Full Text Political Transcripts June 1, 2016: President Barack Obama’s remarks on the Economy in Elkhart, Indiana

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President on the Economy

Source:  WH, 6-1-16 

Concord Community High School
Elkhart, Indiana

3:30 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody!  (Applause.)  Hello, hello!  (Applause.)  Can everybody please give Kelly a round of applause for the great introduction?  (Applause.)

It is good to be back in Elkhart.  (Applause.)  Great to be back at Concord High School.  (Applause.)  Go Minutemen!  I brought a couple friends of with me — your Senator, Joe Donnelly, is here.  (Applause.)  Your Mayor, Tim Neese, is here.  (Applause.)  I wanted to congratulate everyone graduating tomorrow.  (Applause.)  I just met a couple of the valedictorians, who seem like outstanding young ladies.  My older daughter, Malia, graduates next week.  (Applause.)  So if there are any parents here, I hope you can give me some pointers on how not to cry too much at the ceremony and embarrass her.  (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Carry some tissues!

THE PRESIDENT:  That’s what I’m going to do!  (Applause.)  If you’ve got a chair, sit down.  Relax.  I’m going to — I’ve got some stuff to say here.  (Applause.)

So I’m not going to talk about the fact that my daughter leaving me is just breaking my heart.  I’m not here to talk about that.  I’m here to talk about the economy.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this is an election year.  (Laughter.)  And it’s a more colorful election season than most.  It’s been a little unusual.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  One more term!

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I can’t do that.  (Laughter.)  The Constitution prohibits it, but, more importantly, Michelle prohibits it.  (Laughter.)

Now, one of the reasons we’re told this has been an unusual election year is because people are anxious and uncertain about the economy.  And our politics are a natural place to channel that frustration.  So I wanted to come to the heartland, to the Midwest, back to close to my hometown to talk about that anxiety, that economic anxiety, and what I think it means.  And what I’ve got to say really boils down to two points — although I’m going to take a long time making these two points.  (Laughter.)

Number one:  America’s economy is not just better than it was eight years ago — it is the strongest, most durable economy in the world.  That’s point number one.  (Applause.)

Point number two:  We can make it even stronger, and expand opportunity for even more people.  But to do that, we have to be honest about what our real challenges are, and we’ve got to make some smart decisions going forward.

Now, Elkhart is a good place to have this conversation, because some of you remember this was the first city I visited as President.  (Applause.)  I had been in office just three weeks when I came here.  We were just a few months into what turned out to be the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes.  Our businesses were losing 800,000 jobs a month.  Our auto industry was about to go under.  Our families were losing their savings and their health insurance, and, as Kelly pointed out, they were in danger of losing their homes.  And Elkhart was hit harder than most.  Unemployment here would peak at 19.6 percent.  That means nearly one in five people here were out of work.  And I told you then that I was going to have your back, and we were going to work hard to bring this economy back.  (Applause.)

So what’s happened since then?  Unemployment in Elkhart has fallen to around 4 percent.  (Applause.)  At the peak of the crisis, nearly one in 10 homeowners in the state of Indiana were either behind on their mortgages or in foreclosure; today, it’s one in 30.  Back then, only 75 percent of your kids graduated from high school; tomorrow, 90 percent of them will.  (Applause.)  The auto industry just had its best year ever.  And the “RV Capital of the World” is doing its part — the industry is set to ship nearly 400,000 RVs this year, which will be an all-time record.  (Applause.)

So that’s progress.  And it’s thanks to you — to the hard work you put in and the sacrifices you made for your families, and the way that you looked out for each other.  But we also wouldn’t have come this far — Elkhart would not have come this far — if we hadn’t made a series of smart decisions, my administration, a cooperative Congress — decisions we made together early on in my administration.

We decided to help the auto industry restructure, and we helped families refinance their homes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Yes, you did!  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  We decided to invest in job training so that folks who lost their jobs could retool.  We decided to invest in things like high-tech manufacturing and clean energy and infrastructure, so that entrepreneurs wouldn’t just bring back the jobs that we had lost, but create new and better jobs, and folks who had lost work from the construction industry because the housing market had collapsed could go back to work rebuilding America.

And we can see the results not just here in Elkhart, but across the nation.  By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency.  That’s the truth.  That’s true.  (Applause.)  It’s true.  (Applause.)  Over the past six years, our businesses have created more than 14 million new jobs — that’s the longest stretch of consecutive private sector job growth in our history.  We’ve seen the first sustained manufacturing growth since the 1990s.  We cut unemployment in half, years before a lot of economists thought we would.  We’ve cut the oil that we buy from foreign countries by more than half, doubled the clean energy that we produce.  For the first time ever, more than 90 percent of the country has health insurance.  (Applause.)

In fact, a poll that was out just last week says that two out of three Americans think their own family’s financial situation is in pretty good shape.  But we know a lot of people are still feeling stressed about their economic future.  The pundits, they say one of the reasons the Republican Party has picked the candidate that it has —

AUDIENCE:  Booo —

THE PRESIDENT:  No booing.  We’re voting, we’re not booing.
(Applause.)  But if you watch the talking heads on TV, they all say, the reason that folks are angry is because nobody has paid enough attention to the plight of working Americans in communities like these.  That’s what they say.

Now, look, I’m the first to admit my presidency hasn’t fixed everything.  We’ve had setbacks.  We’ve had false starts.  We’ve, frankly, been stuck with a Congress recently that’s opposed pretty much everything that we’ve tried to do.  But I also know that I’ve spent every single day of my presidency focused on what I can do to grow the middle class and increase jobs, and boost wages, and make sure every kid in America gets the same kind of opportunities Michelle and I did.  (Applause.)  I know that.  I know that communities like Elkhart haven’t been forgotten in my White House.  And the results prove that our focus has paid off.  Elkhart proves it.

Now, where we haven’t finished the job, where folks have good reason to feel anxious, is addressing some of the longer-term trends in the economy — that started long before I was elected — that make working families feel less secure.  These are trends that have been happening for decades now and that we’ve got to do more to reverse.  Let me be clear about what those are.

Despite the drop in unemployment, wages are still growing too slowly, and that makes it harder to pay for college or save for retirement.  (Applause.)  Inequality is still too high.  The gap between rich and poor is bigger now than it’s been just about any time since the 1920s.  The rise of global competition and automation of more and more jobs; the race of technology — all these trends have left many workers behind, and they’ve let a few at the top collect extraordinary wealth and influence like never before.  And that kind of changes our politics.  So all these trends make it easy for people to feel that somehow the system is rigged and that the American Dream is increasingly hard to reach for ordinary folks.  And there are plenty of politicians that are preying on that frustration for headlines and for votes.

Now, I am a politician for another six months or so — (applause) — but I’m not running again.

AUDIENCE:  Aww —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  (Laughter.)  Besides, while I may have won the state of Indiana just barely in 2008 — (applause) — I know I lost the vote in Elkhart.  (Laughter.)  I definitely got whooped here in 2012.  I know I don’t poll all that well in this county.  So I’m not here looking for votes.

I am here because I care deeply, as a citizen, about making sure we sustain and build on all the work that communities like yours have done to bring America back over these last seven and a half years.  And I came here precisely because this county votes Republican.  That’s one of the reasons I came here.  Because if the economy is really what’s driving this election, then it’s going to be voters like you that have to decide between two very different visions of what’s going to help strengthen our middle class.  (Applause.)  And you’re going to have to make that decision.

So let me be as straight as I can be about the choice of economic policies that you are going to face.  And I’m going to start with the story that not every Republican but most Republican candidates up and down the ticket are telling.  And it goes something like this — and I think this is pretty fair, and if you don’t, then you can look it up.  So their basic story is:  America’s working class, America’s middle class — families like yours — have been victimized by a big, bloated federal government run by a bunch of left-wing elitists like me.  And the government is taking your hard-earned tax dollars and it’s giving them to freeloaders and welfare cheats.  And we’re strangling business with endless regulations.  And this federal government is letting immigrants and foreigners steal whatever jobs Obamacare hasn’t killed yet.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look, I’m being serious here.  I mean, that’s the story that’s been told.  And I haven’t turned on Fox News or listened to conservative talk radio yet today, but I’ve turned them on enough over these past seven and a half years to know I’m not exaggerating in terms of their story. That’s the story they tell.  You can hear it from just about every member of Congress on the other side of the aisle.  And instead of telling you what they’re for, they’ve defined their economic agenda by what they’re against — and that’s mainly being against me.  And their basic message is anti-government, anti-immigrant, anti-trade, and, let’s face it, it’s anti-change.

And look, a lot of people believe it.  And if what they were saying were true, I suppose it would make sense to run on a platform of just rolling back everything we’ve done over these past seven and a half years, and happy days would be here again.  If what they were saying was true, then just being against whatever it is that we’ve done might make sense.  But what they’re saying isn’t true.  And if we’re going to fix what’s really wrong with the economy, we’ve got to understand that.

So let me just do some quick myth-busting.  And I’m going to start with the biggest myth, which is that the federal government keeps growing and growing and growing, and wasting your money and giving your tax dollars to people who don’t deserve it.

Now, here’s the truth — you can look it up.  These journalists here, they can do some fact-checking.  As a share of the economy, we spend less on domestic priorities outside of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — we spend less than we did when Ronald Reagan was President.  (Applause.)  When President Reagan or George W. Bush held this job, our deficits got bigger.  When Bill Clinton and I have held this job, deficits have gotten smaller.  (Applause.)  Our deficits have not grown these past seven and a half years; we’ve actually cut the deficit by almost 75 percent.  (Applause.)

Moreover, there are fewer families on welfare than in the 1990s.  Funding has been frozen for two decades.  There’s not a whole bunch of giveaways going on right now.  Aside from our obligation to care for the elderly and Americans with disabilities, the vast majority of people who get help from the federal government are families of all backgrounds who are working, striving to get back on their feet, striving to get back into the middle class.  And sometimes, yes, their kids need temporary help from food stamps when mom and dad are between jobs.  But look, these kids didn’t cause the financial crisis.  These kids aren’t spending us into bankruptcy.  They’re not what’s holding back the middle class.  And, by the way, neither is Obamacare.  (Applause.)

Let’s look at the numbers.  Again, I just want to — I’m just giving facts here.  I will have some opinions later, but right now I’m just giving facts.  I signed the Affordable Care Act into law over six years ago.  Since then, our businesses have created jobs every single month.  We did this while covering 20 million Americans who didn’t have health insurance; ending discrimination against preexisting conditions for everybody, including those who had health insurance — (applause) — and dramatically slowing the rate in which health care costs were going up.

In the decade before Obamacare, employer-based premiums grew by an average of 8 percent a year.  That meant you were paying that much more every year for health insurance.  Last year, they grew by 4 percent — half as fast as they were growing.  That doesn’t mean you’re happy about the 4 percent, but it wasn’t 8.  Today, the average family’s health insurance premium is $2,600 less than it would have been if premiums had kept on going up at the pace before Obamacare.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, just for folks here in Indiana, last year, most Hoosiers who shopped around for Obamacare on HealthCare.gov found plans that cost 75 bucks a month or less.  For the millions of Americans who buy on HealthCare.gov, they get tax credits to help them pay for it.  The average price increase this year has been four bucks a month.  There hasn’t been a double-digit percentage hike — four bucks a month.

But my bigger point is to bust this myth of crazy liberal government spending.  Government spending is not what is squeezing the middle class.

Myth number two is the notion that my administration has killed jobs through overregulation.  Back in the ‘60s and the ‘70s, government was adding all kinds of regulations — rules protecting workers’ rights, rules protecting the environment.  And these regulations to improve public health and safety, they didn’t crush economic growth that took place back in the ‘60s and the ‘70s, and they’re not crushing economic growth now.

I’ve issued fewer regulations than my predecessor.  I’ve issued fewer executive orders than any two-term President since Ulysses S. Grant — that’s a long time ago.  (Applause.)  The regulations that we have issued — rules to protect our air and our water, rules to keep families from getting cheated when buying a house or investing their savings — those rules have benefited our economy a lot more than they’ve cost.  They’ve helped families, they’ve helped the middle class — they haven’t hurt them.

Here’s myth number three:  Other countries are killing us on trade.  Now, it is true that a lot of supporters of trade deals in the past sometimes oversold all the good that it was going to do for the economy.  The truth is, the benefits of trade are usually widely spread — it’s one of the reasons why you can buy that big, flat-screen TV for a couple hundred bucks, and why the cost of a lot of basic necessities have gone down.  Some parts of the economy, like the agricultural sector or the tech sector have really done well with trade.  Some sectors and communities have been hurt by foreign competition.

And what’s also true is sometimes the pain of a plant closing here in America is magnified when you know that other countries are cheating.  They’re keeping American goods out of their markets, they’re unfairly subsidizing their businesses to undercut our businesses.  And a lot of the worst violators, they don’t even have trade deals with us at all.

So here’s what we’ve done.  Over the past seven years, we’ve brought more trade cases against other countries for cheating than anybody else.  Every case that’s been decided, America has won.  That’s what we’ve done.  (Applause.)  Making sure that we’ve got a level playing field.

But the truth is, trade has helped our country a lot more than it’s hurt us.  Exports helped lead us out of the recession.  Companies that export pay workers higher wages than folks who don’t export.  And anybody who says that somehow shutting ourselves off from trade is going to bring jobs back, they’re just not telling the truth.

In fact, most of the manufacturing jobs that we lost over the past decade, they weren’t the result of trade deals — they were the result of technology and automation that lets businesses make more stuff with fewer workers.  If you go into an auto plant these days — used to need several thousand workers, now they need a thousand workers to produce the same number of cars just because there are robots and there are machines that have replaced a lot of the work.  That’s true in offices, too, by the way — think about bank tellers, the last time you dealt with one of those, because now you’ve got ATM machines.

So we can’t put technology back in a box any more than we can cut ourselves off from the global supply chain.  All the RVs that are manufactured right here, I guarantee you, some of those parts came from someplace else.  And then we sell them back to other parts of the world.

And no matter how many tariffs we’re threatening to slap on other countries’ goods, no matter how many trade wars we start saying we’re going to put in place, that’s not going to help middle-class families here.  In fact, independent economists say a trade war would trigger another recession and cost millions of jobs.  So when you hear somebody threatening to cut off trade and saying that that’s standing up for American workers, that’s just not true.

Here’s the fourth myth:  That immigrants are taking all of our jobs.  Now I want to look — let’s look at the numbers.  Right now, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is near its lowest level in 40 years.  (Applause.)  It’s near its lowest level in 40 years.  It’s lower than when it was before I came into office, it’s lower than during Ronald Reagan’s time.  It’s true that new immigrants sometimes compete for service and construction jobs.  But they also start about 30 percent of all new businesses in America.  (Applause.)  Everybody thinks that immigrants come here and then they’re getting all this stuff from the government.  Immigrants pay a lot more in taxes than they receive in services.  (Applause.)

But most important, immigrants are not the main reason wages haven’t gone up for middle-class families.  Those decisions are made in the boardrooms of companies where top CEOs are getting paid more than 300 times the income of the average worker.  (Applause.)  So deporting 11 million immigrants — not only is that a fantasy that would cost taxpayers billions of dollars and tear families apart and just, logistically, would be impossible.  Even if it were possible, it wouldn’t do anything to seriously help the middle class.  Now, what would help is if we fixed our immigration system the way I’ve proposed, so that everybody plays by the rules, so that we’ve got strong border security.  But we also are making sure that families who have been here, like, 10 years, 20 years, that they’re out of the shadows, they’re paying taxes, they’re going through a background check.  That would grow our economy faster.  That would shrink our deficits further.  We just need a Congress that’s willing to make it happen.  We need a Congress that’s willing to make it happen.

So, look, here’s my main point:  The primary story that Republicans have been telling about the economy is not supported by the facts.  It’s just not.  They repeat it a lot — (laughter) — but it’s not supported by the facts.  But they say it anyway.  Now, why is that?  It’s because it has worked to get them votes, at least at the congressional level.

Because — and here, look, I’m just being blunt with you — by telling hardworking, middle-class families that the reason they’re getting squeezed is because of some moochers at the bottom of the income ladder, because of minorities, or because of immigrants, or because of public employees, or because of feminists — (laughter) — because of poor folks who aren’t willing to work, they’ve been able to promote policies that protect powerful special interests and those who are at the very top of the economic pyramid.  That’s just the truth.  (Applause.)

I hope you don’t mind me being blunt about this, but I’ve been listening to this stuff for a while now.  (Laughter.)  And I’m concerned when I watch the direction of our politics.  I mean, we have been hearing this story for decades.  Tales about welfare queens, talking about takers, talking about the “47 percent.”  It’s the story that is broadcast every day on some cable news stations, on right-wing radio, it’s pumped into cars, and bars, and VFW halls all across America, and right here in Elkhart.

And if you’re hearing that story all the time, you start believing it.  It’s no wonder people think big government is the problem.  No wonder public support for unions is so low.  (Applause.)  No wonder that people think that the deficit has gone up under my presidency when it’s actually gone down.  (Applause.)  No wonder that — they did a survey, a lot of white Americans think reverse discrimination is as big a problem as discrimination against minorities, even though black unemployment is twice as high as white unemployment.  And the typical Hispanic woman makes 55 cents for every dollar a white man earns, and there are only a handful of women running Fortune 500 companies.

But that’s the story that’s been told.  And I’m here to say, Elkhart, seven and a half years since I first came here, we’ve got to challenge the assumptions behind this economic story.  (Applause.)  And the reason is it has ended up dividing Americans who actually have common economic interests and should be working together for a better deal from the people who serve them.  And it’s made people cynical about government, and it’s kept working families from pushing our political system to actually address our economic challenges in a realistic way.  Families of all races, and all backgrounds, deserve higher wages.  Families of all races, and all backgrounds, deserve quality health care and decent retirement savings.  (Applause.)  Every child in this country deserves an education that lets them dream bigger than the circumstances in which they’re born.  (Applause.)

You know, look, in today’s economy, we can’t put up walls around America.  We’re not going to round up 11 million people.  We’re not going to put technology back in the box.  We’re not going to rip away hard-earned rights of women and minorities and Americans with disabilities so that they’re able to more fairly and fully participate in the workplace.  These are permanent fixtures in our economy.  And rolling them back will not help folks in Elkhart or anyplace else.

And if we’re going to transform our politics so that they’re actually responsive to working families and are actually growing the middle class, then we’ve got to stop pitting working Americans against one another.  We’re going to have to come together and choose a vision of America where everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules.  (Applause.)  And that’s the vision that made progress possible over these last seven years.  And that’s what’s going to lead us forward now.

Now, this isn’t a State of the Union Address — I already gave my last one.  (Laughter.)  But in the time remaining, I do want to offer some suggestions that I think would actually help give everybody who works hard a fair shot at opportunity and security in today’s economy.  And you’ve heard some of these things before, but it’s worth repeating because they’re true.

Number one:  Let’s get wages rising faster.  (Applause.)  Now, here’s the good news:  Wages are actually growing at a rate of about 3 percent so far this year.  That’s the good news.  Working Americans are finally getting a little bigger piece of the pie.  But we’ve got to accelerate that.  That’s why, for example, my administration recently took new action to help millions of workers finally collect the overtime pay that they have earned.  That’s going to help.  (Applause.)  But we should also raise the minimum wage high enough so that if somebody is working full time, they’re not living in poverty.  (Applause.)   Some states, some cities have done it, but we need a national law.  We should make sure women get equal pay for equal work.  That’s something we should all agree on.  (Applause.)  That shouldn’t be a partisan issue.  Republicans have got daughters too.  They shouldn’t want them to get paid less than somebody’s boy for doing the same job.  If you care about working families getting a bigger paycheck, then that’s a clear choice for you right there.

We also need to give workers a bigger voice in the economy.  Now, one of the reasons that wages have not grown faster over the last couple of decades is because some politicians, some businesses, some laws have undermined the ability of workers to bargain for a better deal, and that needs to change.  (Applause.)  We always talk about — folks taking about the good old days.  Well, let me tell you something, in the good old days, 50 years ago, more than one in four American workers belonged to a union — one in four.  (Applause.)

The reason all those manufacturing jobs that everybody wants to get back, the reason they paid well was because folks were unionized in those plants.  (Applause.)  And they not only negotiated for good wages, but also good benefits, and they had a pension plan that they could count on.  So it used to be one in four were members of unions; today it’s about one in 10.  And it’s not a coincidence that as union membership shrank, inequality grew and wages stagnated, and workers got a smaller share of the economic pie.

So I just want everybody to remember this — a lot of those good jobs people miss, a lot of those good manufacturing jobs that everybody is always talking about, those were union jobs.  (Applause.)  And when I — it’s great to get all riled up about low wages and lousy workers standards in other countries, but let’s get riled up about that stuff here, too.  (Applause.)  America should not be changing our laws to make it harder for workers to organize, we should be changing our laws to make it easier and encourage new forms of worker organizations that can give them more of a voice and more of a say in the economy.

And by the way, I want to be clear:  There are a lot of terrific business leaders who have figured out that doing right by their workers isn’t just good for their workers, it’s good for their bottom line, because that means they’ve got more customers.  It means their communities are doing better.  (Applause.)  There are plenty of business owners right here in Elkhart who exhibited that spirit throughout the recession.  So we should lift up good corporate citizens like that so that more businesses across America follow their lead.  But that’s priority number one — getting wages to grow faster.

Priority number two:  We need to better prepare our children and our workers for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of tomorrow.  (Applause.)  Now, we actually know what works here, we just don’t do it.  We know early childhood education works.  (Applause.)  And we should invest in smart ways of doing it across the country, especially because child care costs take up a huge share of a family budget.  We know that we have to make college more affordable and job training more available.  (Applause.)  And one way to do that is to provide two years of community college for free for every responsible student.  (Applause.)  There are mayors and there are governors who are already doing good work on these issues across party lines.  They’ve shown the way.  Now we need Congress to do the same.

Number three:  One of the reasons wages grew so quickly in the ‘50s and the ‘60s and the ‘70s is because we had a government that put people to work building highways, and building bridges, and building airports, and exploring new frontiers in space and science, and investing in research and development.  And it led to countless new discoveries and innovations, and it educated a new generation of workers with public colleges where tuition was low, and a GI Bill.

And I just have to say, too often, Republicans in Congress are blocking investments like these for no other reason than this cult of small government that they keep repeating.  But you know what, it’s been a drag on the economy.  It made us recover slower than we should have.  It’s been a drag on jobs.  It’s been a drag on wages.  And it’s pennywise and pound foolish because if the economy is growing slower, you take in less tax dollars.  You’d be better off putting people back to work — then they’re paying taxes, the economy is getting stronger, and deficits can actually go down.  We should be making smart investments that help us all succeed.  (Applause.)

Fourth, in the new economy, we’ve got to make it easier for working Americans to save for retirement or bounce back from a lost job.  Because let’s be honest — most Americans don’t have the same benefits package or job security as their member of Congress.  I’m just saying.  They’ve got a pretty good deal.

That was part of what Obamacare is all about, right?  What it did was fill in the gaps so that if you lost your job, or you went back to school, or you decided to start a new business, you could go and compare and buy quality, affordable coverage and get a tax credit for it.  And despite the predictions, it’s working.  And, by the way, it would work ever better if we had more governors and legislators willing to do what Mike Pence did, to his credit, and expand Medicaid.  That was a decision that helped more than 300,000 Hoosiers.  (Applause.)

So we need fewer folks in Congress who side with the special interests.  We need more who are willing to work with us to lower health care costs, give us the funding we need to fight public health challenges like Zika and the opioid epidemic — Joe Donnelly is working on that diligently.  (Applause.)  So those are things we could get done that would relieve a lot of worry for a lot of families.

