Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Report: Obama Says Will Give Hack Intel That Can Be Safely Provided; Obama Says Russia Can Weaken Us If Lose Our Values; Obama Says Not Much Happens in Russia Without Putin; Obama Says Everyone Worse Off If US and China Break Ties. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired December 16, 2016 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00] BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The votes were cast and they were counted. And -- so that's on that point. What was the second one?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The second one was about declassification?

OBAMA: Declassification. We will provide evidence that we can safely provide. That does not compromise sources and methods. But I'll be honest with you, when you're talking about cyber security, a lot of it is classified and we're not going to provide it because the way we catch folks is by knowing certain things about them that they may not want us to know and if we're going to monitor this stuff effectively going forward we don't want them to know that we know. So, this is one of those situations that unless the American people think that the professionals in the CIA, the FBI, our entire intelligence infrastructure, many of whom served in previous administration administrations and who are Republicans are less trustworthy than the Russians.

Then people should pay attention to what our intelligence agencies say. This is part of what I meant when I said we've got to think about what's happening to our political culture here. The Russians can't change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country, their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms. They don't innovate. But they can impact us if we lo track of who we are.

They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us just like he's trying to weaken Europe if we start buying into notions that it's OK to intimidate the press. Or lock up dissidents. Or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like. And what I worry about more than anything is the degree to which because of the fierceness of the partisan battle you've started to see folks in the Republican party and Republican voters suddenly finding a government and individuals who stand contrary to everything that we stand for as being OK because that's how much we dislike Democrats.

I mean, think about it, some of the people who historically have been somehow critical of me for engaging with the Russians and having conversations with them also endorsed the President-elect even as he was saying we should stop sanctioning Russia and being tough on them and work together with them against our common enemies. That was very complimentary of Mr. Putin personally. That wasn't news. The President-elect during the campaign said so. And some folks who had made a career out of being anti-Russian didn't say anything about it.

[15:35:00] And then after the election suddenly they're asking, well, why didn't you tell us that maybe the Russians were trying to help our candidate. Well, come on. There was a survey some of you saw where -- now this is just one poll, but a pretty credible source -- 37 percent of Republican voters approve of Putin. Over a third of Republican voters approve of Vladimir and the KGB. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave. How did that happen? It happened in part because for too long everything that happens in this town, everything that's said is seen through the lens of does this help or hurt us relative to Democrats or relative to President Obama? And unless that changes we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for.

With respect to the President-elect's appointments, it is his prerogative, as I've always said, for him to appoint who he thinks can best carry out his foreign policy or his domestic policy. It is up to the Senate to advise and consent. There will be plenty of time for members of the Senate to go through the record of all of his appointees and determine whether or not they're appropriate for the job. Martha?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. President I want to talk about Vladimir Putin again. Just to be clear, do you believe Vladimir Putin himself authorized the hack and do you believe he authorized that to help Donald Trump? And on the intelligence, one of the things Donald Trump cites is Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction and that they were never found. Can you say unequivocally that this was not China? That this was not a 400-pound guy sitting on his bed, as Donald Trump says, and do these types of tweets and kinds of statements from Donald Trump embolden the Russians?

OBAMA: When the report comes out before I leave office that will have drawn together all the threads and so I don't want to step on their work ahead of time. What I can tell you is that the intelligence that I've seen gives me great confidence in their assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Which hack?

OBAMA: The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta. Now, the -- but, again, I think this is exactly what I want the report out so that everybody can review it. And this has been briefed and the evidence in closed session has been provided by on a bipartisan basis not just to me, it's been provided by to the leaders of the house and the Senate and the chairman and ranking members of the relevant committees. And I think that what you've already seen is at least some of the folks who have seen the evidence don't dispute. I think the basic assessment that the Russians carried this out.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But Putin specifically? Can you say that?

OBAMA: Well, Martha, I think what I want to make sure of is that I give the intelligence community the chance to gather all the information. But I'd make a larger point which is not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin. I mean, this is a pretty hierarchical operation last I checked, there's not a lot of debate and Democratic deliberation, particularly when it comes to policies directed at the United States.

[15:40:00] We have said and I will confirm that this happened at the highest levels of the Russian government and I will let you make that determination as to whether there are high level Russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the U.S. election process without Vladimir Putin knowing about it.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So, I wouldn't be wrong in saying the President thinks Vladimir Putin authorized the hack?

OBAMA: Martha, I've given you what I'm going to give you. What is your second question?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do the tweets and do the statements by Donald Trump embolden Russia? So, I wouldn't be wrong in saying the President thinks Vladimir Putin authorized the hack?

OBAMA: Martha, I've given you what I'm going to give you. What is your second question?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do the tweets and do the statements by Donald Trump embolden Russia?

