what our view is of this. The -- and I -- and I think it sort of falls into two categories. The first is simply that -- and this is not just like a philosophical imponderable. This is actually relevant to what we're trying to conclude here which is it is unknowable whether or not specific information that was obtained through the use of an enhanced interrogation technique could not have also been obtained through some other interrogation technique that is in full compliance with the Army field manual and other generally accepted law enforcement techniques.

KOSINSKI: Well, why is the CIA director saying that? Sorry.

EARNEST: It's - well, you can ask him. But what I -- you asked about the president and the president's view is that it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not the use of an enhanced interrogation technique was necessary to obtain a specific piece of information precisely because it's impossible to know whether or not you could have obtained that piece of information through other means. That's important because the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, in the mind of the president, significantly undermines the moral authority of the United States of America.

And as I mentioned yesterday, regardless of which side of this debate you're on, you -- I think everybody agrees that the moral authority of the United States of America is one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal that keeps the American people safe. It allows us to build strong relationships with allies and partners around the globe. It allows us to work in multilateral settings to ensure that any multilateral agreements that are struck between the United States and series of other countries reflect the high standard that we have maintained in this country for the treatment of individuals and the respect for basic human rights. And that is a very powerful tool and the American people and our broader national security benefit from that significantly. And that is why, on his second full day in office, the president outlawed the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, because he believed she undermined our moral authority and therefore prevented us from doing everything that we possibly could to protect the American people and to protect our national security.

KOSINSKI: So, you don't think it creates an uncomfortable rift to have your CIA director saying this information did yield from that and the White House saying it's impossible to know, as well as an uncomfortable message that he agreed with these methods back then and now is stills with the director of the CIA.

EARNEST: Well, again, I don't know -- you should talk to him about his position on this, because I don't think that he would say that he -- in fact, I think that he has said publicly that he did not agree with these -- when he was undergoing Congressional testimony for this job. So, for his position about the use of these techniques, you should check with him.

But, again, he or the individual who serves as his spokesman can best answer the questions you have about his position on these issues. You know, I will -- I will continue to do my best to help you understand, to help the American people understand exactly what the president's view is on these issues. But I think the most declarative thing that anybody can say about this is that on the president's second full day in office, he took steps to unequivocally ban the use of these kinds of techniques in his administration.

KOSINSKI: Since we've heard more world reaction and we've heard you say repeatedly, you know, talking about the moral authority and concerns that those methods would undermine the U.S., in the view of the rest of world, well, do you feel that keeping people on from that era, including Brennan -- does that not undermine the U.S.'s values in some way? Can you explain that?

EARNEST: It does not. And let -- I will actually put a finer point on it. The president does believe that the use of those techniques undermined our moral authority around the globe and that's why the president has taken such demonstrative steps to rebuild that moral authority. That's why he outlawed those techniques on his second full day in office. It's why the president has strongly supported the release of the declassified version of the executive summary of the report so that we can be transparent with the American people and the world about our shortcomings and demonstrate our commitment to making sure that it never happens again. It's also why the president took steps, again, within the first week that he was here in office, to try to put in place reforms so that clear guidance was given to U.S. personnel about the proper treatment of individuals who were in detention and the proper treatment of individuals who were being subjected to interrogation.

So, again, those are -- those are the kinds of reforms that, even at the time, didn't get a lot of attention when they were mentioned. But the irony is that when this report was released on Tuesday, it chronicled, in excruciating detail, the failure to properly implement these programs, to -- the failure to provide proper oversight of these programs, to -- the failure to put -- to give clear direction to individuals that didn't have proper training. And what this administration did, again on the president's second day in office, initiated the kinds of reforms that provided greater oversight, that provided greater clarity, that provided clear guidelines to ensure that as these individuals were being held and interrogated, that they were -- that it was being done in a way that's consistent with our values and consistent with the way that upholds our moral authority around the globe.

KOSINSKI: So, how does it not -- the question was more how does it not undermine our moral authority to keep people on who were involved during that era?

EARNEST: OK. Well, at least in one way -- one way I can explain that is to tell you that those individuals, who are serving the president of the United States right now, are not engaged and are not supporting a policy of enhanced interrogation techniques. And the reason they're not doing that is because the president unequivocally banned it on his second full day in office. I suppose if those individuals didn't agree with that policy, they wouldn't be serving the president. OK? All right. Richard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Josh. But these -- this ban is good for this administration. When we were listening to former vice president Cheney yesterday saying that he would do it again if he -- if he had to. You repeat that the U.S. will never again use these interrogation techniques. How can you guarantee foreign leaders and people around the world that this won't happen again? It's good for this administration, but it can -- it can just come back the next...