And then we have to tackle retirement security.  That’s something that keeps a lot of people up at night.  That’s why we’ve taken actions already to make it easier for more workers to save through their jobs, to make sure that when you do save, you’re getting advice that’s not in Wall Street’s best interest, but in your best interest.

But look, let’s face it — a lot of Americans don’t have retirement savings.  Even if they’ve got an account set up, they just don’t have enough money at the end of the month to save as much as they’d like because they’re just barely paying the bills.  Fewer and fewer people have pensions they can really count on, which is why Social Security is more important than ever.  (Applause.)  We can’t afford to weaken Social Security.  We should be strengthening Social Security.  And not only do we need to strengthen its long-term health, it’s time we finally made Social Security more generous, and increased its benefits so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they’ve earned.  (Applause.)  And we could start paying for it by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more.  They can afford it.  I can afford it.  (Applause.)

A fifth way to make the new economy work for everybody is actually to make sure trade works for us and not against us.  Again, walling ourselves off from other countries, that’s not going to do it.  A lot of tough talk that doesn’t mean anything is not going to do it.  Here’s what will make a difference:  Making sure other countries raise their labor standards, raise their environmental standards to levels that we set.  And that’s what we did with this trade deal we call Trans-Pacific Partnership.  We negotiated with 11 other countries.  If you don’t like NAFTA, this TPP trade deal overhauls NAFTA with enforceable, much stronger labor and environmental standards, which means that they won’t undercut us as easily.

If you don’t want China to set the rules for the 21st century — and they’re trying — then TPP makes sure that we set the rules.  So the choice is simple:  If you want to help China, then you shouldn’t pass this trade deal that we negotiated.  If you want to help America, you need to pass it.  Because it’s going to cut taxes that other countries put on our products.  It raises other countries’ standards to ours.  That’s how we’re going to help middle-class families.  That’s how we secure better wages for our workers.  And that’s how we compete on a level playing field, and when we’re on a level playing field, America wins every time — every time.  (Applause.)

One last suggestion, and that is making sure the economy works for everybody by strengthening, and not weakening, the rules that keep Wall Street in check and goes after folks who avoid paying their fair share of taxes.  (Applause.)

After the financial crisis, we passed the toughest Wall Street reforms in history.  We passed the toughest Wall Street reforms in history, and by the way, the bank bailout that everybody was mad about?  They had to pay back every dime, and they did — with interest.  (Applause.)  And then we passed laws to make sure we didn’t have something like that happen again.  And they’re making a difference.  The biggest banks have to carry twice the amount of capital that they did before the crisis — that makes another crisis less likely.   We’ve got new tools to guard against another “too big to fail” situation.  We’ve put in place a new consumer watchdog that has already secured more than $10 billion for families who were cheated by irresponsible lending or irresponsible credit card practices.

And guess what?  Ever since we passed this thing, the big banks — working with a lot of members of Congress on the other side of the aisle — they have teamed up to try to roll back these rules every single year.  Every year, they’ve been trying to roll them back.  And the Republican nominee for President has already said he’d dismantle all these rules that we passed.  That is crazy.  (Applause.)  Have we — no, look, I mean, sometimes — I’ll be honest with you.  Sometimes I just don’t get it.  (Laughter.)  How it is that somebody could propose that we weaken regulations on Wall Street?  Have we really forgotten what just happened eight years ago?  (Applause.)  It hasn’t been that long ago.  And because of their reckless behavior, you got hurt.  And the notion that you would vote for anybody who would now allow them to go back to doing the same stuff that almost broke our economy’s back makes no sense.  (Applause.)

I don’t care whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat or an independent — why would you do that?  (Applause.)  Less oversight on Wall Street would only make another crisis more likely.  Letting credit card companies write their own rules — that’s only going to hurt working families.  It sure as heck wouldn’t make the middle class more secure.  How can you say you’re for the middle class and then you want to tear down these rules?

We’ve also been cracking down on tax loopholes, like the ones that allow corporations to change their addresses — they say they’re an overseas company, even though they’re all located here, so that they don’t have to pay taxes in America.  We’ve cracked down on tax cheats who are trying to hide their wealth in offshore accounts.  You don’t get to avoid paying your taxes.  Why should they?  (Applause.)

But I’ve got to say, the folks on the other side of the aisle have opposed our efforts to close these loopholes.  How do they explain it?  When big corporations and wealthy individuals don’t pay their fair share of taxes — and by the way, a lot of people do, so I’m not painting with a broad brush here, but there are a lot of folks who don’t — when they don’t pay their fair share of taxes, it means either you’re paying more or it means we don’t have enough revenue to support things like rebuilding our roads or funding our public universities, which means tuition goes up and then you’re trying to figure out how to pay for your kid’s college education.

We should have closed these loopholes a long time ago, and Lord knows I have tried every year in my budget.  We should have used some of the savings that we get from them paying their fair share to give tax breaks that would actually help working families pay for child care, or would help you send your kids to college, or would help you save for retirement.

The point is, if we want a strong middle class, our tax code should reflect that.  My first term, we cut taxes by $3,600 for the typical middle-class family.  Middle-class families have paid lower federal income tax rates during my presidency than during any other time since the 1950s — that’s this big-spending, liberal, tax-and-spend Democrat.  That’s the truth.  Look it up.  (Applause.)

But the wealthiest Americans are still paying far lower rates than they used to.  When I ran for office, I said we’d reverse the tax cuts that had been put in place by the previous President and Congress for wealthy individuals, and we did that.  We asked them to pay the top rate they did under Bill Clinton, when the economy, by the way, was booming and we ran a surplus.  They all said, this is going to be a disaster and we’re going to go into a recession, and we didn’t.

But today, even as the top 1 percent is doing better than ever for all the reasons I talked about earlier, the Republican nominee for President’s tax plan would give the top one-tenth of 1 percent — not the top 1 percent, the top one-tenth of 1 percent — a bigger tax cut than the 120 million American households at the bottom.  It would explode our deficits by nearly $10 trillion.  I’m not making this up.  (Laughter.)  You can look at the math.  (Applause.)  That will not bring jobs back.  That is not fighting for the American middle class.  That will not help us win.  That is not going to make your lives better.  That will help people like him.  That’s the truth.  (Applause.)

So you have a choice to make, Elkhart.  You do — between more or less inequality.  Between stacking the deck for the folks who are already doing great or making sure everybody has a chance to succeed.  That’s the economic choice you face.  That’s what’s at stake in this election — two very different vision for our economy.  I hope I’ve broken it down for you.

Now, let me say this:  I understand that not everybody votes based on their economic interests.  Not everybody votes just based on the economy.  We’re more than just a matter of dollars and cents.  Some folks care deeply about our Second Amendment rights.  Some folks care about marriage equality.  Some folks care about abortion.  Some folks are going to vote based on national security, or their worries about terrorism.  They may think that we haven’t done the right thing on any of those issues, and that the Republicans have a better answer.  We can have that debate.  That’s fine.  Those are all issues very worthy of debate.

But if what you care about in this election is your pocketbook, if what you’re concerned about is who will look out for the interests of working people and grow the middle class, if that’s what you’re concerned about, then the debate — then if that’s that you’re concerned about — the economy — the debate is not even close.  One path would lead to lower wages.  It would eliminate worker protections.  It would cut investments in things like education.  It would weaken the safety net.  It would kick people off health insurance.  It would let China write the rules for the global economy.  It would let Big Oil weaken rules that protect our air and water.  It would let big banks weaken rules that protect families from getting cheated.  It would cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans to historic lows.  Those are the facts.

And I know it sounds like a strange agenda for politicians who are claiming to care about you and working families.  But those are their plans.  You can find it on their websites.  And when I hear working families thinking about voting for those plans, then I want to have an intervention.  (Laughter and applause.)  I want you to just take a look at what you’re talking about here.  (Applause.)

And if you tell me, you know what, Mr. President, you may be right, but I just disapprove of what Democrats stand for on gay rights, or on going after ISIL — then I’m fine.  Okay, I hear you.  The economy is not everything.  If you tell me, you know what, you may be right, but I just believe as a matter of principle that government should be small and the wealthy, they work harder than everybody else and they should be able to keep what they got — all right, well, you’re making a philosophical argument.  I got you.

But don’t think that actually — that this agenda is going to help you.  It’s not designed to help you.  And the evidence of the last 30 years, not to mention common sense, should tell you that their answers to our challenges are no answers at all.  (Applause.)

Fortunately, there’s another path that leads to more jobs, and higher wages, and better benefits, and a stronger safety net, and a fairer tax code, and a bigger voice for workers, and trade on our terms.  And it will make a real difference for the prospects of working families.  And we’ll grow the middle class.

So that’s the choice you face, Elkhart.  The ideas I’ve laid out today, I want to be clear:  They’re not going to solve every problem.  They’re not going to make everybody financially secure overnight.  We’re still going to be facing global competition.  Trying to make sure that all our kids are prepared for the 21st century workforce, that’s a 20-year project, that’s not a two-year project.  We’re still going to have to make sure that we’re paying for Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare as our populations get older.  There are still going to be a bunch of issues out there.

But the agenda I’m putting forward will point us in the right direction.  And the one thing I can promise you is if we turn against each other based on divisions of race or religion, if we fall for a bunch of okie-doke just because it sounds funny or the tweets are provocative, then we’re not going to build on the progress that we’ve started.  If we get cynical and just vote our fears, or if we don’t vote at all, we won’t build on the progress that we started.

We’ve got to come together around our common values — our faith in hard work.  Our faith in responsibility.  Our belief in opportunity for everybody.  We’ve got to assume the best in each other, not the worst.  We’ve got to remember that sometimes, we all fall on hard times, and it’s part of our jobs as a community of Americans to help folks up when they fall.  (Applause.)  Because whatever our differences, we all love this country.  We all care about our children’s futures.  That’s what makes us great.  That’s what makes us progress and become better versions of ourselves — because we believe in each other.  (Applause.)

That’s what’s going to get us through our toughest moments.  That’s how we know something better is around the bend.  There’s going to be some setbacks along the way, but we know that our journey is not finished, and we know that with steady, persistent, collective effort, we’re going to deliver a brighter day for our children and our children’s children.  That’s what you proved, Elkhart, over these last seven years.  That’s what you’ve shown America.  Let’s keep on showing it.

Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  (Applause.)

END
4:28 P.M. EDT

 

Full Text Political Transcripts May 31, 2016: Transcript of Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills’s deposition in Judicial Watch email case

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Transcript of Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills’s deposition in Judicial Watch email case