OBAMA: As I said before, I think that the President-elect is still in transition mode from campaign to governance. I think he hasn't gotten his whole team together yet. He still has campaign spokespersons sort of filling in and appearing on cable shows. You know, there's just a whole different attitude and vibe when you're not in power as when you're in power so rather than me characterize the appropriateness or inappropriateness of what he's doing at the moment, I think what we have to see is how will the President-elect operate and how will his team operate when they've been fully briefed on all these issues, they have their hands on all the levers of government and they've got to start making decisions.

One way I do believe the President-elect can approach this that would be unifying is to say that we welcome a bipartisan, independent process that gives the American people an assurance not only that votes are counted properly, that the elections are fair and free but that we have learned lessons about how internet propaganda from foreign countries can be released into the political bloodstream and that we've got strategies to deal with it for the future.

The more this can be non-partisan, the better served the American people are going to be which is why I made the point earlier and I'm going to keep on repeating this point. Our vulnerability to Russia or any other foreign power is directly related to how divided, partisan, dysfunctional our political process is. That's the thing that makes us vulnerable. If fake news that's being released by some foreign government is almost identical to reports that are being issued through partisan news venues, then it's not surprising that that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect. Because it doesn't seem that farfetched compared to some of the other stuff that folks are hearing from domestic propagandists.

To the extent that our political dialogue is such where everything is under suspicion, everybody's corrupt and everybody is doing things for partisan reasons and all of our institutions are full of malevolent actors, if that's the storyline that's being put out there by whatever party is out of power then when a foreign government introduces that same argument with facts that are made up, voters who've been listening to that stuff for years, who have been getting that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they're going to believe it.

[15:45:00] So, if we want to really reduce foreign influence on our elections, then we better think about how to make sure that our political process, our political dialogue is stronger than it's been. Mark?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder whether I could move you from Russia to China for a moment.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your successor spoke by phone with the President of Taiwan the other day and declared subsequently that he wasn't sure why the United States needed to be bound by the one-China policy. He suggested it could be used as a bargaining chip, perhaps to get better terms on a trade deal or more cooperation on North Korea. There's already evidence that tensions between the two sides have increased a bit and just today the Chinese have evidently seized an underwater drone in the South China Sea.

Do you agree as some do that our China policy could use a fresh set of eyes and what's the big deal about having a short phone call with the President of Taiwan or do you worry that these types of unorthodox approaches are setting us on a collision course with perhaps our biggest geopolitical adversaries?

OBAMA: That's a great question. I'm somewhere in between. I think all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes. I think one of the -- I've said this before. I'm very proud of the work I done. I think I'm better President now than when I started but if you're here for eight years in the bubble you start seeing things a certain way and you benefit from -- the democracy benefits, America benefits from some new perspectives. And I think it should be not just the prerogative but the obligation of a new President to examine everything that's been done and see what makes sense and what doesn't.

That's what I did when I came in and I'm assuming any new President is going to undertake those same exercises. And given the importance of the relationship between the United States and china, given how much is at stake in terms of the world economy, national security, our presence in the Asia-Pacific, china's increasing role in international affairs, there's probably no bilateral relationship that carries more significance and where there's also the potential if that relationship breaks down or goes into a full-conflict mode that everybody is worse off. So, I think it's fine for him to take a look at it. What I have advised the President-elect is that across the board on foreign policy you want to make sure that you're doing it in a systematic, deliberate, intentional way.

And since there's only one President at a time, my advice to him has been that before he starts having a lot of interactions with foreign governments other than the usual courtesy calls that he should want to have his full team in place, that he should want his team to be fully briefed on what's gone on in the past and where the potential pitfalls may be, where the opportunities are, what we've learned from eight years of experience. So, that as he's then maybe taking foreign policy in a new direction he's got all the information to make good decisions and, by the way, that all of government is moving at the same time and singing from the same hymnal. And with respect to china, and let's just take the example of Taiwan.

There has been a long-standing agreement, essentially, between china and the United States and to some degree the Taiwanese which is to not change the status quo. Taiwan operates differently than mainland China does.

[15:50:00] China views Taiwan as part of China but recognizes that it has to approach Taiwan as an entity that has its own ways of doing things. The Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they're able to continue to function with some degree of autonomy that they won't charge forward and declare independence and that status quo, although not completely satisfactory to any of the parties involved has kept a degree of autonomy.

Although not completely satisfactory to any of the parties involved it has kept the peace and allowed the Taiwanese to be a pretty successful economy and a people who have a high degree of self-determination, but understand, for China, the issue of Taiwan is as important as anything on their docket. The idea of one China is at the heart of their conception as a nation. And so, if you are going to up-end this understanding, you have to have thought through what the consequences are, because the Chinese will not treat that the way they'll treat some other issues.