EARNEST: Well, I just think a couple of things about this, Richard. And I alluded to this a little bit in yesterday's briefing as well, that one of the benefits of having a public debate about this issue is that it informs the public about what our values are. And the public is allowed to reach their own conclusions on these matters.

And because it's ultimately the public that's gonna decide who the next commander-in-chief is, they're relevant to this discussion. And I do think that by being so transparent and encouraging and fostering this kind of public debate it will be very difficult if any future commander-in-chief chose to do so to try to roll back this ban that the president's put in place on torture. I just -- I don't think that that's gonna -- I think that will be very, very difficult for any future president to do.

But I -- I will concede that the premise of your question, which is that there is no guarantee that I can offer here about what a future commander-in-chief may decide, but I think the precedent that's been set here, and the public debate that's been set here, makes very clear about the commitment of the people of this country and the government of this country to uphold the values that we hold quite dear, not just because that's the right thing to do, but also because we believe that makes us safer.

QUESTION: Quick question, Josh.

Since the publication of the report, any calls coming from outside, from foreign leaders, or does the president have to talk about this to anybody?

EARNEST: Well Richard, I mentioned this a little bit yesterday, and the fact is, I'm not going to be in a position to read out any calls that the president may have had with any foreign leaders on this specific topic.

OK? John.

QUESTION: Josh, coming back to the spending bill, Elizabeth Warren said that this bill shows us the worst of government --

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So, there he is, Josh Earnest, offering a very, very strong statement of support for the CIA director, John Brennan, who's getting ready to hold a news conference. He'll be making a major statement right in a few minutes. We'll have live coverage and then he'll be answering reporters' questions over at CIA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C., in Langley, Virginia.

We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting from Washington.

We're going to have extensive live coverage of what the CIA position is right now in the aftermath of the release of this Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Jake Tapper is with us, watching what's going on.

Jake, are you surprised that the White House is sticking, standing by its man, John Brennan, in the face of some calls from members of Congress, including the outgoing senator from Colorado, Mark Udall, urging the president to fire, in effect, John Brennan? JAKE TAPPER, ANCHOR, CNN'S "THE LEAD": No, I'm not. Brennan has been a

very, very close adviser of President Obama's from the very beginning, even -- he wanted to appoint him CIA director early on, at the very beginning of his term, but because there was opposition to Brennan because of this legacy from the CIA during the Bush years, the president, instead, chose to make him his senior adviser on counter terrorism and homeland security issues and then later, of course, nominating him to be CIA director.

He's somebody that the president has a lot of faith in and, in many ways, I think Brennan represents the ambivalence that the president and the White House seem to feel about these methods. You do not hear President Obama and the White House saying what the Democrats in the Senate say when they issued their report, that torture does not work. In fact, there is a lot of pushback to that from not only John Brennan in the CIA, and people who worked in the CIA during the Brennan years and the Panetta years, but there's a lot of pushback, obviously, from Bush administration era officials as well.

BLITZER: All right, I want everybody to stand by. We're only just getting started. We're only moments away. The CIA director, the Central Intelligence Agency director, John Brennan, getting ready to hold a very, very rare live news conference from CIA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C. Much more of our special coverage coming up. Only moments away from John Brennan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: It's really an extraordinary event. We're waiting to go live to the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, the headquarters of Langley, Virginia, outside of Washington, D.C. The director of the CIA, John Brennan, getting ready to make an extensive statement, defending the CIA in the aftermath of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, which was quite critical of the CIA over these past years since 9/11. And then he will actually answer reporters' questions at a news conference. We'll have extensive live coverage.

All of this following the issue of enhanced interrogation techniques that came up during John Brennan's confirmation hearings back in 2013. Here's one exchange that Senator Saxby Chambliss, the Republican ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had with Brennan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: When you reviewed the intelligence the CIA was getting on Abu Zubaydah after the use of EITs, did you think the information was valuable?

JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: The reports that I was getting subsequent to that, and in the years after that, it was clearly my impression that there was valuable information that was coming out.