Source: Judicial Watch, 5-31-16

Transcript Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Date: May 27, 2016
Case: Judicial Watch, Inc. -v- U.S. Department State
Planet Depos, LLC
Phone: 888-433-3767
Fax: 888-503-3767
Email: transcripts@planetdepos.com
Internet: http://www.planetdepos.com
Worldwide Court Reporting Interpretation Trial Services
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
————–x
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE, 13-cv-1363(EGS)
Defendant.
————–X
Videotaped Deposition CHERYL MILLS, ESQ.
Washington,
Friday, May 27, 2016
9:25 a.m.
Job No.: 112361
Reported by: Debra Whitehead
APPEARANCES BEHALF PLAINTIFF:
RAMONA COTCA, ESQUIRE
JAMES PETERSON, ESQUIRE
MICHAEL BEKESHA, ESQUIRE
PAUL ORFANEDES, ESQUIRE
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street,
Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172 BEHALF DEFENDANT:
ELIZABETH SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
MARCIA BERMAN, ESQUIRE
STEVEN MYERS, ESQUIRE
LARA NICOLE BERLIN, ESQUIRE
U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION Massachusetts Avenue,
Washington, 20530
(202) 514-2205
Videotaped Deposition CHERYL MILLS, ESQ.,
held the offices of:
PLANET DEPOS
1100 Connecticut Avenue,
Suite 950
Washington, 20036
(888) 433-3767
Pursuant notice, before Debra Whitehead,
Approved Reporter the United States District Court
and Notary Public the District Columbia.
APPEARANCES CONTINUED BEHALF THE WITNESS:
BETH WILKINSON, ESQUIRE
HAL BREWSTER, ESQUIRE
ALEXANDRA WALSH, ESQUIRE
WILKINSON WALSH ESKOVITZ
1900 Street,
Suite 800
Washington, 20036
(202) 847-4000
ALSO PRESENT:
JEREMY DINEEN, Video Specialist
THOMAS FITTON, President, Judicial Watch
GREGORY LAUDADIO, Judicial Watch
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages
CONTENTS
EXAMINATION CHERYL MILLS, ESQ. Ms. Cotca
PAGE Ms. Wilkinson
255 Ms. Berman
262 Ms. Cotca
263
EXHIBITS
(Attached the Transcript)
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
PAGE
Exhibit Subpoena Testify
Deposition Civil Action
Exhibit E-mail String
Exhibit E-mail String
Exhibit 12/5/14 Letter from Ms. Mills The Honorable Patrick Kennedy
Exhibit E-mail String
Exhibit E-mail Strings
122
Exhibit E-mail Strings
146
Exhibit E-mail Strings
155
Exhibit E-mail Strings
163
Exhibit E-mail String
174
PROCEEDINGS
(Deposition Exhibit marked for
identification and attached the transcript.)
VIDEO SPECIALIST: Here begins Tape Number the videotaped deposition Cheryl Mills
the matter Judicial Watch, Inc., versus the U.S.
Department State, the U.S. District Court for
the District Columbia, Case Number 13-CV-1363.
Todays date May 27, 2016. The time
the video monitor 9:25. The videographer today Jeremy Dineen, representing Planet Depos. This
video deposition taking place Planet Depos,
1100 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest, Washington,
DC.
Would counsel please voice-identify
themselves and state whom they represent.
MS. COTCA: Ramona Cotca, for Judicial
Watch.
MR. ORFANEDES: Paul Orfanedes, for
Judicial Watch.
MR. BEKESHA: Michael Bekesha, for
Judicial Watch.
EXHIBITS CONTINUED
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
PAGE
Exhibit E-mail Strings
216
Exhibit 1/27/16 Letter from Senator
218
Grassley The Honorable
John Kerry
MR. PETERSON: James Peterson, for
Judicial Watch.
MR. FITTON: Tom Fitton, President
Judicial Watch.
MR. LAUDADIO: Gregory Laudadio, for
Judicial Watch.
MS. BERLIN: Lara Berlin, Department
State.
MR. MYERS: Steven Myers from the Justice
Department, behalf State.
MR. BREWSTER: Hal Brewster, representing
Cheryl Mills.
MS. SHAPIRO: Elizabeth Shapiro, for the
Department State and the witness her capacity former State Department employee.
MS. BERMAN: Marcia Berman, from the
Department Justice, representing the State
Department and Ms. Mills her official capacity former State Department employee.
MS. WALSH: Alexandra Walsh, for Cheryl
Mills.
MS. WILKINSON: Beth Wilkinson, for Cheryl
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 12)
Mills.
THE WITNESS: Cheryl Mills.
VIDEO SPECIALIST: The court reporter
today Debbie Whitehead, representing Planet
Depos.
Would the reporter please swear the
witness.
CHERYL MILLS, ESQ.,
having been duly sworn, testified follows:
EXAMINATION COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF MS. COTCA: Good morning, Ms. Mills. Thanks very much
for coming. Thank you. introduced myself, Ramona Cotca,
and represent Judicial Watch this matter.
you could please just for the record identify your
name just one more time? name Cheryl Mills. Okay. Ms. Mills, know youre
attorney, you may very well familiar with
depositions, but just want over some ground you can and and Ill try best so. Thank you. Will you that? (No verbal response.) Okay. may take while. There are
lot attorneys the room. not sure the
other side will have any questions you.
But you need break any point, let know. Well happy Ill happy try
come good stopping point for break. But
well also try have routine breaks, necessary.
Just let know. that fair? Thank you. Sure. you know, youve been sworn in.
You understand that the deposition taken under
oath. are there any reasons why you would
not able answer truthfully here today? Not that know of. Okay. think that covers all the ground
rules. theres anything that comes mind, Ill
rules beforehand. appreciate that. Sure thing. you can see, there court reporter
here, and the deposition being videotaped. can get clear transcript
everything thats being said here, would just
ask well, first, will make sure let you
finish answering questions, let you finish
answering. And then you could just let finish
asking question, dont speak over each
other and have clear transcript. that fair? Sure. Okay. Also, you could please provide
verbal responses rather than head nods that would
helpful for the court reporter well, and for
when ahead and read the transcript after
today.
The other thing would say, there
question that you not understand you need some
clarification, please let know. you not,
will assume that you would have understood it.
let you know. Thank you. Sure. just want briefly over
your youre attorney. you can just tell
briefly your education background, college and law
school. went the University Virginia for
undergraduate, and then for law school went
Stanford University out California. Okay. And when did you graduate from
Virginia, from UVA? have say that? old. graduated from UVA 1987, and
graduated from Stanford Law School 1990. Okay. Great. Thank you. And right out law school, you went law firm. that right? did. went work Hogan Hartson,
which law firm here Washington, DC, though
their name has now changed. Okay. And what did you for them,
practice litigator, which
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 16) represented school districts that were
still seeking implement the promises Brown vs.
The Board Education. Okay. that litigation? was conglomerate activities,
but also included litigation. Okay. And then after that? After that went work the White
House. the in-between period went and worked the Clinton campaign and the transition. And
then went work the White House, and was
the the White House for about seven years. Okay. And when did you start working
the White House? Not specific date, but year-wise. Oh, know. would have been
1993. 1993. God, old. Okay. Sorry. Okay. 1993 then takes you 99? 1993 takes about 1999, thats right. the White House. Okay.
And you can just tell me, what was
House.
MS. BERMAN: Ill join that objection.
MS. COTCA: dont dont need
with everything that was done the White House
but, rather, with respect the background
Ms. Mills the context litigating and her
experience with subpoenas for documents, requests
for documents litigation. Which goes FOIA
requests that may have come litigations that may
have come the Secretarys office. And her
background and experience that relevant the
scope.
MS. WILKINSON: Maybe you can rephrase
the question and ask it, you know, with more more
particularity, she can answer.
MS. COTCA: Sure. Sure. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, while you were the White
House, were you involved did your work all
include involve responding subpoenas for
documents litigations and discovery requests with
respect document requests?
what was your position the White House? And changed over time, you can just tell what
you started with and where you ended. started associate counsel, and
ended deputy counsel. Okay. And how long were you associate
counsel there? Four years so. Four years. And then promoted deputy? Yes. Okay. And can you briefly tell your
duties, responsibilities, day-to-day work?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. going
object because its beyond the scope and not
really relevant what the four corners the
mean, general background, but doesnt relate
what she did. She wasnt acting lawyer the
State Department. going direct her not answer
and just ask you through her background the
relevant parts, but not kind the full
documentation everything she did the White did. did involve responding
requests for information and documents and
materials. Okay. And did that include e-mails,
e-mail records? when first arrived the White
House once again dating there wasnt use. think were the administration that ultimately
ended having e-mail over the course that
think that was, like, the time period where e-mail
was becoming more prevalent. the time left, would say that
that might have been part the paradigm. But general matter, most the time when were
looking records and materials, they were hard
copy. Hard copy. Okay.
But there were some litigations that
included requests for e-mails which you were
witness. Yes. The Alexander matter, for example?
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 20) dont know the name the matter. But
thats correct, that was thats absolutely
correct. Okay. And that included e-mail records.
Correct? Request for e-mail records? believe so. Sorry, youre dating
memory, just doing best. Thats okay. But believe thats correct. going try help refresh you Well, thanks. refresh your recollection. appreciate that. Sure. Sure. Okay. After moving from the White House, what
did you before coming the State Department? worked Oxygen Media, which media
company for that was designed programming
for women. And after was Oxygen Media, went work NYU. Okay. the White House. Right. you recall that? dont. Okay. Were you ever informed are you
aware Judge Lamberths ruling that matter
being critical others, but including your
actions, with respect handling the matter for the
request e-mails that were requested the White
House? when was the request for e-mails the
White House? That was while you were there. when you say that, just trying
ask because dont dont know how step
through the sequencing what youre you are
articulating. would help theres something
that you could that could help me, that would
that. But wont able that from own
memory, and apologize. Sure. you remember providing testimony Which New York University. And managed
the business operations there, and then also was
lawyer there. Okay. And when did you start the State
Department? started the State Department
transitioned into the State Department
uncompensated temporary employee January. And
then ultimately joined the department full time in, think around May And thats 2009. Thats fault for speaking over you and
not letting you finish. 2009. Thank you. Sure. Now, just going back, and again the
context your experience with attorney
with requests for records, and specifically e-mail
records. 2008 there was ruling Judge
Lamberth that came out that the Alexander
matter that just mentioned before from your time
before Judge Lamberth the Alexander case? Before Judge Lamberth? Yes. dont believe Ive had occasion meet
Judge Lamberth, but that might just inaccurate. Okay. you remember there being
mail this case involving mail sever issue
when you were the White House? definitely remember there were
multiple different kinds litigation while were the White House. this about kind
remember know that there was litigation
the White House? Absolutely. But youre asking pull memory right now sit here,
cant that. Well, not asking general litigation. asking actually case which you provided
testimony Okay. with respect requests for e-mails,
and that case there being issue with the mail
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 24) server. And the capture dont remember the mail server. quite confident should start with
had provide lot different testimony during
the time period when served the government. happy have memory refreshed, theres
something that could that. Okay. Lets just let just ask
this way: Shortly before coming the State
Department, Judge Lamberth ruled the Alexander
case, which criticized your conduct, well some others, the White House with respect
handling e-mail requests. And believe the word used was loathsome. Loathsome?
MS. BERMAN: mean, object the form the question terms characterizing the
opinion.
MS. COTCA: Okay. was the opinion was critical. Did
you ever read the opinion? Did anybody ever make
you the opinion and specifically said that
you agreed upon.
And talking about another case from many
years ago and opinion Judge Lamberth, dont
understand the relevance the topics which you
agreed upon were the, you know, stated basis for the
deposition.
MS. BERMAN: Objection well. This
beyond the scope discovery.
MS. COTCA: Okay. Merely just
establish Ms. Mills experience with respect -as attorney with respect handling requests -MS. BERMAN: Youre not asking -MS. COTCA: for documents.
MS. BERMAN: sorry.
Youre not asking about FOIA requests
right now.
MS. COTCA: Were just establishing the
background.
MS. WILKINSON: No, youre -MS. COTCA: With respect Ms. Mills.
MS. BERMAN: have very specific scope permissible discovery. And the portion
your conduct was loathsome. have not had occasion read the
opinion. Okay. And, you know, cant speak both his
observations the set facts that regard,
because think would need that well,
Ive always tried best responsive and tried best the best that could. And think
get each day trying that. not perfect
and would never say was. But certainly
best. Sure. Sure. You said you never read the
opinion. But were you aware, did anybody tell you
about it, did you ever become aware that opinion
that came out -MS. WILKINSON: going excuse
me. going object. Compound and the form
the question. And, also, just you could direct why this relevant the matters which the
judge has repeatedly said are circumscribed what
that believe your questioning purportedly
directed the process, the the State
Departments approach and practice for processing
FOIA requests that potentially implicated former
Secretary Clinton and Ms. Abedins e-mails. And
dont see how this relevant that all. Ms. Mills, what was your position the
State Department during Secretary Clintons tenure? was the chief staff and counselor. Okay.
MS. COTCA: Just respond now the
objection. the chief staff and counselor
the Secretarys office, Judge Sullivans order
this case goes specifically sensitivity with
respect e-mail issues and how FOIA requests were
processed the Secretarys office. think that Ms. Mills experience that regard the chief staff for her entire
tenure and her counselor relevant and within the
scope.
MS. BERMAN: sorry. does not
solely does not just her sensitivity
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 28) e-mail issues. within the specific context responding FOIA requests with regard
e-mail.
MS. WILKINSON: Let also make let
make suggestion. Why dont you ask her what she
did counselor and chief staff. She did not
act lawyer for the Secretary the State
Department. youre asking her about her
experiences lawyer before with FOIA. That
wasnt her responsibilities State. Thats why
dont think its also relevant here. maybe you could establish that first
and then see you have any basis. But dont
believe there factual basis for what youre
asking.
MS. COTCA: Okay. MS. COTCA: you can tell your duties and
responsibilities chief staff, lets start with
that. was chief staff and counselor.
And chief staff was there were issues
policy matter, food security, well as, the
extent there were other initiatives that the
Secretary was seeking launch, being able
provide support and navigate all the different
elements that might required doing that.
And all kind fits into
framework, you think about what secretaries do,
there really the immediate, and then there
short term and then theres long term. tended more the immediate. there was
something that needed addressed, was
conflict among bureaus that had navigated,
those were the types issues that typically would front any given day. But they -they varied enormously. Okay. Correct wrong, but
traditionally, normally speaking, those two
positions are separate positions the State
Department prior you coming and since then. think those two have been. The chief staff role has often been combined with other
roles. the chief staff, theres been chief matters that maybe should step back and give
some context. the department there are broad array kind both policy and programmatic issues that
the department handles and has done those,
obviously, for decades. And diplomacy itself has long history.
And lot about what has been
done the past and how you the future,
particularly when youre dealing with nation states.
And the role the chief staff often
try provide both advice and guidance but also,
more particularly, support for navigating the
multiplicity issues that come before the
Secretary. Which given day can really range
from Iraq Iceland and everything between,
well development that are doing and
development investments that might making
countries around the world.
And counselor, responsibilities
typically were focused particular policy areas
that were focus. For that was Haiti staff and they were the head leg affairs,
theres been chief staff that was also the head our public affairs. think the chief staff role
often shouldnt say often has been the
past combined with other roles well. Okay. think dont know that was
that unique, maybe better way say it, though like think always unique. there reason you combined the chief staff and you held both positions chief
staff well the counselor? think given that there had been
practice some these the chief staff
position having multiple roles for for, think,
Secretary Clinton would have provided the
opportunity was, where there were certain policy
areas that might not always prioritized the
department historically with either with the
resources focus. And this presented
opportunity able that.
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 32)
And certainly global food security was not issue that the State Department had ever elevated that level. And President Obama, having that priority for his administration, created
opportunity for some those types issues
actually have the focus and attention not only
the Secretary, but also way prioritizing for
the department. Okay. lets just back up.
How did you come the State Department, you can talk through that with respect what
brought you the State Department? Okay. -MS. WILKINSON: Let object
foundation. Well, not foundation but the form.
Its vague.
MS. COTCA: Okay. Sure.
MS. WILKINSON: And kind again,
want stick the areas discovery. And
understand, you know, thats background question.
But not -MS. COTCA: Just with respect the
Secretarys office and that sort thing, what was
your involvement? when secretaries transition in, one
the terrific things about the State Department
they have and are used the experience every
four years maybe every six years, transition
their leadership. And they have transition
process that they put place that designed
help brief the Secretary all the various
substantive issues that are front the
department.
And that process one that they run
without regard whos coming in. Obviously
its theyre career officials and they very
well. And that was process that got
participate with her, and that was the process
that she stepped through and that the rest who
were part assisting her could either sometimes those meetings not. But thats the
process. And you said she stepped through. Are
you speaking Secretary Clinton?
transition.
MS. WILKINSON: There could 20-year
answer that, you might imagine.
MS. COTCA: Sure. And just talking about with respect,
how was that Secretary Clinton came you and
did she come you and ask you chief staff
and come board the State Department?
How did that come about? Thanks. had been previously working
with Secretary Clinton her campaign. was
intending back job NYU. And she, you
could say invited stay and back into
government. And having served government once
and recognizing the demands both your time and
other things, had had small children. for thought better life balance would going
back NYU. But ultimately she successfully
convinced stay, and did. Okay. Thank you.
Can you discuss prior January 2009,
during the transition process setting the Secretary Clinton. Okay. they actually provide you with set
briefings about all the different policy bureaus and
what the work and what are the key
conflicts, challenges issues that are confronting
different regions the world and different issues
that are continuing enduring the diplomacy
space. Okay. And from Secretary Clintons
standpoint, was there sort transition team that
was also involved with you?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation.
And form. when you say that, can you just step
through what you mean? Sure. Because think that they actually put place full transition team the department.
And the presidential transition also puts place
full transition team. And those teams actually
typically are working together.
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 36) just President Obama will
transitioning out, hes designated who will his
transition team. They will partner with whoever
ends being the successful nominee guess
electee. Yes, electee.
And they will then obviously work that
transition from the standpoint what are the
policies and the issues that are confronting our
government and how you that effectively. Okay. who else was part this
process from the campaign for Secretary Clinton? Well, -MS. WILKINSON: Objection form and also
beyond the scope.
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Beyond the scope.
MS. COTCA: The transition process the
State Department definitely within the scope,
the extent about office setups and what equipment
was provided and what devices were provided
Secretary Clinton with respect e-mail questions.
MS. BERMAN: You can ask those questions.
MS. WILKINSON: Just make more
individuals who basically help you step through and
arrive and provide for the transition and the
operational setup the Secretarys office. Okay.
MS. WILKINSON: Can Can you -MS. WILKINSON: Excuse me. Can off
the record for minute and take break? going talk the State Department see can
help.
MS. COTCA: Sure.
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are off the record 9:48. recess was taken.)
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are back the
record 9:50. MS. COTCA: Okay. going call this
transition period. the process Secretary Clinton coming the State Department and whoever her staff may
have been picked, including you, that context,
specific, and think she can answer.
MS. COTCA: Okay. Sure. MS. COTCA: Were you involved what was your role
with respect the transition?
MS. WILKINSON: Again, objection.
Foundation and form. Its and beyond the scope.
Just With respect setting that was
already asked earlier.
MS. WILKINSON: sorry. didnt
understand that. With respect setting with respect
setting the Secretarys office, setting the
office. didnt set Secretary Clintons
office. Okay. There there Exec
Secretariat, well what call the -theres team that actually are part the
existing State platform that actually are terrific
with respect making sure that Day Secretary
Clinton has e-mail, phone use, that sort
thing, was there point contact from from the
campaign setting that and coordinating that
with the State Department?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Assumes facts not evidence. No. No. Okay. you know Lewis Lukens? Yes. Okay. Who he? Lewis Lukens Department State
official. Okay. you know what his role was
the time that you 2009? Lou Lukens, memory serves, was
serving the office the Executive Secretary.
believe that was the office that was serving in. you know what capacity? dont know his title, but obviously
knew was somebody who was serving that
position.
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 40) Okay. not asking for his title, but
you know what his role was what did the
office the Secretary? dont know the breadth his
responsibilities. know was somebody who served the Executive Secretarys office, and that office
provides support the Secretary. His deposition was taken, and Ill just
tell you this. His deposition was taken last week,
and identified you the point contact with
respect issues involving setting the different
offices the Secretarys office, and that sort
thing. Were you the point contact?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Mischaracterizing
Mr. Lukens testimony. cant speak what thought
about. Sure. But you are asking whether not was
the point contact that context, think
would depend what the matter was. Okay. Did you have lot conversations
anybody the State Department, lets say,
November, December and January, before coming the
State Department, with respect where your office
would located? believe January, and probably close the time she was confirmed, would have had
discussions about office location. Okay. How about devices communicate
via e-mail?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Vague. Whose
devices? Devices for you, for example, Ms. Mills. dont know when conversations about
our device would have occurred. But would
have imagined would have occurred close time when were onboarding. Okay. you recall what the
conversations were? No. sorry. mean, its just harder
for actually remember conversations
the time. Probably just werent significant
mind.
with him? had not -MS. BERMAN: Objection the form the
question.
Sorry. Not that recall lot conversations
with Lou Lukens. certainly did have conversations
with him. Okay. Can you tell what those were?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Vague. No, cant recall them. Okay. sorry, was long time ago. dont want every single dont want
you describe every single conversation you had
with him. But with respect setting the -making sure that everything set the office.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Vague. Form. its not recollection that was
typically engaging with Lou Lukens lot those
matters. Okay. Did you have any discussions with Okay. dont have memory now, sadly.
Many years ago. Okay. Did you receive BlackBerry from
the State Department when you came board? Yes, did have State Department
BlackBerry. Okay. Did you ask for it? dont recall asked for not,
but know received one. Okay. And did you have State Department
e-mail when you came board? dont know when they created State
Department e-mail, but did have State Department
e-mail that used when was the department. Okay. And was that e-mail synced with the
BlackBerry that the State Department provided? believe was. only hesitating
because know initially you couldnt access e-mail
from outside the department. But believe
was synced from the beginning. wrong
about that, would have happened soon thereafter.
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 44) Okay. With respect your e-mail account
from the State Department, you remember you
had make request for that, was that
something just issued you? believe that was issued, but could
wrong about that. dont know. dont have
specific memory how came about. But
believe was issued. Okay. you recall who the State
Department shouldnt say issued. Sorry. Let
correct that. believe was created, maybe
thats the best way. dont know how they
structured that. Okay. How did you find out about the
e-mail, your e-mail account, use the State
Department?
MS. WILKINSON: Again, going
object beyond -MS. BERMAN: Objection. Beyond the form.
MS. WILKINSON: And beyond the scope.
Youre supposed talking about the instructing the witness not answer, which
dont want do. And understood that were
going stay within the scope. happy to, say, most
objections, say form foundation. And
otherwise with scope, will continue put the
basis on, just you know why think your question
has gone beyond. And you can rephrase it, like
you have other questions, happy have her
answer.
MS. COTCA: Thats fine. its within
scope, its objection based scope and
youre instructing the witness not answer,
outside the scope think sufficient. Thank
you, though.
Can you read back last question.
(The reporter read the record follows:
How did you find out about the e-mail, your e-mail
account, use the State Department?)
MS. COTCA: And youre instructing the
witness not answer that question?
MS. WILKINSON: am.
creation and operation Clintonemail.com for the
State Department business, the approach
processing FOIA requests that implicated either the
Secretary Clinton Ms. Abedins e-mails, and the
processing FOIA requests. Her State Department
e-mail not part those topics. going object and instruct her
not answer, and ask you focus the areas
discovery that you agreed upon were relevant for
this case.
MS. COTCA: Okay. And would just ask
that you have objection youre going
instruct the witness not answer, that you just without speaking objections. Its improper
coaching the witness during the deposition. would just ask that you leave
the objection and the basis, without any further
speaking objections.
MS. WILKINSON: not trying coach
the witness. course trying give you
basis that you can either change your question theres record basis for why, especially when MS. COTCA: And youre following your attorneys
advice not answer the question. that right, Ms. Mills? Yes. Okay. When you started the State
Department, whether its shortly before shortly
thereafter, are you aware any discussions with
respect e-mail account issued for Secretary
Clinton use during her tenure the State
Department? was not aware discussions about
e-mail account for her use. Okay. Did you discuss with her with
respect what e-mail she was going use
Secretary State for the next four years? the Secretary has spoken about the fact
that she had made determination that she would use
her personal account, and that exactly what she
did. When did you have those discussions with
Secretary Clinton?
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 48) -MS. BERMAN: Objection. Mischaracterizing
the prior testimony. dont know. Are you okay. Are
waiting for her anything? You were looking
her. Okay. Sorry. Secretary Clinton continued practice
that she was using her personal e-mail. And
dont know that could articulate that there was
specific discussion opposed her continuation practice she had been using when she was
Senator. did you just assume that she was going use the e-mail that she had before Secretary State? dont have specific memory the
conversations that may may not have occurred. know that understood she was going using her personal e-mail, and thats what she
did. Okay. Whats the e-mail account,
make sure were talking about the same thing, that Yes. not familiar with the Clinton e-mail
account. What that? see. says had her initials,
and then had @Clintonemail.com. Okay. Sorry for that. didnt understand. Thats okay. Thats why asked you
clarify Yes. ask clarify, and happy so. you recall her specific e-mail address? dont recall her specific e-mail
account. has her initials it, and
@Clintonemail.com. Okay. Was that the only e-mail account
that she used during her time Secretary State,
for government business? Secretary Clinton used always used
one e-mail account when she was using e-mail
account. when she initially arrived she was
she used? Secretary Clinton when she was the
Senate had ATT what call ATT account
that ultimately transitioned account that was
Clinton e-mail. Okay. What you mean Clinton e-mail? What you mean e-mail account? sorry. Can you repeat your answer,
then? Maybe misunderstood. Maybe didnt hear
your full answer. she had ATT. Yes. BlackBerry that was associated with
ATT e-mail. Yes. And then she transitioned Clinton
e-mail account. Okay. And whats the Clinton e-mail
account she transitioned to? Can you more specific? mean, you said she transitioned
Clinton e-mail account.
continuing use the ATT accounts, and then
transitioned the dot Clinton e-mail,
Clintonemail.com account. And during her tenure
those were the two addresses, you will, that she
used. Did she continue use the BlackBerry.net
account throughout her tenure? no. Okay. When did she use that e-mail
account? And were only speaking speaking
for government business. not aware BlackBerry.com
account. Okay. Whats the initial account she used the Senate that you said? ATT. ATT. apologize. did she continue use that ATT account throughout her tenure? No. When did she stop using it, far you
know? best recollection was sometime
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 52)
March. Thats best recollection. Okay. Why you recall being
March? recall that there was point
which she had transition her e-mail address and
told everyone that she had new e-mail address, and
thats the time period that have the best
recollection around. could have been
might wrong. might have been February,
might have been April. But remember being
after had gotten in. might wrong about
that. Correct am. How did how did she communicate that
you? dont know that have specific
recollection communication much have
understanding that needed change the e-mail
address were e-mailing her at. Was there was there e-mail that went
out within the Secretarys office with respect -to the change? dont remember that. There might have
have assistant? dont recall the assistants name
that time, and apologize. But she was someone who
had been provided the department who was what
call OMS. And she provided support largely
through the first probably six, seven, eight months
that was there. dont know that can but apologize, dont remember her name. And not
because she didnt great job. Did you communicate her about the
Secretarys transition? dont know that did didnt. Maybe
some context would help. office connected hers,
could just walk between the two offices. dont
know that would have been necessary for any
the support staff. Because they they are all
right the same space. Okay.
MS. COTCA: Could mark this Exhibit please.
(Deposition Exhibit marked for
been. could wrong, but dont remember
that. Okay. How did the other staff the
Secretarys office know about the e-mail transition? dont know that can speak how
their what their knowledge is. can only speak mine. Okay. Did you communicate that
assume you had staff help you out when and
provide support when you were serving chief
staff and counselor. Did you? did have staff. Okay. And who was that? had different administrative staff that
provided support. Okay. And who were they? Within the
Secretarys office. Directly reporting you
within the Secretarys office.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection form.
Perhaps you can make time-period-specific
question. Well, during this time March, did you
identification and attached the transcript.)
MS. WILKINSON: Ms. Cotca, you have
copies for -MS. COTCA: Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you much.
MS. COTCA: dont know have for
everyone.
MS. WILKINSON: can share. discussion was held off the record.)
MS. BERMAN: You said Exhibit
MS. COTCA: Yes, this Exhibit
MS. WILKINSON: What was Exhibit
MS. COTCA: The subpoena. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, you can take look
whats been handed you Exhibit Okay. Let know when youre done looking
it.
Youve had chance look it? have. Okay. And just for the record, can you
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 56)
state what the document is? You have handed document that
e-mail that has the Secretarys e-mail address,
Lona Valmoro and Huma Abedin, requesting time that
she can meet with her undersecretaries each week,
and asking for recommendations.
And there response recommendation for
Mondays Tuesdays. And request whether
not she wanted this meeting meal. And
then another response from the address the
Secretarys, saying, Just meeting. Okay. Thank you very much.
And whats the date whats the date for
these e-mails? the date each the e-mails the
traffic September 20, 2009. Right. And there are three e-mails here.
Right? there original e-mail from the
Secretarys e-mail account that Sunday,
September 20th, about almost a.m., appears.
And then response that about noon 12:12
February, March, April, somewhere that time
period, and she used consistently during her
tenure there. Okay. Now, want just look the
original e-mail this exhibit, where the e-mail
from Secretary Clinton Lona Valmoro and Huma
Abedin. And its from her HDR22@Clintonemail.com. you see the line
HR15@att.blackberry.net? Yes. see that line. And okay. And did read that
correctly, the e-mail address thats noted there? Yes. Okay. And appears, you agree with
me, that the Secretary copied included that
e-mail that communication? Thats what the document appears show.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection.
Excuse me.
Objection, form and foundation. Okay. you know why Secretary Clinton
was ccing her ATT.BlackBerry.net account?
also Sunday, the 20th September. And then she
responds that 12:12 e-mail from e-mail account
thats assigned her, 12:43 p.m. Okay. Thank you very much.
Just were clear that were speaking
about the same e-mail address for Clintonemail.com, that the e-mail address that the Secretary was
using during her tenure, the HDR22@Clintonemail.com? dont know which the two, because
they both got assigned the account. And this
might reflection the timing when
materials were.
But she typically used thought HROD17.
But could wrong. might have been that the
HDR22 was the account. Okay. not sure. And when you said the timing, thats
with respect when these were printed out.
that Yes. assume.
Because she had one e-mail account after not. you know was active the time? dont believe was. that the account that she was using
prior getting the Clintonemail account? Yes. Okay. And then looks like from the
response from Lona Valmoro, the Blackberry.net
account was also copied, was also the cc, which
would the second e-mail. that right? The shows H2. Correct. And thats the same that was the original e-mail?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation.
MS. BERMAN: Objection the form.
Objection well. you know what is? not. Did you ever meet e-mail Secretary
Clinton the Blackberry.net account -MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Form. during after March 2009?
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 60) dont know that would have
consciously e-mailed ATT account, because
that account understood was longer operational.
There are times where e-mails
automatically populate, that could happen. But you were asking what e-mail address would
e-mailing to, would e-mailing the one
Clinton.com. that would goal. And just are you aware the Secretary
used any auto forward function? dont know. Okay. And just going back previous
question. And you can refresh recollection.
Why you remember that was March when the -when the Secretary transitioned her e-mail?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Asked and
answered. You may answer. dont know that can add more what
Ive already said. you remember your answer? happy have her read back.
e-mail March. youre asking why have
recollection that being that time period
that your question? Yes, thats question. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Ive had occasion the representation Secretary Clinton have memory refreshed
because materials had look at. And that
one the things that had got memory refreshed
with respect to. Okay. When was that? Which that your question? When youve had your memory refreshed with
respect the March. couldnt tell you what point that
was, but Ive obviously been representing her with
respect number the matters that have been
with respect providing documents the
department. And the course that, that when memory would have been refreshed. Okay. because thats when the
Secretary said that she started using the e-mail Okay.
MS. COTCA: Could you please read back. discussion was held off the record.)
MS. WILKINSON: off the record for one
minute.
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are off the record 10:14. discussion was held off the record.)
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are back the
record 10:15. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, you remember the question
that was pending? dont. Could you just restate it?
apologize. Thats fine. And then will best answer. Sure. Why that you think the -Secretary Clinton started using the Clintonemail.com March? dont know that could answer the
question why she started using the Clinton
March?
MS. BERMAN: Objection the form the
question. dont know that can answer that
question.
MS. WILKINSON: And and privilege.
She she learned this refreshed her
recollection refreshed her recollection when she
was acting the Secretarys lawyer, producing
documents the State Department. Were you the Secretarys lawyer when she
was producing returning documents the State
Department? Yes. Okay. When did that representation start? began representing the Secretary when
she departed from the department number
matters, but this matter when came up, she asked assist her it. Okay.
MS. COTCA: Let mark this Exhibit
please.
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 64)
(Deposition Exhibit marked for
identification and attached the transcript.) discussion was held off the record.) MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, you have Exhibit front
you. you could please take look it. Thank you. Sure. Ill have some questions about it.
Youve had chance look it? have. Okay. Thank you.
Can you just for the record describe what
the document is?
MS. BERMAN: Objection the form the
question. mean, the document speaks for itself. Okay. You may answer. The the document e-mail traffic
between Chris LaVine, who sharing news report
that was sent and that forwarded with
FYI. And who did you forward that to? forwarded Secretary Clinton.
e-mail address that e-mail what? Well, reflected this piece paper, says HDR22@Clintonemail.com. Okay. And Ms. Abedins e-mail
reflected this what? H-A-B-E-D-I-N. her first initial and
last name, @HillaryClinton.com. Okay. Does this all refresh your
recollection when Secretary Clinton began using the
Clintonemail.com? No. does not?
Was Ms. Abedin working the State
Department this time, January 30th, 2009?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation.
Unless you know. believe she might have been. dont
know that for sure. dont know what date her
official transition date. Okay. When did the Secretary start? The Secretary started January 22nd,
believe, right. Okay. And when did you forward that
Secretary Clinton? sorry, was just looking for the
date. Sure. Sorry. January, 2009. Okay. And which e-mail account for
Secretary Clinton did you forward that to? This document says HDR22. Whats the rest the e-mail? Oh, sorry, @Clintonemail.com. Okay. And looking further the
document, the top e-mail, does appear that
theres e-mail forward from Secretary Clinton? dont understand your question. Well, after you forwarded Secretary
Clinton, whats the next e-mail the e-mail
traffic? see. the next e-mail then says,
Please print. And that from Secretary Clinton
the Clinton.com e-mail address, Huma Abedin. Okay. And, once more, Secretary Clintons 2009? 2009. Okay. These are all 2009. Okay. And you agree that your e-mail Secretary Clinton January 30th, 2009, was
related your work the State Department?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation,
and beyond the scope. forwarded her the news article because
thought she would find interesting read. the Secretary the State Department? Well, yes, she was Secretary State, but also references her. Are you saying this personal e-mail?
MS. BERMAN: Object the form the
question. No.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. You can answer. Unless youre instructed
not answer, you can answer the question. see.
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 68)
No. You asked question about whether
not was wasnt what interpreted you
saying whether not was wasnt federal
record. saying that forwarded her news
article because thought she would find
interest and her name was it. Right. interest with respect
her work the State Department? dont know how speak for what would
have happened her brain. Why did you send her? thought she would find interest. Okay. Why did you think she would find interest?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. going
object and say beyond the scope.
And instruct you not answer.
This not litigation about whether
certain records were turned over correctly not
what decisions she made -MS. COTCA: And was going actually
interrupt and stop you right there. Ive already Did you provide the full e-mail address? was ATT. Okay. you recall the entire e-mail
address before the ATT? dont. saw the HR15, and that strikes probably accurate, but was knew was ATT Okay. Thank you. e-mail address. Okay. you know when did she ever
stop using that e-mail address? Yes. When did she stop using that? She transitioned from using that her
primary e-mail Clinton.com e-mail address
February, March, April 2009. Okay. And the e-mail address, the
e-mail address referenced Exhibit not familiar with e-mail
address. Well, its not thats not the e-mail
address. But the HR15@ATT.BlackBerry.net account,
asked that speaking objections made. you
would like have speaking objection the
record, can excuse the witness leave the room,
and you can make your objection you think thats
absolutely necessary.
Speaking objection that its outside
the scope sufficient. Thank you -BY MS. COTCA: Are you not going answer the question,
Ms. Mills? Tell the question that youre trying
learn. Why did you think this would
interest?
MS. WILKINSON: Same objection.
And instructing you not answer.
MS. COTCA: Okay. clear with respect what e-mails
the Secretary used early 2009, you said that she
had e-mail practice the Senate. you recall
what that e-mail address was? The one that shared earlier.
that wasnt the Senate e-mail, was it? Thats not
the e-mail address that she used during the Senate? Yes, is. Oh, that the e-mail address that she
used? Yes, is. Okay. wasnt sure there was third
e-mail address not. No. Okay.
MS. COTCA: think weve been going about hour. can take five-minute break.
MS. WILKINSON: Sure.
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are off the record 10:25. recess was taken.)
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are back the
record 10:41. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, did you recall that was
March when Secretary Clinton transitioned the
Clintonemail.com because when you reviewed the
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 72)
e-mails that she was returning the State
Department? No. You had that recollection before you
reviewed e-mails that she was returning the State
Department?
MS. WALSH: Can you speak up, Ramona?
sorry. having hard time hearing you. mean,
not from the mike, just from me.
MS. COTCA: Sure. trying think about how answer
your question consistent with obligations -as counsel.
But the answer did did not have
that recollection based materials returned the
department.
MS. COTCA: Can mark this.
(Deposition Exhibit marked for
identification and attached the transcript.)
MS. COTCA: apologize, only have one
copy.
THE WITNESS: you need look
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Vague. you understand the question? No. Okay. You were writing behalf
Secretary Clinton that letter? Yes. Okay. And you were representing her