They won't even treat it the way they treat issues around the south china sea, where we've had a lot of tensions. This goes to the core of how they see themselves, and their reaction on this issue could end up being very significant. That doesn't mean that you have to adhere to everything that's been done in the past. It does mean you got to think it through and have planned for potential reactions that they may engage in. All right. Isaac Dovere of politico.

ISAAC DOVERE, REPORTER, POLITICO: Thank you, Mr. President. Two questions on where this all leaves us.

OBAMA: What leaves us, where my presidency leaves us? Leaves us in a really good spot. If we make some good decisions going forward.

DOVERE: Well, what do you say to the electors who are going to meet on Monday and are thinking of changing their votes? Do you think that they should be given an intelligence briefing about the Russian activity or should they bear in mind everything you've said and that's out already? Should they, should votes be bound by the state votes as they've gone, and long-term, do you think that there's a need for electoral college reform that would tie to the popular vote?

OBAMA: Sounded like two, but that was all one.

DOVERE: All one.

OBAMA: I love how these like -- I've got two questions, each one has four parts.

DOVERE: On the Democratic party your labor secretary is running to be the chair of the Democratic national committee. Is the vision that you've seen him putting forward what do you think the party needs to be focused on, and what do you say to some of the complaints that say the future of the Democratic party shouldn't be a continuation of some of your political, part of that is complaints that, decisions that you have made as President as the leader of the party have structurally weakened the DNC and the Democratic party and they think that that has led to or has helped lead to some of the losses in elections around the country. Do you regret any of those decisions?

OBAMA: Those are my two. Good. I'll take the second one first, and say that Tom Perez has been I believe one of the best secretaries of labor in our history. He is tireless. He is wicked smart. He has been able to work across the spectrum of, you know, labor, business, activist, he's produced. I mean, if you look at his body of work on behalf of working people, what he's pushed for in terms of making sure that workers get a fair deal, decent wages, better benefits, that their safety is protected on the job, he has been extraordinary.

[15:55:00] Now, others who have declared are also my friends, and are fine people as well, and the great thing is, I don't have a vote in this.

So, we'll let the process unfold. I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. I described to you earlier what I think needs to happen, which is that the Democratic party, whether that's entirely through the DNC or through a rebuilding of state parties or some other arrangement has to work at the grassroots level, has to be present in all 50 states, has to have a presence in counties, has to think about message and how are we speaking directly to voters. I will say this, and I'm not going to engage in too much punditry.

But that I could not be prouder of the coalition that I put together in my, each of my campaigns because it was inclusive and drew in people who normally weren't interested in politics and didn't participate. But I'd like to think, I think I can somehow that in those elections I always cast a broad net. First and foremost, that we're Americans, that we have a common creed, that there's more that we share than divides us, and I want to talk to everybody and get a chance to get everybody's vote. I still believe what I said in 2004, which is this red state/blue thing is a construct.

Now, it is a construct that's gotten more and more powerful for a whole lot of reasons, from gerrymandering to big money to the way that the media is splintered, and so people are just watching what reinforces their existing biases as opposed to having to listen to different points of view, so there are all kinds of reasons for it, but outside of the realm of electoral politics, I still see people the way I saw them when I made that speech full of contradictions and you know, there are some regional differences, but basically folks care about their families.

They care about having meaningful work, they care about making sure their kids had more opportunity than they did. They want to be safe. They want to feel like things are fair, and whoever leads the DNC and any candidate, you know, with the Democratic brand going forward, I want them to feel as if they can reach out and find that common ground, speak to all of America, and that requires some organization. And you're right, and I said this in my earlier remark that what I was able to do during my campaigns, I wasn't able to do during midterms. It's not that we didn't put in time and effort into it. I spent time and effort into it, but the coalition I put together didn't always turn out to be transferrable, and you know, the challenge is that -- you know, some of that just has to do with the fact that when you're in the party in power and people are going through hard times, like they were in 2010, they're going to punish to some degree the President's party, regardless of what organizational work is done.

Some of it has to do with just some deep standing traditional challenges for Democrats, like during off-year elections, the election is older and we do bet we are a young electorate, but we know those things are true, and I didn't crack the code on people having ideas about how to do that even better, I'm all for it. So, on your -- with respect to the electors, I'm not going to weigh into that issue because, can people's job, and now the electors' job to decide my successor. It is not my job to decide my successor, and I've provided people with a lot of information about what happened during the course of the election, but more importantly, the candidates themselves I think talked about their beliefs and their vision for America. The President-elect I think has been very explicit about what he cares about and what he believes in, and so it's not in my hands now. It's up to them.

DOVERE: What about long-term about the electoral college?