CHAMBLISS: November -- in a November 2007 interview, you said that information from the interrogation techniques, quote, "saved lives," closed quote. BRENNAN: I clearly had the impression, as you say, when I was quoted

in 2007, that there was valuable intelligence that came out from those interrogation sessions. That's why I did say that they saved lives.

I must tell you, senator, that reading this report from the committee raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time, and the impression I had at that time. Now I have to determine what, based on that information, as well as what the CIA says, what the truth is. And at this point, senator, I do not know what the truth is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Strong words, powerful words. That's nearly two years ago during John Brennan's confirmation hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Let's bring in our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr.

As you know, Barbara, Brennan was ultimately confirmed by the full Senate 63-31. That was the vote, lopsided vote. His views on the CIA interrogations, how have they involved?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, start with what he knew way back when, when all of this was going on. He has told Congress that he did know about some of this and he had some personal objections to it. He was quite concerned about these techniques, such as nudity, sleep deprivation, and other fairly brutal interrogation techniques. And he clearly says that he thought the interrogation program overall produced some valuable intelligence. But now that we have seen the report, the CIA, as an agency, has come out very strongly against the Senate Democrat critics and continue to say that it provided, you know, good intelligence.

I think what you're dealing with here is a continuum of time. What was going on back then, how people felt about it, how they feel about it now. It is what Brennan is going to get asked at this extraordinary press conference that's coming up in just a few minutes.

The CIA is very frustrated today, literally today. They feel their story is not being told. They feel that the interrogation program worked. They acknowledge mistakes. They acknowledge that the president has made this -- these torture techniques illegal. But there is somewhat of an undercurrent that maybe they feel the American people don't want to know what it takes to get information out of hard core terrorists.

Still, the interrogation is illegal. Brennan is going to have to resolve this conflict of, did he really believe, does he still really believe, that the program yielded valuable intelligence and was there any other way to get it.

Wolf.

BLITZER: We're going to be hearing extensively from the CIA director, John Brennan. That's coming up in a few moments. In the meantime, we have a panel of experts, our reporters and our

analysts, they're all standing by.

Christiane Amanpour, you're watching what's going on in London right now. What's been the action around the world?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you know, a lot of the reports did suggest that there were black sites in many other countries of U.S. allies around the world. They have all really distanced themselves from it.

I'm going to be talking to the U.N. special repertoire (ph) for human rights and counterterrorism. He has made very, very strong statements saying that there is a criminal conspiracy at the top levels of the administration at the time that did this kind of stuff and that these crimes, he calls them, this is a U.N. top repertoire (ph), need to be prosecuted. And I think everybody's going to be, apart from the legal aspect of it, watching to see whether the CIA director can actually point to actual instances where torture actually did produce valuable so-called ticking time bomb, imminent threat kind of information because right now you've got this huge political fight in Washington, but legal experts, for instance, Alberto Morera (ph), the former legal counsel for the Navy who resigned in protest and started talking about this back in 2002, has said there were no instances where this kind of enhanced interrogation actually yielded any valuable information that couldn't have been yielded otherwise, and we spoke to the chief prosecutor of the Guantanamo Bay commissions who told me, just this week in the wake of this report, that in no instance did any of the interrogation that was harsh, that was torture, produce any valuable information. And that, I think, is the crucial because, of course, the American people have been told that this is necessary for valuable information.

BLITZER: Christiane, I spoke with the former CIA director, General Michael Hayden. I spoke with Alberto Gonzales. He was the attorney general, also the chief White House counsel. They seem to be pretty reluctant right now to travel to Europe, to NATO allies like France or Spain or Italy or Belgium -

AMANPOUR: Right.

BLITZER: Where a magistrate could potentially arrest them for war crimes. Is that realistic? You're there in Europe.

AMANPOUR: Well, it is realistic. Whether or not it happens is to be determined. But, again, the United States has signed, you know, the anti-torture documents, the legislation. These things are crimes. And particularly, particularly in the international law, they are war crimes. That is what's been told to me by the former chief prosecutor of the Guantanamo Bay commission. And so, yes, he said that he would strongly advise all of those named, including Vice President Cheney and others, named in this Senate committee report, to, quote, "vacation domestically."

And as I say, the U.N. special repertoire has said that these people named must be held to account. So I do think that is a realistic, legal concern.

BLITZER: Christiane, stand by.