her attorney, thats your testimony? did also represent her her attorney,
that correct. Did you represent her her attorney
that context, the context for that e-mail, for
that correspondence? sending this, was sending this
because was her lawyer, who she had asked
undertake this process conjunction with David
Kendall, who also her personal lawyer. And
that was the reason conveyed back. also the case that the letter that
came seeking her records came me, and that
the reason conveyed back. Okay. you recall when you first
first?
MS. COTCA: You can give your
counsel first. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, can you take look now
Exhibit Once youve had chance look it,
let know. Thank you. Sure. you recognize that document? recognize this document. And what it? This letter from me, dated December
5th, Under Secretary Kennedy. And can you just summarize briefly. The letter conveying copies the
Secretarys e-mail records the department. Okay. Thank you.
Did you were you representing Secretary
Clinton that time her attorney? Yes. Okay. there reason that you didnt
include that your letter the State Department?
started representing Secretary Clinton this
matter, the matter described the Exhibit
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Beyond the
scope.
MS. COTCA: Are you instructing her not
answer?
MS. WILKINSON: No. Okay. You may answer. Thanks. started representing Secretary Clinton matters once she left the State Department. And whenever there was matter that she asked
undertake her behalf, would. Okay. But thats not answering the
question. question was, when did you begin
representing the former Secretary for the matter
issue thats described Exhibit
MS. WILKINSON: Same objection. Beyond
the scope. dont know how answer your
question better than indicating that became her
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 76)
personal counsel when she left the department. And
this was matter that arose after she left the
department, and she asked would undertake
assist her this matter. When did she ask you undertake
assist her the matter? dont know that have specific date
that she that she did that, but was post
February 2013. you can you more specific time
frame? cant.
MS. WILKINSON: Same objection
scope.
MS. COTCA: Will you mark this.
(Deposition Exhibit marked for
identification and attached the transcript.)
MS. BERMAN: What exhibit?
MS. COTCA: Exhibit Ms. Mills, just please continue review
it, and let know when youre done reviewing the
exhibit.
Clinton for the matter with respect returning her
e-mail records the State Department this time
frame? the time that they requested her
e-mails, was representing her with respect
undertaking the return those. And prior that,
the request was made her address this matter
for her. you recall the first time that you were
contacted with respect returning Secretary
Clintons e-mails the State Department?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Relevance.
Beyond scope.
MS. COTCA: The scope the return
Secretary Clintons e-mails the State Department
which were searched and reviewed this for this
FOIA litigation.
MS. BERMAN: you see that the scope discovery? not. The scope is, the
creation and use Clintonemail.com.
MS. COTCA: And processing FOIA
requests.
Have you had chance review it? have. Okay. And looks like this document
some e-mail traffic with you and others the State
Department with the respect the return
Secretary Clintons e-mails. that fair summary? Yes, e-mail traffic with me, and
then theres traffic that not that among
the lawyers the State Department. Okay. And this document looks like
the time frame, your first e-mail David Wade,
dated August 22, 2014. that accurate? Yes. Okay. Who David Wade? David Wade this time was the chief
staff Secretary Kerry. Okay. the State Department. Right? the State Department. Sorry, Secretary
Kerry, John Kerry, who the Secretary State
currently. Okay. Were you representing Secretary
MS. BERMAN: And the State Departments
approach and practice for processing FOIA requests
that potentially implicated former Secretary
Clintons e-mails.
MS. COTCA: Correct.
MS. BERMAN: The State Departments
approach and practice for processing FOIA requests,
not the return Secretary Clintons e-mails.
MS. COTCA: And those records were
processed and searched for this FOIA litigation.
MS. BERMAN: the State Department.
MS. COTCA: Correct.
MS. BERMAN: Its not dispute all
this case which records were returned the State
Department, which records were processed for the
FOIA case.
MS. COTCA: Okay. can argue about that
later. MS. COTCA: you remember the question, Ms. Mills? dont.
MS. COTCA: Would you read back
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 80)
Ms. Mills, please.
(The reporter read the record follows: you recall the first time that you were
contacted with respect returning Secretary
Clintons e-mails the State Department?) believe that was late summer
2014. Okay.
Okay. just want you can take
look your initial original e-mail Exhibit And its your first paragraph. would
the last page the exhibit where you say,
wanted follow your request last month about
hard copies Secretary Clintons e-mails and
from. you see that? do. Okay. The date the e-mail August
22nd. fair, mean, say that you were
contacted July 2014, minimum? dont know how -my experience memory with respect that time
State Department. Exhibit No, not going any exhibit. Sorry. just want back time 2009
when Secretary Clinton transitioned what youve
identified the Clinton e-mail. Clinton.com e-mail. Yes. Okay. How was that set up; you
know? was not -MS. BERMAN: Object the form the
question. You may answer. was not actually involved the
original setup the e-mail. Okay. But even you were not involved it, you have any knowledge with respect how was set up? The knowledge that have has come through representation her counsel. When you say your representation
period was that there was set conversations
around materials that were going provided
the Hill, and questions that they had with respect media inquiries that they anticipated.
And then subsequent that there was
communication with respect the department
potentially needing all her dot gov e-mails.
And terms timing that, believe
that was sometime the late summer. And dont
know last month was accurate not accurate.
But thats best understanding. Does this refresh your recollection? doesnt. when you said that,
would have still said late summer, just because
thats best memory. But thats memory. Okay. July includes late late summer. that fair? Well, the end July, probably, yeah.
But dont know. Okay. Thank you. want back the e-mail for
Secretary Clinton that she started using the
Secretary Clinton counsel attorney. Oh, attorney. Correct. the counselor role the
State Department not lawyer role. The
counselor role the State Department actually
policy role. And its particular policy
issues that might relevant the Secretary.
And for Secretary Clinton those were
things like food security and Haiti and certain
development initiatives. Okay. when you learned with respect
how the Clinton e-mail was set up, that your
testimony just want make sure understand correctly that was learned the context you representing Secretary Clinton her legal
attorney. terms how was actually set up,
yes. Okay. When did you learn that? dont
want into discussions that you had with
Secretary Clinton her attorney, but curious
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 84)
with respect what the time frame that. And when you say that, can you just
was aha know dont know kind moment. Sure. But was certainly, would say best
more specific? When you learned how the e-mail was set
understanding that would have been post her time
up. the department when Ive had step through some can you going just ask you the issues that have obviously been raised about little more specific. obviously knew she was
her e-mail account.
using personal e-mail, dont want suggest
that didnt know she was using personal e-mail. Okay. Was 2014? dont know the answer that question.
Like, dont know was before later. Like, knew she was using personal e-mail. Okay. lets backtrack little bit. dont know how answer that question based
And question was what you knew with respect
having temporal understanding.
about how that e-mail account was set up.
But know that have had conversations
with respect the setup her e-mail, and Ive
had those conversations over period time.
MS. BERMAN: Object the form the
question. Okay. But was definitely after, from Okay. not technologically savvy
person. happy own that straight up.
what understand your testimony, after you left the
dont know that could tell you how AOL account
State Department, youre not sure about it? set Gmail account set anybody terms understanding how her
elses e-mail set up.
e-mail was set terms the technicalities
how was structured, that was something that
learned after her time period the department. can tell you that was not State
Department e-mail. And the extent that your
question when was when did learn she was
not using State Department e-mail, was aware
that she wasnt using State Department e-mail when
she transitioned in. Thats not question, though. Thank you. Sure. question was with respect the
testimony you just gave about that you learned
how was set your representation
Secretary Clinton her attorney. terms the technicalities how her
e-mail set up, terms those those issues,
yes, have fulsome understanding that
comes from representation her. Okay. And not asking about what those
discussions were, but asking you about that
time frame. When when did you learn that? dont know could tell you when
learned that. know that because, obviously,
over the past now year and half Ive been stepping
through that process. dont know that have
pinpoint moment where could tell you where there And who who did you talk about that?
MS. BERMAN: Objection.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Calls for
privilege.
MS. BERMAN: And speculation. Assumes
facts not evidence.
MS. COTCA: Whats the privilege?
MS. WILKINSON: She could have talked
her client.
MS. COTCA: not asking with respect Who else did you speak outside your
client about that?
MS. WILKINSON: agents her client. Okay. Let who else did you speak
with outside your client agents your
client? spoke her counsel, who believe
falls into that context. There are other counsel. Who her other counsel? David Kendall her other counsel. there anybody else? There are attorneys that work
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 88)
Williams Connolly. And who are they? dont know that could name the names. not asking for the entire firm
directory. know. But being transparent with
you. dont know that can name. And thats
not reflection because most conversations
with are David Kendall.
But know that there are other attorneys,
obviously, there who work matters that involve
representing Secretary Clinton. And then there were
obviously agents her that also engaged
conversation with. Okay. Just for the attorneys, was also
Heather Samuelson?
MS. WILKINSON: going object right
now. Beyond the scope.
MS. COTCA: Whats the other objection?
MS. WILKINSON: And you were asking about
for nonagents, not for agents. Youre trying ask
for nonattorney And also the names all nonagents -MS. WILKINSON: Same who you spoke with.
MS. WILKINSON: Same. Its beyond the
scope. And even though dont agree with you that making objections somehow influencing the
witness, accommodate you going ask
Ms. Mills step out can make full factual
record. discussion was held off the record.)
MS. WILKINSON: want the record
reflect that Ms. Mills -MS. COTCA: Just one moment for Ms. Mills leave the room.
(Ms. Mills left the conference room.)
MS. WILKINSON: Ms. Mills leaving the
room.
You are asking her questions about work
she did after she left the department, behalf
Secretary Clinton, her lawyer, preparing her
client investigation and turning over
documents the State Department.
MS. COTCA: asking who represented
Secretary Clinton.
MS. WILKINSON: Thats totally irrelevant the areas that were here talk about.
MS. BERMAN: Objection well beyond -well beyond the scope.
MS. WILKINSON: And going instruct
her not answer these issues. you want get back the issues that
are the scope within the scope discovery, she
was answering all those questions. want know the agents all the -the names all the agents that you spoke to.
MS. WILKINSON: Same objection. And
instructing client not answer. Beyond the
scope. want know the names all the
attorneys for Secretary Clinton that you also spoke
with.
MS. WILKINSON: Same. Its beyond the
scope.
MS. BERMAN: Beyond the scope. Objection.
You asked her how she learned the
information after she left the department. She told
you she had knowledge how the Clinton noncomm
account was set 2009, when was. And thats
what relevant the scope here, not what she
learned after the fact lawyer. And thats why instructing her not answer.
MS. COTCA: Okay. did not for the
record, did not ask any questions with respect
what she learned the context representing her
for any investigation. Only specifically with
respect Secretary Clinton returning records back the State Department.
MS. WILKINSON: When you got questions
about who she talked to, you didnt know why she was
collecting that information. And its not its
not within the scope. And beyond the scope.
And shes not going answer those questions.
You asked her what was the scope, which let her answer, which did she know how that
account was formed 2009, March 2009. She did
not know how was set up. She said she did know
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 92)
that she transitioned it. Thats all agree
within the scope.
Something she learned after the fact
attorney representing her client not something
thats within the scope.
MS. COTCA: And did not ask what she
learned from the Secretary Clinton. asked who
she spoke with about that.
MS. BERMAN: And what the -MS. WILKINSON: Thats still beyond the
scope.
MS. BERMAN: What the relevance that the scope permissible discovery?
MS. COTCA: The setup the server.
MS. BERMAN: But you cant get that -its not information she contemporaneously had
the time. Its all information she learned later.
Its not her independent knowledge.
MS. COTCA: Correct. But goes who
knew about the server and its setup the time
was set up.
MS. BERMAN: Its privileged. her lawyer. Nowhere the courts order that, the way, you agreed were the limits your
discovery, that topic.
MS. COTCA: Okay.
MS. WILKINSON: you would start and
ask her the relevant questions first, think
would have lot better basis able move
along. Instead and figure out what she did
know about the questions that are within the scope.
And want let her answer your
questions.
But youre going over and over outside the
scope the questions instead even figuring
out you still havent asked her the basic
questions that are the scope your that
youre allowed ask. Which makes seem like you
dont really care about what you were supposed
ask her, and youre asking her all these things -MS. COTCA: Let know when youre done.
MS. WILKINSON: that are not relevant.
MS. COTCA: Are you done?
MS. WILKINSON: am.
MS. COTCA: Which completely within the
scope Judge Sullivans order. And asking
names. didnt ask anything else. asking who
she spoke with.
MS. BERMAN: Youre asking for attorney
names, who all that privileged.
MS. COTCA: Who represented Secretary
Clinton not privilege. Whats the privilege
for who represented Secretary Clinton?
MS. WILKINSON: Whats the relevance?
MS. BERMAN: Whats relevance that any those conversations are privileged?
MS. COTCA: Its discovery.
MS. BERMAN: Its not discovery writ
large. limited discovery with very defined
scope permissible discovery.
MS. WILKINSON: Let make suggestion
again. Why dont you ask her she even understood
whether there was server, she understood how
the server was set 2009 the time.
She not going answer questions about
after the State Department period what she learned
MS. COTCA: Okay. Just for the record,
make clear, did not ask anything with respect what she learned. asked who she spoke with.
And lets off the record.
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are off the record 11:05. recess was taken.)
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are back the
record 11:07. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, with respect conversations
you had about how Secretary Clintons e-mail was set
up, the Clinton e-mail account, did you ever speak
with Bryan Pagliano?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Form,
foundation, timing, and beyond the scope. you can rephrase your question
when youre talking about. Ever.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Vague.
MS. COTCA: Okay. Are you instructing her
not answer?
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 96)
MS. WILKINSON: No. Please answer. Okay. Sorry. Could you repeat your
question? Did you ever speak with Mr. Bryan Pagliano
about how Secretary Clintons e-mail was set up? Yes. When was that? would have been during the period
which was representing Secretary Clinton when
came the setup her e-mail. Okay. Who Bryan Pagliano?
MS. WILKINSON: Object. Who Bryan Pagliano? you know him? Yes. Hes employee was former
employee the State Department. And what was his role what did
for the State Department? best understanding his work the
department was was working the technology part the department and somebody who has
technology expertise.
about the setup the server.
MS. WILKINSON: She didnt give time
period.
MS. COTCA: Okay. Can you give time period when you
spoke with Mr. Pagliano about the setup the
server? know spoke with Mr. Pagliano about the
setup the server during the period which was
representing Secretary Clinton, which would have
been after two thousand which would have been
post her departure from the State Department.
least thats best recollection. that would post February 2013? Yes. Okay. Was working for the Clintons
the time that you spoke him about the about
the setup the server?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation. you know. Well, dont know how answer your
question because dont know the time period. And Okay. Did you know him prior coming
the State Department? Yes. Okay. When did you first start knowing
Mr. Pagliano? believe met Mr. Pagliano 2008.
met him during the course Secretary Clintons
campaign. Okay. When you spoke with Mr. Pagliano
about the setup the server, was Mr. Pagliano
working for either Secretary Clinton Bill Clinton the time?
MS. WILKINSON: Okay. Objection. And
going instruct the witness not answer unless
you set the timing. Because cant tell whether
its beyond the scope not. you could please either answer
ask the question with regard timing, again,
can see whether have instruct her not
answer.
MS. COTCA: believe the witness has
already testified when she spoke with Mr. Pagliano know that least have come understand
that obviously did service the setup her
e-mail during the period where was the
department. Okay. Did you think was let
rephrase that.
Was Mr. Pagliano agent the Clintons the time that you spoke him about the setup
the server?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection.
MS. BERMAN: Objection.
MS. WILKINSON: Far beyond the scope.
going instruct her not answer. Its legal
question.
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Calls for legal
conclusion, and beyond the scope permissible
discovery. What did Mr. Pagliano tell you those
conversations you had about the setup the server?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Beyond the
scope. And going instruct her not answer.
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Beyond the scope,
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 100)
and potentially calls for privilege.
MS. COTCA: Whose privilege?
MS. BERMAN: This all this this was
all during the time when she was representing
Hillary Clinton.
MS. COTCA: Are you representing
Mrs. Clinton?
MS. WILKINSON: am. And, yes, also
calls for privilege.
MS. COTCA: Okay. just wondering, the
privilege for the State Department, wondering
what privilege.
MS. BERMAN: you well know, not
representing Secretary Clinton.
MS. WILKINSON: representing
Ms. Mills, know, and she represents Hillary
Clinton her personal lawyer. And you are now
asking about work she has done for Hillary Clinton her lawyer. And beyond the scope the
permissible discovery, and instructing her
not answer. And just for the record, Ms. Mills, you
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Goes beyond
the scope. These are all not within the scope
discovery and could call for privileged information. dont actually know who actually
registered. What did Mr. Cooper tell you?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Same bases.
Beyond the scope. Could call for privileged
information.
MS. BERMAN: Objection well. Did you have any discussions with
Mr. Cooper, prior you Secretary Clinton
leaving the State Department, about the setup the
server? dont recall any discussions about the
setup the server. Did you ever discuss with him about the
server itself? dont have technological
background, confident would have had
conversations about the fact that she used
e-mail. But terms the technicalities how
are following the advice your attorneys not
answer the questions when she instructs you not
answer? have yes, am. Okay.
Okay. Did you speak with Justin Cooper
any point about the setup the server? Yes. Okay. When did you speak with Justin
Cooper about the setup the server? would have been the course the
representation Secretary Clinton that would
have spoken him about the setup her server. Who Mr. Cooper? Mr. Cooper was senior advisor
President Clinton and personal aid who managed
issues related President Clintons business
well their household. Okay. Did set register the
domain name for -MS. WILKINSON: Object. Secretary Clintons e-mail?
100 was managed, thats not something that had -or least dont have any recollection having
conversations around that until the time period
where was representing Secretary Clinton with
Mr. Cooper. sorry. What the matter that you
represented Secretary Clinton with respect
contacting Justin Cooper and Mr. Pagliano?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Beyond the
scope discovery. fact, may call for
privileged information, not going answer
that question. Did you ever represent Mr. Pagliano
Justin Cooper?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Beyond the
scope.
Dont answer. Are you following your attorneys advice
not answer? Yes. Okay. How about Oscar Flores; did you
ever speak Oscar Flores with respect the setup
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 101 104)
101 the server? may have spoken Oscar Flores.
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Sorry. may have. would have been likely
the course the representation Secretary
Clinton this matter. this and want clarify what
this matter is. this case? apologize.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Objection.
Please. Before you she answers. Its beyond the
scope.
Ms. Mills not party this matter
that the subject the discovery, this
limited deposition. And shes not going reveal
the nature her representation the Secretary.
MS. COTCA: Okay. Thats fair. But
thats not the question. With respect when you said, this
matter, can you clarify? would clarify that its not with respect the underlying litigation that you all have going
103 Did you have any discussions with anybody the State Department about the setup her
server prior you leaving the State Department? dont believe did. How about before you came and served
chief staff? dont believe did. Are you familiar with Platte River
Networks? Yes. Okay. Who are they, what it? Platte River Networks company that
provides e-mail servicing and other technological
support. Okay. Its private company. And they provided support for Secretary
Clintons e-mail? Yes. Okay. When did you first learn about
Platte River Networks serving her server? dont know when first learned about
102
on. Okay. Who Oscar Flores? Oscar Flores personal aid
Secretary Clinton and household employee
President and Secretary Clinton. And what did Oscar Flores tell you with
respect the setup the server?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Beyond the
scope. may call for privileged information.
MS. COTCA: Are you instructing her not
answer?
MS. WILKINSON: am. How about anybody the State Department;
did you speak with anybody the State Department
about the setup the server?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Could you clarify
the time frame?
MS. COTCA: Sure. Lets break down. After you left the State Department. dont recall having conversation with
anyone after she left the State Department about the
setup her server.
104
Platte River. know that Platte River obviously
transitioned her e-mail 2013. Did you have any discussions with them
prior leaving the State Department, when you were
getting ready leave the State Department? dont recall. might have, but dont
recall that. Okay. When you spoke with Platte River
Networks, did you learn about how the server was set that point?
MS. BERMAN: Object form question. dont know the answer your question.
And dont know the answer your question. How about Datto Network? not familiar with Datto Network. How about Datto, Inc.? know the enterprise that you are
speaking of. But Ive not had occasion engage
with them. Okay. And what you know about -whats the context your knowledge about Datto,
Inc.?
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 105 108)
105
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Beyond the
scope.
MS. COTCA: Are you instructing her not
answer?
MS. WILKINSON: No. understand that they have contracting
relationship with Platte River Networks. Okay. Did you learn that Datto Network
transitioned over e-mail from Secretary Clinton from
Platte River Networks?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Assumes facts not evidence.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation. dont know that the case. you know whether they had any dealings
with respect Secretary Clintons e-mail account?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation.
Scope. knowledge what they might have
had with respect Secretary Clinton came through representation Secretary Clinton. That was after you left the State
107 that Exhibit
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Vague. Can
you just ask the question. dont see Exhibit Okay. Theres actually different
address Exhibit Its
HAbedin@HillaryClinton.com.
What did Ms. Abedin use that whats
that e-mail address?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation. Thats not the e-mail address
Clintonemail.com. Okay. that e-mail account that
Ms. Abedin used while she was the State
Department -MS. WILKINSON: Objection. far you know? No, not knowledge.
MR. MYERS: Ramona, could you speak
little bit?
MS. COTCA: Oh, sure.
MR. MYERS: Thank you.
106
Department? Yes. Okay. Did you contact Datto, Inc., ever, anybody from Datto, Inc.? Not recollection. Ms. Mills, weve gone over the e-mail
account that Secretary Clinton used. What the -Huma Abedin also used e-mail account connected
the Clinton server. Right?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation and
form. With respect Ms. Abedin, she had
State Department e-mail, and she had e-mail that
was @Clinton.com. Okay. you know that e-mail account?
MS. WILKINSON: When you you mean
account you mean address? mean the address. sorry.
MS. COTCA: Thank you. would recognize saw it. think its Exhibit
108 MS. COTCA: you know whether Ms. Abedin had more
than one e-mail account the Clinton server? dont know. And you said that Ms. Abedin also had
State.gov account, e-mail address for the State
Department? Yes. Okay. you know how she was issued that
e-mail address? dont know. you know she had request
e-mail address for issued? dont know. want back when you started
the State Department. Was there directory
something similar directory, with officials who
worked within the Secretarys office and their
contact information, just for staff able
use they needed contact anybody? Not knowledge. Who was the Secretarys office?
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 109 112)
109
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Form. Just
111
establishing time period again.
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Characterizing Say when you started the State
her testimony. She said she didnt recall any
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Vague.
directory. someone was seeking reach the
Department back January 2009, who was the
Secretary somebody the Secretarys staff, they
staff, who worked within the Secretarys office?
could that number ways.
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Vague, and
relevance. Okay. the Secretarys office has
They could visit you, they could e-mail. Oh, sorry. Lets narrow down. e-mail.
existing staff when you walk the door, which executive secretary. There are two special Okay. e-mail, your e-mail was
assistants. There also executive assistant.
the State Department system, you could spell
There are others, well, that dont know
start spelling the persons last name, and would
well. Did you have assistant?
populate with the address associated with people who
had similar last names. And then you could look
called office management specialist when came
through them identify who you were looking for. Okay. And, lets say, for Secretary
in. OMS. someone who helps you when
Clinton, she did not have State.gov e-mail
you are transitioning in, who has been the
address.
department. And they provide support you you
transition in. Okay. you know Ms. Abedin had had what was termed what theyre Correct. Okay. how would they able reach
her e-mail somebody needed e-mail her?
110
assistant? dont know. And, obviously, Ms. Abedin also was the
Secretarys office. Correct? So, yes. She was the deputy chief
staff and managed operations. Correct. Okay. when you first came board,
somebody needed reach out either Ms. Abedin
you the Secretary, and they needed e-mail
something, how how did they know whose e-mail
accounts their e-mail addresses?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Vague. you could just little bit more
specific, can helpful. Okay. Well, you said there was
directory staff sheet with whos the office
and what are their extensions and what are their
e-mail addresses. the Secretarys office. Correct. Were strictly speaking with
respect the Secretarys office.
112 she had e-mailed with them they would able reach her. They could come upstairs and
seek her e-mail address from the special assistants others who were familiar with it. they could
seek engage her. practical matter, Secretary Clinton
overwhelmingly met with people. her modality
engagement was not traditionally the e-mail. She
traditionally used meetings and phone calls the
way which she engaged her day-to-day business
for the department. Okay. And, again, though, question
was, though, within the Secretarys office.
the special assistants needed e-mail something
Secretary Clinton, how did they first learn her
e-mail account, e-mail address? cant speak how they learned. But
the specialists sit right out front her
office. they ever e-mail her? dont know the answer your question.
But they frequently walked and out her office
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 113 116)
113 engage with her, provide her with materials. The Clinton e-mail address that weve
that youve identified for Secretary Clinton, she
used that for her State Department business.
Correct? Correct. Okay. And would you agree with that
Secretary Clinton used widely throughout the
department and outside the department for her work
business?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. During her tenure there?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Vague. know that she e-mailed number
people both inside the department for the work that
she did, well the government. Okay. Jacob Sullivan, who he? Jacob Sullivan was deputy chief staff
and managed policy the department, and then
subsequently became the head policy and planning. Okay. was within the Secretarys
office. Correct?
115
MS. WILKINSON: Objection.
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Theres
question.
MS. WILKINSON: Youre not here make
record. This deposition.
MS. COTCA: Correct. you have any reason dispute that
the Secretary e-mails that she returned the State
Department, Ms. Abedin sent 3,000 Mrs. Clinton
sent 3,490 e-mails Mrs. Abedin and Ms. Abedin
received 872 e-mails from Secretary Clinton?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Form,
foundation, and beyond the scope. know that the Secretary returned over
30,000 e-mails. dont know the breakdown that terms how they broke down individual. Okay. Who William Burns? Bill Burns was the Deputy Secretary
State. what time? Bill Burns was the Deputy Secretary
State during her tenure. And was promoted
114 Correct. Okay. And Secretary Clinton e-mailed with
Mr. Sullivan for government-related business? knowledge, yes. Okay. And just our count the
records that Secretary Clinton returned, counted
3,887 e-mails that were sent and 1,412 e-mails that
were received. whom? Between Mr. Sullivan and Secretary
Clinton.
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Theres
question there. Youre just making statement. Did Mrs. Clinton e-mail with Huma Abedin? Yes. For State Department business? Yes. Okay. And you know how frequently they
e-mailed? dont. Okay. Again, just for the record, our
count was
116
that position while she was Secretary. Okay. And you know, did Secretary
Clinton e-mail with Bill Burns during her time
State Department for government business? knowledge, she did. How about and just going
through few names just Okay. Thank you for that. appreciate
that preview. How about Jack Lew? knowledge, she did. And who he? was Deputy Secretary State. When? was Deputy Secretary State for most her tenure. Not all it, but for most it. How about Thomas Nides?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection for moment.
Could ask you mean, dont mind you asking
these questions, but dont understand the
relevance the permissible scope because not
party the case.
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 117 120)
117
Are these part the FOIA requests that
implicate Secretary Clinton and Ms. Abedins e-mails the processing the FOIA requests this
action?
MS. COTCA: These Secretary
Clintons use her e-mail account the State
Department. officials within the State
Department.
MS. WILKINSON: But dont see that the topic thought was the approach and
practice for processing FOIA requests and the
creation and operation Clintonemail.com, not who
she e-mailed generally.
Again, you can -MS. COTCA: Again, you want can have discussion and can actually off the record.
And can out and can ask Ms. Mills
leave the room.
MS. WILKINSON: just asking you for
clarification.
MS. COTCA: You know, youre going
have these sort questions and statements,
119
MS. WILKINSON: You know, most
depositions people try work together. Because want you able get the questions asked
and answers that youre entitled to. not trying just make
objection for the sake it. actually trying see theres basis, then would happy
have client answer the question. any deposition Ive done, normally
people are more than willing that, because the
idea get you the information youre entitled and that you need.
MS. WALSH: you guys need copy the
order? Ive got extra one.
MS. WILKINSON: your
position and Ill let her answer, maybe wont
instruct her not answer. your position
that those questions the first topic, the
creation and operation Clintonemail.com?
MS. COTCA: dont dont need dont need explain with respect the
strategy how the questions are asked with
118
Ms. Mills, you can exit the room.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MS. COTCA: Sorry.
THE WITNESS: No. No. Thats quite all
right.
MS. COTCA: Unless you withdraw the
objection.
MS. WILKINSON: No, dont.
(Ms. Mills left the conference room.)
MS. WILKINSON: trying get basis
for asking the questions. dont want have object.
MS. COTCA: This isnt with respect
processing FOIA; this respect Secretary
Clintons use her e-mail the Secretary
State.
MS. WILKINSON: But thats not what the
order says. says the creation, operation
Clintonemail.com.
MR. ORFANEDES: This not debate.
you have scope objection, say scope, and well
move on. your witness
120
respect where they fit within the scope.
believe they are within the scope Judge
Sullivans order. you have objection scope and you want instruct the witness not answer,
please so. And refrain just doing that when
the witness here.
MS. WILKINSON: just want make
record. Were trying work out. wasnt
asking you for your strategy. was asking you
whether you thought what topic was under. And
youre telling you wont answer.
MS. COTCA: already told you that was
within the first topic. wasnt within the
processing FOIAs. And thats pretty obvious,
that this scope within that.
MS. BERMAN: Would this good time
take break since weve been going for while?
MS. COTCA: Sure.
VIDEO SPECIALIST: This ends Tape
are off the record 11:34. recess was taken.)
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 121 124)
121
VIDEO SPECIALIST: Here begins Tape
the deposition Cheryl Mills. are back the
record 11:48. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, were just going through some the other officials the State Department and
Secretary Clintons practice e-mailing with them her Clintonemail.com e-mail address. Susan Rice,
who she? Well, can you more specific you mean what because shes held number
positions. tell what you mean. you know who she is? She currently serves the national
security counsel. Okay. And does she serve any capacity the State Department during your tenure there? She was during Secretary Clintons
tenure there and mine, she served the ambassador the United Nations. Okay. And you know Secretary
Clinton e-mailed with Ms. Rice?
123 Will you, please. And let know when
youre finished reviewing it.
Ms. Mills, see that youre highlighting
some portions the exhibit, which fine. But
just for the record sorry. No. Thats fine. But just for the
record, can confirm that there were
highlights when you were handed the exhibits, and
that those are your highlights.
MS. WILKINSON: Dont highlight. Sorry. apologize. was just trying
read, pay attention was reading. wont
highlight anymore. Okay. But those are your highlights for
the record, youve highlighted that exhibit? have. Thank you. Okay. And there were highlights,
highlight marks before when handed you the
exhibit. When you handed the exhibit, there were highlights it.
122 dont know.
MS. COTCA: Okay. Could you mark this exhibit, please.
(Deposition Exhibit marked for
identification and attached the transcript.)
MS. WILKINSON: you have copies?
MS. COTCA: Oh, yes. What exhibit
that?
MS. WILKINSON: Exhibit
MS. COTCA: You know what? Just mark -Can off the record for one moment.
VIDEO SPECIALIST: Were off the record
11:49. recess was taken.)
VIDEO SPECIALIST: are back the
record 11:51. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, youve been handed, believe
its Exhibit Yes. Yes. Did you have chance review it? have not. will review.
124 Thank you. And apologize for distorting the record,
and will not that again. thank you.
MS. WILKINSON: Ms. Cotca, think what
got are two the same pages the last two pages.
Could wrong.
MS. COTCA: Theyre not. Theyre close,
but dont think theyre identical.
MS. WILKINSON: Okay.
MS. COTCA: Are they identical your
copy?
MS. WILKINSON: Its hard for tell.
MS. COTCA: Okay.
MS. WILKINSON: Oh, see. MS. COTCA: Ms. Mills, have you reviewed Yes, have. reviewed the exhibit? Thank you. Sure. And fair description
just say there are number e-mails this
exhibit, with Secretary Clinton?
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 125 128)
125 Yes. Okay. just want through some them with respect who she communicated with
when she was the State Department. Thank you. Sure. Weve talked about, weve asked
about Susan Rice. the first page. the first page the exhibit. that Susan Rice who served the
ambassador? Yes. that e-mail? Okay.
And thats e-mail Secretary Clinton.
Right? This e-mail Secretary Clinton.
This e-mail from Secretary Clinton Susan
Rice her State.gov account, and then Susan
responding. Okay. And looks like the e-mail from
Secretary Clinton initially the beginning
states, Susan, please feel free use, paren, open
127 dont know. Okay. And then the next page, can you
just describe what that page -MS. BERMAN: Objection the exhibit?
MS. BERMAN: the document speaks for
itself. This e-mail exchange with Secretary
Clinton and myself part it. Okay. And the original e-mail, you
see that where Amanda Anderson sent you e-mail well Lauren Jilloty? Yes, see that. Okay. Asking send her e-mail address,
the subject matter being the Secretarys e-mail. you see that? see that. Okay. that request for Secretary
e-mails for Secretary Clintons e-mail account sent, the e-mail address sent Emanuel
Rahm?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. The document
126
paren, whatever current address may be. dont
know thats exclamation mark not, close
parenthesis. you see that? see that. Okay. Why did Secretary Clinton e-mail
Susan Rice?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation. dont know why she chose that -on that that occasion e-mail her. Okay. Well, guess question let
rephrase the question. Okay. Did Susan Rice request make request
for Secretary Clintons e-mail account?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Foundation.
The document speaks for itself. dont know. Okay. you know Secretary Clinton
requested directly Secretary sorry,
Susan Rice made request Secretary Clinton for
the Secretarys e-mail address?
128
speaks for itself. The e-mail says the Secretary and Rahm are
speaking, and she has just asked him e-mail her.
Can you send her address, please. Okay. Whose address that?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. you know. you can deduct from the
document. the document says the Secretary and
Rahm are speaking. She just asked him e-mail her
address. Can you send her e-mail address,
please.
And then sorry. No, no, no. sorry. ahead. And then sent e-mail the Secretary
saying, you want him have your e-mail.
And the Secretary then responded me,
saying, yes.
And then responded saying, Will give
him directly.
And this exchange happening our
State e-mail accounts.
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 129 132)
129 Okay. Except for Secretary Clintons
e-mail. Correct? Correct. Secretary Clintons e-mail
Clintonemail.com. was her practice e-mail for
State matters individuals government accounts. Okay. Did you provide Emanuel Rahm the
Secretarys e-mail address? dont know. would hope did, because said would. But dont have recollection
it. And the next page the document?
MS. WILKINSON: Can just maybe
you want clear that these are multiple
e-mails. Youve just compiled them.
MS. COTCA: Yes. think that was said
the beginning.
MS. WILKINSON: Okay. Sorry. Thats Page Exhibit think. Correct. Exhibit Page which
new e-mail. Okay. John Kerry, the current
Secretary State. Correct?
131 the Department Energy. Correct. Okay. Did Secretary Clinton and Secretary
Chu e-mail? can only look this e-mail and
and say the answer that question would
appear yes. But didnt have contemporaneous
knowledge her e-mails with How did the Secretary Steven Chu. Okay. How did Secretary Chu learn
Mrs. Clintons e-mail address? have idea. The next two pages appear two pages e-mail string the exhibit. you see that? do. Okay. And these e-mails appear
string. youll look the second page the
document, your original e-mail. There
statement from you, You can lose the
cmills@HillaryClinton.com. Correct.
130 assuming this John Kerry who was
the who currently Secretary State. dont
personally know John Kerrys original e-mail
address, but would appear from the face
the document that thats what its referencing. But deducing that, opposed knowing his e-mail
account. Okay. Did you know mean, did
Secretary Clinton e-mail with John Kerry during her
time the State Department? She may very well she very may well
have. dont dont know that had
contemporaneous understanding that. And thats the date the document
March 18, 2012. Correct? The yes. Both e-mails are March 18,
2012. Okay. Sunday. Okay. The next page the document.
Thats e-mail that appears e-mail,
correct, Secretary Clinton, from Steven Chu?
132 you see that statement? Yes. Okay. And thats e-mail from you
whom? Dennis McDonough. Who was that? Dennis McDonough was the deputy national
security counsel. Okay. that time? Back January sorry. always using the time
period this date. should say January -with July 2009, with respect the e-mail
that youre asking about, and you said who was
he. Yes. was serving the capacity the
deputy national security counsel, the best
memory. Okay. What that e-mail account thats
referenced there for for you? Which one?
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 133 136)
133 The CMills@HillaryClinton.com. The CMills@HillaryClinton.com was
campaign e-mail address. Okay. When did you begin using that
e-mail address?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. dont know.
MS. BERMAN: Beyond scope admissible
discovery.
MS. WILKINSON: Same objection. Let lay some foundation. Did you use
that e-mail account when you were Secretary
the State Department? No. When did you discontinue did you
discontinue using that e-mail account? Yes. Okay. When was that? would have discontinued probably using
that e-mail account sometime January 2009. Okay. still active?
MS. BERMAN: Objection. Beyond the scope
135
House for period time during Secretary
Clintons tenure and also not the White House
during period time.
And just dont have enough facility mind know which period this was in, even
looking the dates. just dont remember
came into the government first with the President
and then left came later and then
because thats the best recollection. But
did serve government for period time. Okay. What capacity did serve when was the White House? dont know what his dont know what
his title was what his capacity was. know that served someone who obviously was advising the
White House, but couldnt tell you more than that. When you say advising the White House,
advising the President? Yes. Okay. How about John Podesta; did
Secretary Clinton e-mail with John Podesta? Are you another e-mail now?
134 discovery.
MS. WILKINSON: Same objection. Was still active July 2009? actually dont know. didnt have
strategy for accessing it, dont know the
answer that question. might have continued
have life, but didnt access that e-mail. Okay. Did send you e-mail the
HillaryClinton.com e-mail account before you
responded July 2009? just dont know. Okay. Next page, please, the exhibit.
Did Secretary Clinton e-mail with David
Axelrod? dont know how frequently she e-mailed
with David Axelrod. know, based this e-mail
traffic, that provided her with his address. Okay. Who was David Axelrod that time? dont know what role David Axelrod was
serving that time. Was the White House? David Axelrod was both the White
136 No. just asking you. dont know that could have
contemporaneously told you the answer that
question. see e-mail here. Youre the next page. Okay. Yes. And she e-mailed with John Podesta,
well? This e-mail traffic reflects e-mail
with John Podesta, correct. Okay. Who was John Podesta the time? June 2009 believe John Podesta
would have been the president the Center for
American Progress. And okay. Who Nora Toiv? Nora Toiv was assistant office. Okay. When did she serve assistant? She started sometime after was there,
probably not until six months after was
there. And how long did she stay that role? She was there for most tenure, but
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Videotaped Deposition Cheryl Mills, Esq.
Conducted May 27, 2016 (Pages 137 140)
137
she left prior departure. Okay. And when you say she served
assistant, was that your assistant was she
your assistant? She was assistant

Full Text Political Transcripts May 30, 2016: President Barack Obama Remarks on Memorial Day 2016 at Arlington Cemetery

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President on Memorial Day, 2016

Source: WH, 5-30-16

Arlington Cemetery
Arlington, Virginia

11:31 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.

AUDIENCE:  Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT:  Secretary Carter, General Dunford, Mr. Hallinan, Major General Becker, members of our Armed Forces, veterans, and most of all, our Gold Star families:  I’m honored to be with you once again as we pay our respects, as Americans, to those who gave their lives for us all.

Here, at Arlington, the deafening sounds of combat have given way to the silence of these sacred hills.  The chaos and confusion of battle has yielded to perfect, precise rows of peace.  The Americans who rest here, and their families — the best of us, those from whom we asked everything — ask of us today only one thing in return:  that we remember them.

If you look closely at the white markers that grace these hills, one thing you’ll notice is that so many of the years — dates of birth and dates of death — are so close together.  They belong to young Americans; those who never lived to be honored as veterans for their service — men who battled their own brothers in Civil War, those who fought as a band of brothers an ocean away, men and women who redefine heroism for a new generation.  There are generals buried beside privates they led.  Americans known as “Dad” or “Mom.”  Some only known to God.  As Mr. Hallinan, a Marine who then watched over these grounds has said, “everyone here is someone’s hero.”

Those who rest beneath this silence — not only here at Arlington, but at veterans’ cemeteries across our country and around the world, and all who still remain missing — they didn’t speak the loudest about their patriotism.  They let their actions do that.  Whether they stood up in times of war, signed up in times of peace, or were called up by a draft board, they embodied the best of America.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than leading our men and women in uniform; I have no more solemn obligation sending them into harm’s way.  I think about this every time I approve an operation as President.  Every time, as a husband and father, that I sign a condolence letter.  Every time Michelle and I sit at the bedside of a wounded warrior or grieve and hug members of a Gold Star Family.

Less than one percent of our nation wears the uniform, and so few Americans sees this patriotism with their own eyes or knows someone who exemplifies it.  But every day, there are American families who pray for the sound of a familiar voice when the phone rings.  For the sound of a loved one’s letter or email arriving.  More than one million times in our history, it didn’t come.  And instead, a car pulled up to the house.  And there was a knock on the front door.  And the sounds of Taps floated through a cemetery’s trees.

For us, the living — those of us who still have a voice — it is our responsibility, our obligation, to fill that silence with our love and our support and our gratitude — and not just with our words, but with our actions.  For truly remembering, and truly honoring these fallen Americans means being there for their parents, and their spouses, and their children — like the boys and girls here today, wearing red shirts and bearing photos of the fallen.  Your moms and dads would be so proud of you.  And we are, too.

Truly remembering means that after our fallen heroes gave everything to get their battle buddies home, we have to make sure our veterans get everything that they have earned, from good health care to a good job.  And we have to do better; our work is never done.  We have to be there not only when we need them, but when they need us.

Thirty days before he would be laid to rest a short walk from here, President Kennedy told us that a nation reveals itself not only by the people it produces, but by those it remembers.  Not everyone will serve.  Not everyone will visit this national sanctuary.  But we remember our best in every corner of our country from which they came.  We remember them by teaching our children at schools with fallen heroes’ names, like Dorie Miller Elementary in San Antonio.  Or being good neighbors in communities named after great generals, like McPherson, Kansas.  Or when we walk down 1st Sgt. Bobby Mendez Way in Brooklyn, or drive across the Hoover Dam on a bridge that bears Pat Tillman’s name.

We reveal ourselves in our words and deeds, but also by the simple act of listening.  My fellow Americans, today and every day, listen to the stories these Gold Star families and veterans have to tell.  Ask about who he or she was, why they volunteered. Hear from those who loved them about what their smile looked like, and their laugh sounded like, and the dreams they had for their lives.

Since we gathered here one year ago, more than 20 brave Americans have given their lives for the security of our people in Afghanistan.  We pray for them all, and for their families.  In Iraq, in our fight against ISIL, three Americans have given their lives in combat on our behalf.  And today, I ask you to remember their stories, as well.

Charles Keating, IV — Charlie, or Chuck, or “C-4” — was born into a family of veterans, All-American athletes and Olympians — even a Gold Medalist.  So, naturally, Charlie, and the love of his life, Brooke, celebrated their anniversary on the Fourth of July.  She called him the “huge goofball” everybody wanted to be friends with — the adventurer who surfed and spearfished and planned to sail around the world.

When the Twin Towers fell, he was in high school, and he decided to enlist — joined the SEALs because, he told his friends, it was the hardest thing to do.  He deployed to Afghanistan and three times to Iraq, earning a Bronze Star for valor.  Earlier this month, while assisting local forces in Iraq who had come under attack, he gave his life.

A few days later, one of his platoon mates sent Charlie’s parents a letter from Iraq.  “Please tell everyone Chuck saved a lot of lives today,” it said.  He left us, “with that big signature smile on his handsome face, as always.  Chuck was full of aloha, but was also a ferocious warrior.”  Today, we honor Chief Special Warfare Officer Charles Keating IV.

Louis Cardin was the sixth of seven children, a Californian with an infectious wit who always had a joke at the ready to help someone get through a tough time.  When his siblings ran around the house as kids, his mom, Pat, would yell after them:  “Watch that baby’s safety margin!”  Today, she realizes that what she was really doing was raising a Marine.  As a teenager, he proudly signed up.  Louie graduated high school on a Friday.  Three days later, on Monday morning, the Marines came to pick him up.  That was 10 years ago.  One morning this March, a Marine knocked on his mother’s door again.  On his fifth tour, at a fire base in Iraq, Louie gave his life while protecting the Marines under his command.

Putting others before himself was what Louie did best.  He chose to live in the barracks with his buddies even when he could have taken a house off base.  He volunteered to babysit for friends who needed a date night.  He’d just earned a promotion to mentor his fellow Marines.  When they brought Louie home, hundreds of strangers lined freeway overpasses and the streets of Southern California to salute him.  And today, we salute Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin.  (Applause.)

Joshua Wheeler’s sister says he was “exactly what was right about this world.  He came from nothing and he really made something of himself.”  As a kid, Josh was the one who made sure his brother and four half-sisters were dressed and fed and off to school.  When there wasn’t food in the cupboard, he grabbed his hunting rifle and came back with a deer for dinner.  When his country needed him, he enlisted in the Army at age 19.

He deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan — 14 times; earned 11 Bronze Stars, four for valor.  Last October, as ISIL terrorists prepared to execute 70 hostages, Josh and his fellow Special Ops went in and rescued them.  Every single one walked free.  “We were already dead,” one of the hostages said, “then God sent us a force from the sky.”  That force was the U.S. Army, including Josh Wheeler.

Josh was the doting dad who wrote notes to his kids in the stacks of books he read.  Flying home last summer to be with his wife, Ashley, who was about to give birth, he scribbled one note in the novel he was reading, just to tell his unborn son he was on his way.  Ashley Wheeler is with us here today, holding their 10-month-old son, David.  (Applause.)  Ashley says Josh’s memory makes her think about how can she be a better citizen.  And she hopes it’s what other people think about, too.  Today, this husband and father rests here, in Arlington, in Section 60.  And as Americans, we resolve to be better — better people, better citizens, because of Master Sergeant Joshua Wheeler.

A nation reveals itself not only by the people it produces, but by those it remembers.  We do so not just by hoisting a flag, but by lifting up our neighbors.  Not just by pausing in silence, but by practicing in our own lives the ideals of opportunity and liberty and equality that they fought for.  We can serve others, and contribute to the causes they believed in, and above all, keep their stories alive so that one day, when he grows up and thinks of his dad, an American like David Wheeler can tell them, as well, the stories of the lives that others gave for all of us.

We are so proud of them.  We are so grateful for their sacrifice.  We are so thankful to those families of the fallen.  May God bless our fallen and their families.  May He bless all of you.  And may He forever bless these United States of America.  (Applause.)

END                 11:45 A.M. EDT

Full Text Political Transcripts May 27, 2016: President Barack Obama’s speech at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Text of Obama’s speech at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park

Source: WaPo, 5-27-16

Seventy one years ago, on a bright, cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. The flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself

Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.

Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.

It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors, having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood, used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind.

On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated, and at each juncture, innocents have suffered — a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.

The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth.

And yet, the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes. An old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.

In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die. Men, women, children — no different than us — shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death. There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war, memorials that tell stories courage and heroism, graves and empty camps, the echo of unspeakable depravity.

Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction: how the very spark that marks us a species — our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our tool-making, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.

How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.

Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness. And yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill.

Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.

Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds, to cure disease and understand the cosmos. But those same discoveries can be turned into ever more efficient killing machines.

The wars of the modern age teach us this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.

That is why we come to this place.

We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war, and the wars that came before, and the wars that would follow.

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering, but we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.

Someday the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change. And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan forged not only an alliance but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war.

The nations of Europe built a union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed peoples and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that worked to avoid war and aspired to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.

Still, every act of aggression between nations, every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world, shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil. So nations and the alliances that we form must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly material from fanatics.

And yet, that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale.

We must change our mindset about war itself to prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun. To see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition. To define our nations not by our capacity to destroy, but by what we build. And perhaps above all, we must reimagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.

For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We are not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story — one that describes a common humanity, one that makes war less likely and cruelty less easily accepted.

We see these stories in the hibakusha: the woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.

My own nation’s story began with simple words. All men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal has never been easy, even within our own borders, even among our own citizens.

But staying true to that story is worth the effort. It is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that extends across continents and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person. The insistence that every life is precious. The radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family.

 

That is the story that we all must tell. That is why we come to Hiroshima: so that we might think of people we love. The first smile from our children in the morning. The gentle touch from a spouse over the kitchen table. The comforting embrace of a parent. We can think of those things and know that those same precious moments took place here 71 years ago.

Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life and not eliminating it. When the choices made by nations — when the choices made by leaders — reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.

The world was forever changed here. But today, the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child.

That is a future we can choose: a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare, but as the start of our own moral awakening.

 

 

Full Text Political Transcripts May 24, 2016: President Barack Obama’s Speech in Address to the People of Vietnam

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the People of Vietnam

Source: WH, 5-24-16

National Convention Center
Hanoi, Vietnam

12:11 P.M. ICT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Xin chào!  (Applause.)  Xin chào Vietnam!  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you so much.  To the government and the people of Vietnam, thank you for this very warm welcome and the hospitality that you have shown to me on this visit.  And thank all of you for being here today.  (Applause.)   We have Vietnamese from across this great country, including so many young people who represent the dynamism, and the talent and the hope of Vietnam.

On this visit, my heart has been touched by the kindness for which the Vietnamese people are known.  In the many people who have been lining the streets, smiling and waving, I feel the friendship between our peoples.  Last night, I visited the Old Quarter here in Hanoi and enjoyed some outstanding Vietnamese food.  I tried some Bún Chả.  (Applause.)  Drank some bia Ha Noi.  But I have to say, the busy streets of this city, I’ve never seen so many motorbikes in my life.  (Laughter.)  So I haven’t had to try to cross the street so far, but maybe when I come back and visit you can tell me how.

I am not the first American President to come to Vietnam in recent times.  But I am the first, like so many of you, who came of age after the war between our countries.  When the last U.S. forces left Vietnam, I was just 13 years old.  So my first exposure to Vietnam and the Vietnamese people came when I was growing up in Hawaii, with its proud Vietnamese American community there.

At the same time, many people in this country are much younger than me.  Like my two daughters, many of you have lived your whole lives knowing only one thing — and that is peace and normalized relations between Vietnam and the United States.  So I come here mindful of the past, mindful of our difficult history, but focused on the future — the prosperity, security and human dignity that we can advance together.

I also come here with a deep respect for Vietnam’s ancient heritage.  For millennia, farmers have tended these lands — a history revealed in the Dong Son drums.  At this bend in the river, Hanoi has endured for more than a thousand years.  The world came to treasure Vietnamese silks and paintings, and a great Temple of Literature stands as a testament to your pursuit of knowledge.  And yet, over the centuries, your fate was too often dictated by others.  Your beloved land was not always your own.  But like bamboo, the unbroken spirit of the Vietnamese people was captured by Ly Thuong Kiet — “the Southern emperor rules the Southern land.  Our destiny is writ in Heaven’s Book.”

Today, we also remember the longer history between Vietnamese and Americans that is too often overlooked.  More than 200 years ago, when our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, sought rice for his farm, he looked to the rice of Vietnam, which he said had “the reputation of being whitest to the eye, best flavored to the taste, and most productive.”  Soon after, American trade ships arrived in your ports seeking commerce.

 

During the Second World War, Americans came here to support your struggle against occupation.  When American pilots were shot down, the Vietnamese people helped rescue them.  And on the day that Vietnam declared its independence, crowds took to the streets of this city, and Ho Chi Minh evoked the American Declaration of Independence.  He said, “All people are created equal.  The Creator has endowed them with inviolable rights.  Among these rights are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness.”

In another time, the profession of these shared ideals and our common story of throwing off colonialism might have brought us closer together sooner.  But instead, Cold War rivalries and fears of communism pulled us into conflict.  Like other conflicts throughout human history, we learned once more a bitter truth — that war, no matter what our intentions may be, brings suffering and tragedy.

At your war memorial not far from here, and with family altars across this country, you remember some 3 million Vietnamese, soldiers and civilians, on both sides, who lost their lives.  At our memorial wall in Washington, we can touch the names of 58,315 Americans who gave their lives in the conflict.  In both our countries, our veterans and families of the fallen still ache for the friends and loved ones that they lost.  Just as we learned in America that, even if we disagree about a war, we must always honor those who serve and welcome them home with the respect they deserve, we can join together today, Vietnamese and Americans, and acknowledge the pain and the sacrifices on both sides.

More recently, over the past two decades, Vietnam has achieved enormous progress, and today the world can see the strides that you have made.  With economic reforms and trade agreements, including with the United States, you have entered the global economy, selling your goods around the world.  More foreign investment is coming in.  And with one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia, Vietnam has moved up to become a middle-income nation.

We see Vietnam’s progress in the skyscrapers and high-rises of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, and new shopping malls and urban centers.  We see it in the satellites Vietnam puts into space and a new generation that is online, launching startups and running new ventures.  We see it in the tens of millions of Vietnamese connected on Facebook and Instagram.  And you’re not just posting selfies — although I hear you do that a lot — (laughter) — and so far, there have been a number of people who have already asked me for selfies.  You’re also raising your voices for causes that you care about, like saving the old trees of Hanoi.

So all this dynamism has delivered real progress in people’s lives.  Here in Vietnam, you’ve dramatically reduced extreme poverty, you’ve boosted family incomes and lifted millions into a fast-growing middle class.  Hunger, disease, child and maternal mortality are all down.  The number of people with clean drinking water and electricity, the number of boys and girls in school, and your literacy rate — these are all up.  This is extraordinary progress.  This is what you have been able to achieve in a very short time.

And as Vietnam has transformed, so has the relationship between our two nations.  We learned a lesson taught by the venerable Thich Nhat Hanh, who said, “In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change.”  In this way, the very war that had divided us became a source for healing.  It allowed us to account for the missing and finally bring them home.  It allowed us to help remove landmines and unexploded bombs, because no child should ever lose a leg just playing outside.  Even as we continue to assist Vietnamese with disabilities, including children, we are also continuing to help remove Agent Orange — dioxin — so that Vietnam can reclaim more of your land.  We’re proud of our work together in Danang, and we look forward to supporting your efforts in Bien Hoa.

Let’s also not forget that the reconciliation between our countries was led by our veterans who once faced each other in battle.  Think of Senator John McCain, who was held for years here as a prisoner of war, meeting General Giap, who said our countries should not be enemies but friends.  Think of all the veterans, Vietnamese and American, who have helped us heal and build new ties.  Few have done more in this regard over the years than former Navy lieutenant, and now Secretary of State of the United States, John Kerry, who is here today.  And on behalf of all of us, John, we thank you for your extraordinary effort.  (Applause.)

Because our veterans showed us the way, because warriors had the courage to pursue peace, our peoples are now closer than ever before.  Our trade has surged.  Our students and scholars learn together.  We welcome more Vietnamese students to America than from any other country in Southeast Asia.  And every year, you welcome more and more American tourists, including young Americans with their backpacks, to Hanoi’s 36 Streets and the shops of Hoi An, and the imperial city of Hue.  As Vietnamese and Americans, we can all relate to those words written by Van Cao — “From now, we know each other’s homeland; from now, we learn to feel for each other.”

 

As President, I’ve built on this progress.  With our new Comprehensive Partnership, our governments are working more closely together than ever before.  And with this visit, we’ve put our relationship on a firmer footing for decades to come.  In a sense, the long story between our two nations that began with Thomas Jefferson more than two centuries ago has now come full circle.  It has taken many years and required great effort.  But now we can say something that was once unimaginable:  Today, Vietnam and the United States are partners.

And I believe our experience holds lessons for the world.  At a time when many conflicts seem intractable, seem as if they will never end, we have shown that hearts can change and that a different future is possible when we refuse to be prisoners of the past.  We’ve shown how peace can be better than war.  We’ve shown that progress and human dignity is best advanced by cooperation and not conflict.  That’s what Vietnam and America can show the world.

Now, America’s new partnership with Vietnam is rooted in some basic truths.  Vietnam is an independent, sovereign nation, and no other nation can impose its will on you or decide your destiny.  (Applause.)  Now, the United States has an interest here.  We have an interest in Vietnam’s success.  But our Comprehensive Partnership is still in its early stages.  And with the time I have left, I want to share with you the vision that I believe can guide us in the decades ahead.

First, let’s work together to create real opportunity and prosperity for all of our people.  We know the ingredients for economic success in the 21st century.  In our global economy, investment and trade flows to wherever there is rule of law, because no one wants to pay a bribe to start a business.  Nobody wants to sell their goods or go to school if they don’t know how they’re going to be treated.  In knowledge-based economies, jobs go to where people have the freedom to think for themselves and exchange ideas and to innovate.  And real economic partnerships are not just about one country extracting resources from another.  They’re about investing in our greatest resource, which is our people and their skills and their talents, whether you live in a big city or a rural village.  And that’s the kind of partnership that America offers.

As I announced yesterday, the Peace Corps will come to Vietnam for the first time, with a focus on teaching English.  A generation after young Americans came here to fight, a new generation of Americans are going to come here to teach and build and deepen the friendship between us.  (Applause.)  Some of America’s leading technology companies and academic institutions are joining Vietnamese universities to strengthen training in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine.  Because even as we keep welcoming more Vietnamese students to America, we also believe that young people deserve a world-class education right here in Vietnam.

It’s one of the reasons why we’re very excited that this fall, the new Fulbright University Vietnam will open in Ho Chi Minh City — this nation’s first independent, non-profit university — where there will be full academic freedom and scholarships for those in need.  (Applause.)  Students, scholars, researchers will focus on public policy and management and business; on engineering and computer science; and liberal arts — everything from the poetry of Nguyen Du, to the philosophy of Phan Chu Trinh, to the mathematics of Ngo Bao Chau.

And we’re going to keep partnering with young people and entrepreneurs, because we believe that if you can just access the skills and technology and capital you need, then nothing can stand in your way — and that includes, by the way, the talented women of Vietnam.  (Applause.)  We think gender equality is an important principle.  From the Trung Sisters to today, strong, confident women have always helped move Vietnam forward.  The evidence is clear — I say this wherever I go around the world — families, communities and countries are more prosperous when girls and women have an equal opportunity to succeed in school and at work and in government.  That’s true everywhere, and it’s true here in Vietnam.  (Applause.)

We’ll keep working to unleash the full potential of your economy with the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Here in Vietnam, TPP will let you sell more of your products to the world and it will attract new investment.  TPP will require reforms to protect workers and rule of law and intellectual property.  And the United States is ready to assist Vietnam as it works to fully implement its commitments.  I want you to know that, as President of the United States, I strongly support TPP because you’ll also be able to buy more of our goods, “Made in America.”

Moreover, I support TPP because of its important strategic benefits.  Vietnam will be less dependent on any one trading partner and enjoy broader ties with more partners, including the United States.  (Applause.)  And TPP will reinforce regional cooperation.  It will help address economic inequality and will advance human rights, with higher wages and safer working conditions.  For the first time here in Vietnam, the right to form independent labor unions and prohibitions against forced labor and child labor.  And it has the strongest environmental protections and the strongest anti-corruption standards of any trade agreement in history.  That’s the future TPP offers for all of us, because all of us — the United States, Vietnam, and the other signatories — will have to abide by these rules that we have shaped together.  That’s the future that is available to all of us.  So we now have to get it done — for the sake of our economic prosperity and our national security.

This brings me to the second area where we can work together, and that is ensuring our mutual security.  With this visit, we have agreed to elevate our security cooperation and build more trust between our men and women in uniform.  We’ll continue to offer training and equipment to your Coast Guard to enhance Vietnam’s maritime capabilities.  We will partner to deliver humanitarian aid in times of disaster.  With the announcement I made yesterday to fully lift the ban on defense sales, Vietnam will have greater access to the military equipment you need to ensure your security.  And the United States is demonstrating our commitment to fully normalize our relationship with Vietnam.  (Applause.)

More broadly, the 20th century has taught all of us — including the United States and Vietnam — that the international order upon which our mutual security depends is rooted in certain rules and norms.  Nations are sovereign, and no matter how large or small a nation may be, its sovereignty should be respected, and it territory should not be violated.  Big nations should not bully smaller ones.  Disputes should be resolved peacefully.  (Applause.)  And regional institutions, like ASEAN and the East Asia Summit, should continue to be strengthened.  That’s what I believe.  That’s what the United States believes.  That’s the kind of partnership America offers this region.  I look forward to advancing this spirit of respect and reconciliation later this year when I become the first U.S. President to visit Laos.

In the South China Sea, the United States is not a claimant in current disputes.  But we will stand with partners in upholding core principles, like freedom of navigation and overflight, and lawful commerce that is not impeded, and the peaceful resolution of disputes, through legal means, in accordance with international law.  As we go forward, the United States will continue to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, and we will support the right of all countries to do the same.  (Applause.)

Even as we cooperate more closely in the areas I’ve described, our partnership includes a third element — addressing areas where our governments disagree, including on human rights.  I say this not to single out Vietnam.  No nation is perfect.  Two centuries on, the United States is still striving to live up to our founding ideals.  We still deal with our shortcomings — too much money in our politics, and rising economic inequality, racial bias in our criminal justice system, women still not being paid as much as men doing the same job.  We still have problems.  And we’re not immune from criticism, I promise you.  I hear it every day.  But that scrutiny, that open debate, confronting our imperfections, and allowing everybody to have their say has helped us grow stronger and more prosperous and more just.

I’ve said this before — the United States does not seek to impose our form of government on Vietnam.  The rights I speak of I believe are not American values; I think they’re universal values written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  They’re written into the Vietnamese constitution, which states that “citizens have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and have the right of access to information, the right to assembly, the right to association, and the right to demonstrate.”  That’s in the Vietnamese constitution.  (Applause.)  So really, this is an issue about all of us, each country, trying to consistently apply these principles, making sure that we — those of us in government — are being true to these ideals.

In recent years, Vietnam has made some progress.  Vietnam has committed to bringing its laws in line with its new constitution and with international norms.  Under recently passed laws, the government will disclose more of its budget and the public will have the right to access more information.  And, as I said, Vietnam has committed to economic and labor reforms under the TPP.   So these are all positive steps.  And ultimately, the future of Vietnam will be decided by the people of Vietnam.  Every country will chart its own path, and our two nations have different traditions and different political systems and different cultures.  But as a friend of Vietnam, allow me to share my view — why I believe nations are more successful when universal rights are upheld.

When there is freedom of expression and freedom of speech, and when people can share ideas and access the Internet and social media without restriction, that fuels the innovation economies need to thrive.  That’s where new ideas happen.  That’s how a Facebook starts.  That’s how some of our greatest companies began — because somebody had a new idea.  It was different.  And they were able to share it.  When there’s freedom of the press — when journalists and bloggers are able to shine a light on injustice or abuse — that holds officials accountable and builds public confidence that the system works.  When candidates can run for office and campaign freely, and voters can choose their own leaders in free and fair elections, it makes the countries more stable, because citizens know that their voices count and that peaceful change is possible.  And it brings new people into the system.

When there is freedom of religion, it not only allows people to fully express the love and compassion that are at the heart of all great religions, but it allows faith groups to serve their communities through schools and hospitals, and care for the poor and the vulnerable.  And when there is freedom of assembly — when citizens are free to organize in civil society — then countries can better address challenges that government sometimes cannot solve by itself.  So it is my view that upholding these rights is not a threat to stability, but actually reinforces stability and is the foundation of progress.

After all, it was a yearning for these rights that inspired people around the world, including Vietnam, to throw off colonialism.  And I believe that upholding these rights is the fullest expression of the independence that so many cherish, including here, in a nation that proclaims itself to be “of the People, by the People and for the People.”

Vietnam will do it differently than the United States does.  And each of us will do it differently from many other countries around the world.  But there are these basic principles that I think we all have to try to work on and improve.  And I said this as somebody who’s about to leave office, so I have the benefit of almost eight years now of reflecting on how our system has worked and interacting with countries around the world who are constantly trying to improve their systems, as well.

Finally, our partnership I think can meet global challenges that no nation can solve by itself.  If we’re going to ensure the health of our people and the beauty of our planet, then development has to be sustainable.  Natural wonders like Ha Long Bay and Son Doong Cave have to be preserved for our children and our grandchildren.  Rising seas threaten the coasts and waterways on which so many Vietnamese depend.  And so as partners in the fight against climate change, we need to fulfill the commitments we made in Paris, we need to help farmers and villages and people who depend on fishing to adapt and to bring more clean energy to places like the Mekong Delta — a rice bowl of the world that we need to feed future generations.

And we can save lives beyond our borders.  By helping other countries strengthen, for example, their health systems, we can prevent outbreaks of disease from becoming epidemics that threaten all of us.  And as Vietnam deepens its commitment to U.N. peacekeeping, the United States is proud to help train your peacekeepers.  And what a truly remarkable thing that is — our two nations that once fought each other now standing together and helping others achieve peace, as well.  So in addition to our bilateral relationship, our partnership also allows us to help shape the international environment in ways that are positive.

Now, fully realizing the vision that I’ve described today is not going to happen overnight, and it is not inevitable.  There may be stumbles and setbacks along the way.  There are going to be times where there are misunderstandings.  It will take sustained effort and true dialogue where both sides continue to change.  But considering all the history and hurdles that we’ve already overcome, I stand before you today very optimistic about our future together.  (Applause.)  And my confidence is rooted, as always, in the friendship and shared aspirations of our peoples.

I think of all the Americans and Vietnamese who have crossed a wide ocean — some reuniting with families for the first time in decades — and who, like Trinh Cong Son said in his song, have joined hands, and opening their hearts and seeing our common humanity in each other.  (Applause.)

I think of all the Vietnamese Americans who have succeeded in every walk of life — doctors, journalists, judges, public servants.  One of them, who was born here, wrote me a letter and said, by “God’s grace, I have been able to live the American Dream…I’m very proud to be an American but also very proud to be Vietnamese.”  (Applause.)  And today he’s here, back in the country of his birth, because, he said, his “personal passion” is “improving the life of every Vietnamese person.”

I think of a new generation of Vietnamese — so many of you, so many of the young people who are here — who are ready to make your mark on the world.  And I want to say to all the young people listening:  Your talent, your drive, your dreams — in those things, Vietnam has everything it needs to thrive.  Your destiny is in your hands.  This is your moment.  And as you pursue the future that you want, I want you to know that the United States of America will be right there with you as your partner and as your friend.  (Applause.)

And many years from now, when even more Vietnamese and Americans are studying with each other; innovating and doing business with each other; standing up for our security, and promoting human rights and protecting our planet with each other — I hope you think back to this moment and draw hope from the vision that I’ve offered today.  Or, if I can say it another way — in words that you know well from the Tale of Kieu — “Please take from me this token of trust, so we can embark upon our 100-year journey together.”  (Applause.)

Cam on cac ban.  Thank you very much.  Thank you, Vietnam.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

END
12:43 P.M. ICT

Full Text Political Transcripts May 16, 2016: President barack Obama’s Remarks at Presentation of the Medal of Valor

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President at Presentation of the Medal of Valor

Source: WH, 5-16-16

East Room

11:30 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  And good morning.  Welcome to the White House.  Thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for your words and your leadership.  We’ve got a couple members of Congress here — Frederica Wilson and Chris Collins we want to acknowledge.  And I also want to recognize Director Comey, members of the Fraternal Order of Police, and all the outstanding law enforcement officials who are here from around the country.  I’m proud to stand with you as we celebrate Police Week.  And most of all, I’m proud to be with the heroes on the front row, and with the families who have supported them — and the family of one who made the ultimate sacrifice.

It’s been said that perfect valor is doing without witnesses what you would do if the whole world were watching.  The public safety officers we recognize today with the Medal of Valor found courage not in search of recognition, they did it instinctively. This is an award that none of them sought.  And if they could go back in time, I suspect they’d prefer none of this had happened.

As one of today’s honorees said about his actions, “I could have very well gone my whole career and not dealt with this situation and been very happy with that.”  If they had their way, none of them would have to be here, and so we’re grateful that they are and our entire nation expresses its profound gratitude. More important, we’re so grateful that they were there — some on duty, others off duty, all rising above and beyond the call of duty.  All saving the lives of people they didn’t know.

That distinction — that these 13 officers of valor saved the lives of strangers — is the first of several qualities that they share.  But their bravery, if it had not been for their bravery, we likely would have lost a lot of people — mothers,  fathers, sons, daughters, friends and loved ones.  Thankfully, they are still with their families today because these officers were where they needed to be most, at a critical time:  At a gas station during a routine patrol.  In the middle of a busy hospital.  In a grocery store.  On the campus of a community college.  Near an elementary school where a sheriff’s deputy’s own children were students and his wife taught.  In all of these places, in each of these moments, these officers were true to their oaths.

To a person, each of these honorees acted without regard for their own safety.  They stood up to dangerous individuals brandishing assault rifles, handguns, and knives.  One officer sustained multiple stab wounds while fighting off an assailant.  Another endured first-degree burns to his arms and face while pulling an unconscious driver from a burning car on a freeway.

Each of them will tell you, very humbly, the same thing — they were just doing their jobs.  They were doing what they had to do, what they were trained to do, like on any other day.  The officer who suffered those terrible burns — he left urgent care and went straight to work.  He had to finish his shift.  That sense of duty and purpose is what these Americans embody.

The truth is, it’s because of your courage, sometimes seen, but sometimes unseen, that the rest of us can go about living our lives like it’s any other day.  Going to work, going to school, spending time with our families, getting home safely.  We so appreciate our public safety officers around the country, from our rookie cadets to our role model of an Attorney General.  Not everyone will wear the medal that we give today, but every day, so many of our public safety officers wear a badge of honor.

The men and women who run toward danger remind us with your courage and humility what the highest form of citizenship looks like.  When you see students and commuters and shoppers at risk, you don’t see these civilians as strangers.  You see them as part of your own family, your own community.  The Scripture teaches us, you love your neighbor as yourself.  And you put others’ safety before your own.  In your proud example of public service, you remind us that loving our country means loving one another.

Today, we also want to acknowledge the profound sacrifices made by your families.  And I had the chance to meet some of them and they were all clearly so proud of you, but we’re very proud of them.  We know that you wait up late, and you’re worried and you’re counting down the minutes until your loved one walks through the door, safe, after a long shift.  We know it never gets easier, and we thank you for that.  And of course, we honor those who didn’t come home, including one hero we honor posthumously today — Sergeant Robert Wilson III.

He gave his life when two men opened fire at a video game store where Sergeant Wilson was buying a son a birthday present. To his family who’s here — his grandmother, Constance, his brother and sister — please know how deeply sorry we are for your loss, how grateful we are for Sergeant Wilson’s service.

We also honor the more than 35 who’ve given their lives in the line of duty so far this year.  One of them, an officer in Virginia named Ashley Marie Guindon, was taken from us on her very first shift.

I’ve seen this sacrifice when I’ve joined some of you at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial not far from here.  We read the names carved on these walls, and we grieve with the families who carry the fallen in their hearts forever.  We’ve been moved, deeply, by their anguish — but also by their pride in the lives their loved ones lived.  And in those moments, we’re reminded of our enduring obligation as citizens — that they sacrificed so much for — that we do right by them and their families.

And medals and ceremonies like today are important, but these aren’t enough to convey the true depth of our gratitude.  Our words will be hollow if they’re not matched by deeds.  So our nation has a responsibility to support those who serve and protect us and keep our streets safe.  We can show our respect by listening to you, learning from you, giving you the resources that you need to do the jobs.  That’s the mission of our police task force, which brought together local law enforcement, civil rights and faith leaders, and community members to open dialogue and build trust and find concrete solutions that make your jobs safer.  Our country needs that right now.

We’re going to keep pushing Congress to move forward [in] a bipartisan way to make our criminal justice system fairer and smarter and more cost-effective, and enhance public safety and ensure the men and women in this room have the ability to enforce the law and keep their communities safe.

A few minutes ago, I signed into law a package of bills to protect and honor our law enforcement officers, including one that will help state and local departments buy more bulletproof vests.

Emerson once said, “there is always safety in valor.”  The public safety officers we honor today give those words new meaning, for it’s your courage and quick thinking that gave us our safety.

So we want to thank you for your service.  We want to thank your families for your sacrifice.  I had a chance before I came out here to meet with the recipients, and I told them that, although this particular moment for which you are being honored is remarkable, we also know that every day you go out there you’ve got a tough job.  And we could not be prouder of not only moments like the ones we recognize here today, but just the day-to-day grind — you’re doing your jobs professionally; you’re doing your jobs with character.  We want you to know we could not be prouder of you, and we couldn’t be prouder of your families for all the contributions that you make.

So may God bless you and your families.  May God bless our fallen heroes.  <ay God bless the United States of America.

And it’s now my honor to award these medals as the citations are read.

MILITARY AIDE:  Officer Mario Gutierrez.  Medal of Valor presented to Officer Mario Gutierrez, Miami-Dade Police Department, Florida, for bravery and composure while enduring a violent attack.  Officer Gutierrez sustained multiple stab wounds while subduing a knife-wielding assailant who attempted to set off a massive gas explosion that could have resulted in multiple fatalities.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Patrolman Lewis Cioci.  Medal of Valor presented to Patrolmen Lewis Ciochi, Johnson City Police Department, New York, for courageously resolving a volatile encounter with a gunman.  After witnessing the murder of his fellow officer, Patrolman Cioci pursued and apprehended the gunman at a crowded hospital, thereby saving the lives of employees, patients, and visitors.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Officer Jason Salas, Officer Robert Sparks, and Captain Raymond Bottenfield.  Medal of Valor presented to Officer Jason Salas, Officer Robert Sparks, and Captain Raymond Bottenfield, Santa Monica Police Department, California, for courage and composure in ending a deadly rampage.  Officer Salas, Officer Sparks, and Captain Bottenfield placed themselves in mortal danger to save the lives of students and staff during a school shooting on the busy campus of Santa Monica College.

(The medals are awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Major David Huff.  Medal of Valor presented to Major David Huff, Midwest City Police Department, Oklahoma, for uncommon poise in resolving a dangerous hostage situation.  Major Huff saved the life of a two-year-old girl after negotiations deteriorated with a man holding the child captive at knifepoint.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Officer Donald Thompson.  Medal of Valor presented to Officer Donald Thompson, Los Angeles Police Department, California, for courageous action to save an accident victim.  While off duty, Officer Thompson traversed two freeway dividers and endured first- and second-degree burns while pulling an unconscious man to safety from a car moments before it became engulfed in flames.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Officer Coral Walker.  Medal of Valor presented to Officer Coral Walker, Omaha Police Department, Nebraska, for taking brave and decisive action to subdue an active shooter.  After exchanging gunfire, Officer Walker singlehandedly incapacitated a man who had killed an injured multiple victims on a shooting spree.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Officer Gregory Stevens.  Medal of Valor presented to Officer Gregory Stevens, Garland Police Department, Texas, for demonstrating extraordinary courage to save lives.  Officer Stevens exchanged gunfire at close range and subdued two heavily armed assailants, preventing a deadly act of terrorism.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Mrs. Constance Wilson, accepting on behalf of Sergeant Wilson, III.  Medal of Valor presented to fallen Sergeant Robert Wilson, III, Philadelphia Police Department, Pennsylvania, for giving his life to protect innocent civilians. Sergeant Wilson put himself in harm’s way during an armed robbery, drawing fire from the assailants and suffering a mortal wound as he kept store employees and customers safe.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Officer Niel Johnson.  Medal of Valor presented to Officer Niel Johnson, North Miami Police Department, Florida, for swift and valorous action to end a violent crime spree.  Officer Johnson pursued a man who had shot a Miami police officer and two other innocent bystanders, withstanding fire from an assault weapon and apprehended the assailant.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Special Agent Tyler Call.  Medal of Valor presented to Special Agent Tyler Call, Federal Bureau of Investigation, for his heroic actions to save a hostage.  Special Agent Cull, who was off duty with his family, helped rescue a woman from her ex-husband, who had violated a restraining order and held the victim at gunpoint.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE:  Deputy Joey Tortorella.  Medal of Valor presented to Deputy Joey Tortorella, Niagara County, Sheriff’s Office, New York, for placing himself in grave danger to protect his community.  Deputy Tortorella confronted and subdued a violent gunman who had shot and wounded his parents inside their home, and by doing so, prevented the gunmen from threatening the safety of students at a nearby elementary school.

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Let’s give one last big round of applause to the recipients of the Medal of Valor.  (Applause.)

Thank you all.  Thank you for your dedication.  Thanks for your service.  You are continuously in our thoughts and prayers, and we are continuously giving thanks for all that you and your families do.

Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)

END
11:57 A.M. EDT

Full Text Political Transcripts May 7, 2016: President Barack Obama’s Speech at Howard University Commencement Ceremony

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President at Howard University Commencement Ceremony

Source: WH, 5-7-16

Howard University
Washington, D.C.

11:47 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  Hello, Howard!  (Applause.)  H-U!

AUDIENCE:  You know!

THE PRESIDENT:  H-U!

AUDIENCE:  You know!

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughter.)  Thank you so much, everybody.  Please, please, have a seat.  Oh, I feel important now.  Got a degree from Howard.  Cicely Tyson said something nice about me.  (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I love you, President!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.

To President Frederick, the Board of Trustees, faculty and staff, fellow recipients of honorary degrees, thank you for the honor of spending this day with you.  And congratulations to the Class of 2016!  (Applause.)  Four years ago, back when you were just freshmen, I understand many of you came by my house the night I was reelected.  (Laughter.)  So I decided to return the favor and come by yours.

To the parents, the grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, all the family and friends who stood by this class, cheered them on, helped them get here today — this is your day, as well.  Let’s give them a big round of applause, as well.  (Applause.)

I’m not trying to stir up any rivalries here; I just want to see who’s in the house.  We got Quad?  (Applause.)  Annex.  (Applause.)  Drew.  Carver.  Slow.  Towers.  And Meridian.  (Applause.)  Rest in peace, Meridian.  (Laughter.)  Rest in peace.

I know you’re all excited today.  You might be a little tired, as well.  Some of you were up all night making sure your credits were in order.  (Laughter.)  Some of you stayed up too late, ended up at HoChi at 2:00 a.m.  (Laughter.)  Got some mambo sauce on your fingers.  (Laughter.)

But you got here.  And you’ve all worked hard to reach this day.  You’ve shuttled between challenging classes and Greek life.  You’ve led clubs, played an instrument or a sport.  You volunteered, you interned.  You held down one, two, maybe three jobs.  You’ve made lifelong friends and discovered exactly what you’re made of.  The “Howard Hustle” has strengthened your sense of purpose and ambition.

Which means you’re part of a long line of Howard graduates.  Some are on this stage today.  Some are in the audience.  That spirit of achievement and special responsibility has defined this campus ever since the Freedman’s Bureau established Howard just four years after the Emancipation Proclamation; just two years after the Civil War came to an end.  They created this university with a vision — a vision of uplift; a vision for an America where our fates would be determined not by our race, gender, religion or creed, but where we would be free — in every sense — to pursue our individual and collective dreams.

It is that spirit that’s made Howard a centerpiece of African-American intellectual life and a central part of our larger American story.  This institution has been the home of many firsts:  The first black Nobel Peace Prize winner.  The first black Supreme Court justice.  But its mission has been to ensure those firsts were not the last.  Countless scholars, professionals, artists, and leaders from every field received their training here.  The generations of men and women who walked through this yard helped reform our government, cure disease, grow a black middle class, advance civil rights, shape our culture.  The seeds of change — for all Americans — were sown here.  And that’s what I want to talk about today.

As I was preparing these remarks, I realized that when I was first elected President, most of you — the Class of 2016 — were just starting high school.  Today, you’re graduating college.  I used to joke about being old.  Now I realize I’m old.  (Laughter.)  It’s not a joke anymore.  (Laughter.)

But seeing all of you here gives me some perspective.  It makes me reflect on the changes that I’ve seen over my own lifetime.  So let me begin with what may sound like a controversial statement — a hot take.

Given the current state of our political rhetoric and debate, let me say something that may be controversial, and that is this:  America is a better place today than it was when I graduated from college.  (Applause.)  Let me repeat:  America is by almost every measure better than it was when I graduated from college.  It also happens to be better off than when I took office — (laughter) — but that’s a longer story.  (Applause.)  That’s a different discussion for another speech.

But think about it.  I graduated in 1983.  New York City, America’s largest city, where I lived at the time, had endured a decade marked by crime and deterioration and near bankruptcy.  And many cities were in similar shape.  Our nation had gone through years of economic stagnation, the stranglehold of foreign oil, a recession where unemployment nearly scraped 11 percent.  The auto industry was getting its clock cleaned by foreign competition.  And don’t even get me started on the clothes and the hairstyles.  I’ve tried to eliminate all photos of me from this period.  I thought I looked good.  (Laughter.)  I was wrong.

Since that year — since the year I graduated — the poverty rate is down.  Americans with college degrees, that rate is up.  Crime rates are down.  America’s cities have undergone a renaissance.  There are more women in the workforce.  They’re earning more money.  We’ve cut teen pregnancy in half.  We’ve slashed the African American dropout rate by almost 60 percent, and all of you have a computer in your pocket that gives you the world at the touch of a button.  In 1983, I was part of fewer than 10 percent of African Americans who graduated with a bachelor’s degree.  Today, you’re part of the more than 20 percent who will.  And more than half of blacks say we’re better off than our parents were at our age — and that our kids will be better off, too.

So America is better.  And the world is better, too.  A wall came down in Berlin.  An Iron Curtain was torn asunder.  The obscenity of apartheid came to an end.  A young generation in Belfast and London have grown up without ever having to think about IRA bombings.  In just the past 16 years, we’ve come from a world without marriage equality to one where it’s a reality in nearly two dozen countries.  Around the world, more people live in democracies.  We’ve lifted more than 1 billion people from extreme poverty.  We’ve cut the child mortality rate worldwide by more than half.

America is better.  The world is better.  And stay with me now — race relations are better since I graduated.  That’s the truth.  No, my election did not create a post-racial society.  I don’t know who was propagating that notion.  That was not mine.    But the election itself — and the subsequent one — because the first one, folks might have made a mistake.  (Laughter.)  The second one, they knew what they were getting.  The election itself was just one indicator of how attitudes had changed.

In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant — at least not certain of them.  There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.  Very few black judges.  Shoot, as Larry Wilmore pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn’t even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback.  Today, former Bull Michael Jordan isn’t just the greatest basketball player of all time — he owns the team.  (Laughter.)  When I was graduating, the main black hero on TV was Mr. T.  (Laughter.)  Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground.  Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé runs the world.  (Laughter.)  We’re no longer only entertainers, we’re producers, studio executives.  No longer small business owners — we’re CEOs, we’re mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States.  (Applause.)

I am not saying gaps do not persist.  Obviously, they do.  Racism persists.  Inequality persists.  Don’t worry — I’m going to get to that.  But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in.  If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be — what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you’d be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you’d be born into — you wouldn’t choose 100 years ago.  You wouldn’t choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies.  You’d choose right now.  If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, “young, gifted, and black” in America, you would choose right now.  (Applause.)

I tell you all this because it’s important to note progress.  Because to deny how far we’ve come would do a disservice to the cause of justice, to the legions of foot soldiers; to not only the incredibly accomplished individuals who have already been mentioned, but your mothers and your dads, and grandparents and great grandparents, who marched and toiled and suffered and overcame to make this day possible.  I tell you this not to lull you into complacency, but to spur you into action — because there’s still so much more work to do, so many more miles to travel.  And America needs you to gladly, happily take up that work.  You all have some work to do.  So enjoy the party, because you’re going to be busy.  (Laughter.)

Yes, our economy has recovered from crisis stronger than almost any other in the world.  But there are folks of all races who are still hurting — who still can’t find work that pays enough to keep the lights on, who still can’t save for retirement.  We’ve still got a big racial gap in economic opportunity.  The overall unemployment rate is 5 percent, but the black unemployment rate is almost nine.  We’ve still got an achievement gap when black boys and girls graduate high school and college at lower rates than white boys and white girls.  Harriet Tubman may be going on the twenty, but we’ve still got a gender gap when a black woman working full-time still earns just 66 percent of what a white man gets paid.  (Applause.)

We’ve got a justice gap when too many black boys and girls pass through a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails.  This is one area where things have gotten worse.  When I was in college, about half a million people in America were behind bars.  Today, there are about 2.2 million.  Black men are about six times likelier to be in prison right now than white men.

Around the world, we’ve still got challenges to solve that threaten everybody in the 21st century — old scourges like disease and conflict, but also new challenges, from terrorism and climate change.

So make no mistake, Class of 2016 — you’ve got plenty of work to do.  But as complicated and sometimes intractable as these challenges may seem, the truth is that your generation is better positioned than any before you to meet those challenges, to flip the script.

Now, how you do that, how you meet these challenges, how you bring about change will ultimately be up to you.  My generation, like all generations, is too confined by our own experience, too invested in our own biases, too stuck in our ways to provide much of the new thinking that will be required.  But us old-heads have learned a few things that might be useful in your journey.  So with the rest of my time, I’d like to offer some suggestions for how young leaders like you can fulfill your destiny and shape our collective future — bend it in the direction of justice and equality and freedom.

First of all — and this should not be a problem for this group — be confident in your heritage.  (Applause.)  Be confident in your blackness.  One of the great changes that’s occurred in our country since I was your age is the realization there’s no one way to be black.  Take it from somebody who’s seen both sides of debate about whether I’m black enough.  (Laughter.)  In the past couple months, I’ve had lunch with the Queen of England and hosted Kendrick Lamar in the Oval Office.  There’s no straitjacket, there’s no constraints, there’s no litmus test for authenticity.

Look at Howard.  One thing most folks don’t know about Howard is how diverse it is.  When you arrived here, some of you were like, oh, they’ve got black people in Iowa?  (Laughter.)  But it’s true — this class comes from big cities and rural communities, and some of you crossed oceans to study here.  You shatter stereotypes.  Some of you come from a long line of Bison.  Some of you are the first in your family to graduate from college.  (Applause.)  You all talk different, you all dress different.  You’re Lakers fans, Celtics fans, maybe even some hockey fans.  (Laughter.)

And because of those who’ve come before you, you have models to follow.  You can work for a company, or start your own.  You can go into politics, or run an organization that holds politicians accountable.  You can write a book that wins the National Book Award, or you can write the new run of “Black Panther.”  Or, like one of your alumni, Ta-Nehisi Coates, you can go ahead and just do both.  You can create your own style, set your own standard of beauty, embrace your own sexuality.  Think about an icon we just lost — Prince.  He blew up categories.  People didn’t know what Prince was doing.  (Laughter.)  And folks loved him for it.

You need to have the same confidence.  Or as my daughters tell me all the time, “You be you, Daddy.”  (Laughter.)  Sometimes Sasha puts a variation on it — “You do you, Daddy.”  (Laughter.)  And because you’re a black person doing whatever it is that you’re doing, that makes it a black thing.  Feel confident.

Second, even as we each embrace our own beautiful, unique, and valid versions of our blackness, remember the tie that does bind us as African Americans — and that is our particular awareness of injustice and unfairness and struggle.  That means we cannot sleepwalk through life.  We cannot be ignorant of history.  (Applause.)  We can’t meet the world with a sense of entitlement.  We can’t walk by a homeless man without asking why a society as wealthy as ours allows that state of affairs to occur.   We can’t just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options.  We have cousins and uncles and brothers and sisters who we remember were just as smart and just as talented as we were, but somehow got ground down by structures that are unfair and unjust.

And that means we have to not only question the world as it is, and stand up for those African Americans who haven’t been so lucky — because, yes, you’ve worked hard, but you’ve also been lucky.  That’s a pet peeve of mine:  People who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky.  That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did.  So don’t have an attitude.  But we must expand our moral imaginations to understand and empathize with all people who are struggling, not just black folks who are struggling — the refugee, the immigrant, the rural poor, the transgender person, and yes, the middle-aged white guy who you may think has all the advantages, but over the last several decades has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change, and feels powerless to stop it.  You got to get in his head, too.

Number three:  You have to go through life with more than just passion for change; you need a strategy.  I’ll repeat that.  I want you to have passion, but you have to have a strategy.  Not just awareness, but action.  Not just hashtags, but votes.

You see, change requires more than righteous anger.  It requires a program, and it requires organizing.  At the 1964 Democratic Convention, Fannie Lou Hamer — all five-feet-four-inches tall — gave a fiery speech on the national stage.  But then she went back home to Mississippi and organized cotton pickers.  And she didn’t have the tools and technology where you can whip up a movement in minutes.  She had to go door to door.  And I’m so proud of the new guard of black civil rights leaders who understand this.  It’s thanks in large part to the activism of young people like many of you, from Black Twitter to Black Lives Matter, that America’s eyes have been opened — white, black, Democrat, Republican — to the real problems, for example, in our criminal justice system.

But to bring about structural change, lasting change, awareness is not enough.  It requires changes in law, changes in custom.  If you care about mass incarceration, let me ask you:  How are you pressuring members of Congress to pass the criminal justice reform bill now pending before them?  (Applause.)  If you care about better policing, do you know who your district attorney is?  Do you know who your state’s attorney general is?  Do you know the difference?  Do you know who appoints the police chief and who writes the police training manual?  Find out who they are, what their responsibilities are.  Mobilize the community, present them with a plan, work with them to bring about change, hold them accountable if they do not deliver.  Passion is vital, but you’ve got to have a strategy.

And your plan better include voting — not just some of the time, but all the time.  (Applause.)  It is absolutely true that 50 years after the Voting Rights Act, there are still too many barriers in this country to vote.  There are too many people trying to erect new barriers to voting.  This is the only advanced democracy on Earth that goes out of its way to make it difficult for people to vote.  And there’s a reason for that.  There’s a legacy to that.

But let me say this:  Even if we dismantled every barrier to voting, that alone would not change the fact that America has some of the lowest voting rates in the free world.  In 2014, only 36 percent of Americans turned out to vote in the midterms — the secondlowest participation rate on record.  Youth turnout — that would be you — was less than 20 percent.  Less than 20 percent.  Four out of five did not vote.  In 2012, nearly two in three African Americans turned out.  And then, in 2014, only two in five turned out.  You don’t think that made a difference in terms of the Congress I’ve got to deal with?  And then people are wondering, well, how come Obama hasn’t gotten this done?  How come he didn’t get that done?  You don’t think that made a difference?  What would have happened if you had turned out at 50, 60, 70 percent, all across this country?  People try to make this political thing really complicated.  Like, what kind of reforms do we need?  And how do we need to do that?  You know what, just vote.  It’s math.  If you have more votes than the other guy, you get to do what you want.  (Laughter.)  It’s not that complicated.

And you don’t have excuses.   You don’t have to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar or bubbles on a bar of soap to register to vote.  You don’t have to risk your life to cast a ballot.  Other people already did that for you.  (Applause.) Your grandparents, your great grandparents might be here today if they were working on it.  What’s your excuse?  When we don’t vote, we give away our power, disenfranchise ourselves — right when we need to use the power that we have; right when we need your power to stop others from taking away the vote and rights of those more vulnerable than you are — the elderly and the poor, the formerly incarcerated trying to earn their second chance.

So you got to vote all the time, not just when it’s cool, not just when it’s time to elect a President, not just when you’re inspired.  It’s your duty.  When it’s time to elect a member of Congress or a city councilman, or a school board member, or a sheriff.  That’s how we change our politics — by electing people at every level who are representative of and accountable to us.  It is not that complicated.  Don’t make it complicated.

And finally, change requires more than just speaking out — it requires listening, as well.  In particular, it requires listening to those with whom you disagree, and being prepared to compromise.  When I was a state senator, I helped pass Illinois’s first racial profiling law, and one of the first laws in the nation requiring the videotaping of confessions in capital cases.  And we were successful because, early on, I engaged law enforcement.  I didn’t say to them, oh, you guys are so racist, you need to do something.  I understood, as many of you do, that the overwhelming majority of police officers are good, and honest, and courageous, and fair, and love the communities they serve.

And we knew there were some bad apples, and that even the good cops with the best of intentions — including, by the way, African American police officers — might have unconscious biases, as we all do.  So we engaged and we listened, and we kept working until we built consensus.  And because we took the time to listen, we crafted legislation that was good for the police — because it improved the trust and cooperation of the community — and it was good for the communities, who were less likely to be treated unfairly.  And I can say this unequivocally:  Without at least the acceptance of the police organizations in Illinois, I could never have gotten those bills passed.  Very simple.  They would have blocked them.

The point is, you need allies in a democracy.  That’s just the way it is.  It can be frustrating and it can be slow.  But history teaches us that the alternative to democracy is always worse.  That’s not just true in this country.  It’s not a black or white thing.  Go to any country where the give and take of democracy has been repealed by one-party rule, and I will show you a country that does not work.

And democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right.  This is hard to explain sometimes.  You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you.  If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want.  And if you don’t get what you want long enough, you will eventually think the whole system is rigged.  And that will lead to more cynicism, and less participation, and a downward spiral of more injustice and more anger and more despair.  And that’s never been the source of our progress.  That’s how we cheat ourselves of progress.

We remember Dr. King’s soaring oratory, the power of his letter from a Birmingham jail, the marches he led.  But he also sat down with President Johnson in the Oval Office to try and get a Civil Rights Act and a Voting Rights Act passed.  And those two seminal bills were not perfect — just like the Emancipation Proclamation was a war document as much as it was some clarion call for freedom.  Those mileposts of our progress were not perfect.  They did not make up for centuries of slavery or Jim Crow or eliminate racism or provide for 40 acres and a mule.  But they made things better.  And you know what, I will take better every time.  I always tell my staff — better is good, because you consolidate your gains and then you move on to the next fight from a stronger position.

Brittany Packnett, a member of the Black Lives Matter movement and Campaign Zero, one of the Ferguson protest organizers, she joined our Task Force on 21st Century Policing.  Some of her fellow activists questioned whether she should participate.  She rolled up her sleeves and sat at the same table with big city police chiefs and prosecutors.  And because she did, she ended up shaping many of the recommendations of that task force.  And those recommendations are now being adopted across the country — changes that many of the protesters called for.  If young activists like Brittany had refused to participate out of some sense of ideological purity, then those great ideas would have just remained ideas.  But she did participate.  And that’s how change happens.

America is big and it is boisterous and it is more diverse than ever.  The president told me that we’ve got a significant Nepalese contingent here at Howard.  I would not have guessed that.  Right on.  But it just tells you how interconnected we’re becoming.  And with so many folks from so many places, converging, we are not always going to agree with each other.

Another Howard alum, Zora Neale Hurston, once said — this is a good quote here:  “Nothing that God ever made is the same thing to more than one person.”  Think about that.  That’s why our democracy gives us a process designed for us to settle our disputes with argument and ideas and votes instead of violence and simple majority rule.

So don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no matter how much you might disagree with them.  There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politician’s rally.  Don’t do that — no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths.  Because as my grandmother used to tell me, every time a fool speaks, they are just advertising their own ignorance.  Let them talk.  Let them talk.  If you don’t, you just make them a victim, and then they can avoid accountability.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge them.  Have the confidence to challenge them, the confidence in the rightness of your position.  There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice.  But listen.  Engage.  If the other side has a point, learn from them.  If they’re wrong, rebut them.  Teach them.  Beat them on the battlefield of ideas.  And you might as well start practicing now, because one thing I can guarantee you — you will have to deal with ignorance, hatred, racism, foolishness, trifling folks.  (Laughter.)  I promise you, you will have to deal with all that at every stage of your life.  That may not seem fair, but life has never been completely fair.  Nobody promised you a crystal stair.  And if you want to make life fair, then you’ve got to start with the world as it is.

So that’s my advice.  That’s how you change things.  Change isn’t something that happens every four years or eight years; change is not placing your faith in any particular politician and then just putting your feet up and saying, okay, go.  Change is the effort of committed citizens who hitch their wagons to something bigger than themselves and fight for it every single day.

That’s what Thurgood Marshall understood — a man who once walked this year, graduated from Howard Law; went home to Baltimore, started his own law practice.  He and his mentor, Charles Hamilton Houston, rolled up their sleeves and they set out to overturn segregation.  They worked through the NAACP.  Filed dozens of lawsuits, fought dozens of cases.  And after nearly 20 years of effort — 20 years — Thurgood Marshall ultimately succeeded in bringing his righteous cause before the Supreme Court, and securing the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that separate could never be equal.  (Applause.)  Twenty years.

Marshall, Houston — they knew it would not be easy.  They knew it would not be quick.  They knew all sorts of obstacles would stand in their way.  They knew that even if they won, that would just be the beginning of a longer march to equality.  But they had discipline.  They had persistence.  They had faith — and a sense of humor.  And they made life better for all Americans.

And I know you graduates share those qualities.  I know it because I’ve learned about some of the young people graduating here today.  There’s a young woman named Ciearra Jefferson, who’s graduating with you.  And I’m just going to use her as an example.  I hope you don’t mind, Ciearra.  Ciearra grew up in Detroit and was raised by a poor single mom who worked seven days a week in an auto plant.  And for a time, her family found themselves without a place to call home.  They bounced around between friends and family who might take them in.  By her senior year, Ciearra was up at 5:00 am every day, juggling homework, extracurricular activities, volunteering, all while taking care of her little sister.  But she knew that education was her ticket to a better life.  So she never gave up.  Pushed herself to excel.  This daughter of a single mom who works on the assembly line turned down a full scholarship to Harvard to come to Howard.  (Applause.)

And today, like many of you, Ciearra is the first in her family to graduate from college.  And then, she says, she’s going to go back to her hometown, just like Thurgood Marshall did, to make sure all the working folks she grew up with have access to the health care they need and deserve.  As she puts it, she’s going to be a “change agent.”  She’s going to reach back and help folks like her succeed.

And people like Ciearra are why I remain optimistic about America.  (Applause.)  Young people like you are why I never give in to despair.

James Baldwin once wrote, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Graduates, each of us is only here because someone else faced down challenges for us.  We are only who we are because someone else struggled and sacrificed for us.  That’s not just Thurgood Marshall’s story, or Ciearra’s story, or my story, or your story — that is the story of America.  A story whispered by slaves in the cotton fields, the song of marchers in Selma, the dream of a King in the shadow of Lincoln.  The prayer of immigrants who set out for a new world.  The roar of women demanding the vote.  The rallying cry of workers who built America.  And the GIs who bled overseas for our freedom.

Now it’s your turn.  And the good news is, you’re ready.  And when your journey seems too hard, and when you run into a chorus of cynics who tell you that you’re being foolish to keep believing or that you can’t do something, or that you should just give up, or you should just settle — you might say to yourself a little phrase that I’ve found handy these last eight years:  Yes, we can.

Congratulations, Class of 2016!  (Applause.)  Good luck!  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  I’m proud of you.

END
12:33 P.M. EDT

Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 May 4, 2016: John Kasich’s Speech on Dropping Out of the Presidential Race Transcript

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

John Kasich’s Speech on Dropping Out of the Presidential Race

Source: Time, 5-4-16

Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s speech at a press conference in Columbus, Ohio.
KASICH: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Well, thank you all for coming. Well, of course, the first thing I have to do is to thank my great wife, Karen, for the fact that she has has —

(APPLAUSE)

I mean, she has endured my political career and also of course accentuated it. There’s nobody like Karen. She’s charismatic. She walks into a room and people fall in love with her. You know, when she appeared on Anderson Cooper, John Weaver commented, and Beth Hanson commented, that if we had only run Karen, we would have been a lot more successful. I happen to agree with that.

And you know, Em and Reese showed up, and they’re unbelievable. They’re just so beautiful, and they’ve been so supportive, and they’ve traveled with me around the country as well, and it was always such a delight to have the family on the road. And as their principal had said, don’t let education get in the way of learning, and I think that they learned a great deal. And of course I want to thank the Worthington Christian staff and particularly Buzz Inboden for their patience and willingness to kind of look after our family. It was terrific.

Our staff — nobody has ever done more with less in the history of politics than what this staff has done. I mean, it’s kind of always been this way. It’s been a mystery to me other than to say that I like to think that they think that they’ve been part of something bigger than themselves, and we all want to be part of something bigger than ourselves, and I think we do it with honesty and integrity and as a result I think I know and I sure hope and pray that they feel that this experience that they have had in this — in this campaign has improved and in some way changed their lives for the better. So I’m looking forward to being able to spend more time with them.

The volunteers, just amazing. I don’t know how many, 800 people we had, is it 800 people that went to New Hampshire, people who went to Michigan, people were in South Carolina. I mean, I would show up places and there were like people I know, and I’m like, why are you here? And — but they were — they were believers. And I could never thank them enough, for the long car rides and in the snows of New Hampshire they knocked on doors and in the rain of South Carolina they knocked on doors. They really gave of themselves.

My mother used to always say, never forget the volunteers, Johnny. And they were always ones that have given me the octane, the fuel, to be able to carry out my purpose, and I want to thank the people who gave the money, the financial resources.

We never had all the money we wanted. We were probably outspent by 50 to 1, but we were never ever daunted in that, and we just got up every day and did the best we can, and of course a big thank you goes to Beth Hanson who was the campaign manager and did everything that she could possibly do.

(APPLAUSE)

And my dear, dear friend Doug Price who…

(APPLAUSE)

Well, we start getting into these names, but as I mentioned, I think Emma said, well, Mr. Doug, didn’t you travel with my daddy for, like, a year and a half?? And Reese looked at him and said, how did you ever do that?

(LAUGHTER)

But we had a great time and we’re going to have a lot more fun in the future, and of course the kitchen cabinet, I look at Joanne Davidson (ph) and Bob Clavky (ph) and Tim Trapepi (ph), who the only guy I knew that carried more luggage than an entire circus crew. I mean, it was just unbelievable.

So, and I know I’m leaving some people out, but I want to thank every one of you.

You know, I visited these beautiful, beautiful towns in New Hampshire, and people had really counted me out in New Hampshire, but when we hit our 100th town hall it was — it was remarkable, those beautiful towns. I will never forget the people of New Hampshire.

We moved from New Hampshire, you know, in the far east, all the way to the excitement of California, even being able to sit in traffic in Los Angeles. It was a big part of — and I just love California and what it means to our country and the excitement that it breeds.

Yes, I remember we were in the upper peninsula of Michigan. Never knew where it was, heard about it all my lifetime. I never knew that it was actually located above Wisconsin. And we landed, and I remember everybody was looking at their phones, and I said, would you all please put down your phone, because this is a winter wonderland. This is magical what we’re seeing here, what the good Lord has given us.

To the energy of Miami Beach, Florida, for one of the last debates and, you know, it was interesting, they didn’t think I could make any debate, and I made all 13 of them, in fact, won a couple of them.

As for my beloved Ohio, the people here, I cannot tell you how much I appreciated the opportunity that you’ve given me to be a leader in this state. The people of Ohio have given me the greatest professional experience of my lifetime. I’ve tried to pay them back. And last night in Cleveland a woman, African-American woman, said, you made promises and you kept them, and that’s why I’m here tonight, because I believe in you. That you brought our people together.

Well, it only happened because the people gave me a chance, and everywhere I went in America — everywhere I went in America — I told the people about our beautiful, beloved state and held Ohio high, and I think gave people an impression from one end of America to the other, that Ohio is a special place, and I expect we’re going to have more visits as a result. I marveled at my colleagues who held public office. They knocked on doors, they made phone calls. And I mean, these are people who came from the legislature. I mean, when you’re an executive and you have to deal with the legislature, it’s not always — it’s not always peaches and cream, but yet these legislators, the leaders, the speaker of the House, the president of the Senate, some of my statewide colleagues like the attorney general, just incredible that they would have come out and honored me.

Frankly, I was so humbled by the fact that they — that they came and they — and they love me. They encouraged me. The people of our country changed me. They changed me with the stories of their lives.

We all remember that hug in South Carolina from that young man who had found despair and then found hope somehow, and he just wanted to give me a hug and the country marveled, but, you know, that was one of a series of these things that had happened. A gentleman showed up in New Hampshire, he said, I don’t think I’ve warned my son enough about the dangers of a certain type of cancer and now he has it, and I’m blaming myself, and he put his arm around me and cried, and I said, sir, it’s not your fault. You didn’t do anything wrong. You’re a great father. You’ve come here all the way from New York to tell me about this. Take the load off of your shoulders.

He wrote us a letter saying that that little conversation made a difference with him, and when we went to New York months, standing at the rope line, was that man. He said, I want you to know my son is doing much better, and I wanted to be here to thank you for taking the time with me.

We were in a hall in Michigan, and a woman stood up and showed a picture of her son who had taken his life. We talked about faith, talked about her son and where he was and everybody in that hall embraced that woman and made her feel that she was not alone.

See, stories like this occurred all across our country. And I think it’s frankly because for whatever reason that God gave me the grace to make people feel safe and comfortable, and they came to these town halls which were — they were absolutely magic.

You know, I’ve learned something, folks, everyone here, that we all need to slow down our lives, slow down our lives and listen to those who are around us.

Look, let me be clear, we all know that economic growth is imperative to the success of our country. Economic growth gives people an opportunity to realize many of their hopes and dreams in life, and without a job the family is weaker, the community is weaker, the neighborhood is weaker, the state suffers and our country struggles.

And I can tell you that economic growth can be achieved by our public officials if they just do their job, but they have to ignore polls, they can’t focus on focus groups, and they have to overcome the fear of reelection or criticism. See, the formula is simple and it works. It is common sense regulations that don’t crush our small businesses, because that’s where our kids get their work now increasingly. That’s the fastest area of job growth. We know we need to lower taxes for individuals and we have to cut taxes for our businesses so they start investing in America, and not some country located in Europe, and we need a realistic path to balance the budget, and frankly, nothing more imperative than a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force the Congress to do their job.

And we have to keep in mind that we need to shift power, money and influence from government back to the people wherever we live, and we have to begin to run America again from the bottom up.

However, the spirit, the essence of America lies in the hearts and souls of us. You see, some missed this message. It wasn’t sexy. It wasn’t a great soundbite. But I saw a young lady, I saw a young lady in Philadelphia who came to me and said, I’m a producer on a major cable show and I watch your town halls and talk about the spirit of our country and my role, and she said, you’ve affected my life.

You see, I believe we all need to live a life bigger than ourselves. Yes, we need to live a life a little bit bigger than ourselves. We need to reach out to help lift someone else because, you know what, it comes to us naturally if we let it. You see, we are as human beings kind of hard wired to want to give someone else a lift, give someone else an opportunity, and when we reach out it’s so interesting — and when we reach out and help someone else, you see what it does is it opens us, ourselves, to recognizing and receiving the help that we need in our lives. It’s a virtuous circle. When we help someone else to rise it opens us up to receive the things that we need in our lives, regardless of who we are.

To paraphrase an old adage, “I sought the greatness of America in her harbors and in her rivers, and I did not find it. I sought it in her fertile fields and boundless forests and did not find it. I sought her greatness in her halls of Congress and I did not find it.”

You see, after this campaign I see it in us, when we come together, when we lift one another with our eyes on the horizon.

Throughout my campaign I have said the Lord may have another purpose for me, and it set all the pundits a-twitter. Does that mean he is not committed or he is not focused or he’s not energetic? It showed to some degree how little they understand about life. You see, I have always said that the Lord has a purpose for me as he has for everyone, and as I suspend my campaign today, I have renewed faith, deeper faith that the Lord will show me the way forward and fulfill the purpose of my life.

Thank you and God bless.

(APPLAUSE)

Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 May 3, 2016: Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s Indiana victory speech

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Donald Trump’s Indiana victory speech (entire speech)

Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 May 3, 2016: Ted Cruz’s Speech on Dropping Out of the Presidential Race

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Ted Cruz’s Speech on Dropping Out of the Presidential Race

Source: Time, 5-3-16

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz dropped out of the presidential race after losing the crucial Indiana primary. Transcript of the speeches he and running mate Carly Fiorina gave at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Indianapolis Tuesday night.

FIORINA: I know that I speak for the entire Cruz family, the entire Cruz team when I tell you how many Hoosiers we have fallen in love with on this campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

All the wonderful people who have shown up at rallies across the state, the retail stops where people let what looked like awesome food get cold while we all stood and talked about the state you love and the state we have come to love and the nation we all love.

(APPLAUSE)

We came together as fellow warriors — warriors in a cause to save the soul of our party, the character and the future of our nation. And that cause continues and you are warriors still.

(APPLAUSE)

You know — you know what makes this country extraordinary. You know that we are extraordinary because while people are gifted by god all over the world it is only in this nation that so many people have been given the opportunity to realize their god given gifts. And we’ve been given that opportunity because we were founded on two powerful ideas. One, that each of us have a right to find and use our god given gifts, a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

(APPLAUSE)

That those rights come from god and should not be taken away by man or government.

(APPLAUSE)

And the other idea that power concentrated is power abused. And so when power gets concentrated in the hands of too few for too long, too many Americans and this nation suffer. And you know as I know that in this nation extraordinary people step up. You have all stepped up and it has been my great pleasure, my privilege, my honor to stand by and fight alongside one of the great citizens of this extraordinary nation.

(APPLAUSE)

The Ted Cruz that I have come to know, the same man that you have come to know. This is a man who favors substance over sloganeering.

(APPLAUSE)

Who favors respect over insult.

(APPLAUSE)

Who favors positive policy solutions that will actually work over hand waving. (APPLAUSE)

It has been my great privilege and honor to come to know him as a friend, as a husband, as a father. He is indeed a great citizen of this great nation and so citizens — fellow citizens, as we fight on for the nation we hold dear …

(APPLAUSE)

As we know that our history is long and our future is longer still please join me in welcoming a great man, Ted Cruz; his wonderful and brilliant and great wife, Heidi Cruz and the two girls that I have come to love as much as you have, Caroline (ph) and Kathyrn (ph). A great American family.

(APPLAUSE)

CRUZ: God bless the Hoosier state.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me tell you about the America that I love. Our nation is an exceptional nation. We were founded by risk takers and pioneers, brave men and women who put everything on the line for freedom. We began with a revolutionary idea that our rights don’t come from kings or queens or even presidents but from god almighty.

(APPLAUSE)

That every one of us has an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

(APPLAUSE)

And that to protect those rights the constitution serves as change to bind the mischief of government.

(APPLAUSE)

For more than two centuries, we have protected those rights. We believe in equal rights for everybody — that everybody deserves dignity and respect whether they agree with you or not. That there will always be evil in the world and injustice in the world but America stands up to it and confronts it.

(APPLAUSE)

Even from a Montgomery jail our voice for justice and equality rings out for the ages. America is hopeful, optimistic. America is kind. We are not boastful or mean spirited. America is brave. We keep our word and we believe in peace through strength.

(APPLAUSE)

We have spilled more blood, spent more treasure in defence of liberty than any country in history yet we do not engage in wars of conquest. We do not seek to enrich ourselves at our neighbors’ expense. America is the land that gave my mom, an Irish Italian girl growing up in a working class family the chance to be the first in her family ever to go to college, to become a pioneering computer programmer in the 1950s.

(APPLAUSE)

I love you, mom. America is the land that welcomed my father as a penny immigrant. He’d seen oppression, prison and torture in Cuba and for him America was hope. It was opportunity. In 1957, if someone had told that teenager washing dishes for $0.50 an hour that one day his son would be elected to the Senate and he would get a chance to cast his ballot for his son to be president of the United States …

(APPLAUSE)

That teenage immigrant washing dishes could never have believed it and yet that’s exactly what happened. Only in America.

(APPLAUSE)

In recent months, a lot of people have been talking about what happened 40 years ago at the Republican convention in Kansas City — our party’s last contested convention. When I look back at that convention in Missouri, I think of the speech that Ronald Reagan gave to our party. He spoke not of the next four years. He saw not the close horizons that of interest to those who seek to build their own fortunes in the short term but instead he looked to the distance times and — that concerned the men and women who’s purpose it is to secure the blessings of liberty to their posteriority.

Ronald Reagan spoke of the next 100 years and of the generations of Americans who would come to know whether our nation had escaped the existential threat of nuclear war, who would know whether our party had succeeded in its fight against the erosion of constitutional freedoms that only grow and multiple under rule of the Democratic party. Ronald Reagan spoke of the purpose that defined our party then and that must unite and drive our party now.

(APPLAUSE)

The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and of George Herbert Walker Bush ensured that thousands of nuclear missiles that the Soviet Union and the United States had targeted each other were never fired and that Soviet communism was consigned to the ash heap of history.

(APPLAUSE)

They fought hard so that our American freedoms were not lost to any foreign foe nor sacrificed in pursuit of any domestic agenda of the Democratic party.

(APPLAUSE)

Yet the challenges we face today remain as great as ever. Americans are deeply frustrated and desperately want to change the path that we’re on. We have economic stagnation at home and our constitutional rights are under assault. Under the Obama-Clinton foreign policy, Russia has emerged as a resurgent threat.

China looks with a covetous eye on the lands of our allies in the region. A nuclear North Korea and a near nuclear Iran yearn to devastate our homeland and radical Islamic terrorism unleashes an evil that threatens the world. This year, two weeks before our party gathers in Cleveland all Americans will celebrate the 240th birthday of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

American parents and grandparents will watch the fireworks with their kids and will dream of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren to come and wonder how those future generations of Americans will remember what we do not only this summer but in the coming decades. Will we rise to meet the challenges that face our nation on the international stage or will we withdraw and cower timidly from the world?

(APPLAUSE)

Will we secure freedom of thought, expression and religion for future generations?

(APPLAUSE)

Or will we succumb to the tyranny of a political correctness and the temptation of radical politics and balkanization here at home?

(APPLAUSE)

Will we hold fast to our founding values of rewarding talent, hard work and industry or will we continue on that path of creeping socialism that incentivizes apathy and dependency?

(APPLAUSE)

Will we deliver control of health care to citizens and their doctors or will we continue down the Obamacare road to second rate socialized medicine?

(APPLAUSE)

Will we keep America safe from the threats of nuclear war and atomic terrorism?

(APPLAUSE)

Or will we pass onto future generations a land devastated and destroyed by the enemies of civilization?

(APPLAUSE)

This is the responsibility with which we have been charged by history. This is our challenge. This is the fight that falls to our generation. When we launched this campaign 13 months ago we saw a movement grow. The pundits all said it was hopeless but we saw over 300,000 volunteers all across this nation.

(APPLAUSE)

Over 1.5 million contributions averaging about $60 each.

(APPLAUSE)

Many of those volunteers, many of those contributions you never forget. Just a few days ago two young kids ages four and six handed me two envelopes full of change. All of their earnings from their lemonade stand. They wanted the campaign to have it. That’s what built this campaign. That’s what fuels this movement.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you to each of you. Incredible patriots who have fought so hard to save our nation.

(APPLAUSE)

And I’m with you. I am so grateful to you, to my amazing wife, Heidi.

(APPLAUSE)

To our precious girls, Caroline (ph) and Kathryn (ph).

(APPLAUSE)

To my mom, the prayer warrior.

(APPLAUSE)

To my dad who has traveled this nation preaching the gospel.

(APPLAUSE)

To Carly Fiorina who has been an incredible, phenomenal running mate.

(APPLAUSE)

What you have done — the movement that you have started is extraordinary. I love each and every one of you.

(APPLAUSE)

From the beginning I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory. Tonight, I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed. Together, we left it all on the field in Indiana. We gave it everything we’ve got but the voters chose another path. And so with a heavy heart but with boundless optimism for the long term future of our nation, we are suspending our campaign. But hear me now I am not suspending our fight for liberty.

(APPLAUSE)

I am not suspending our fight to defend the constitution, to defend the Judeo-Christian values that built America.

(APPLAUSE)

Our movement will continue and I give you my word that I will continue this fight with all of my strength and all of my ability.

(APPLAUSE)

You are extraordinary and we will continue to fight next week and next month and next year and together we will continue as long as god grants us the strength to fight on.

(APPLAUSE)

For one thing remains as true today as it was 40 years ago in Kansas City. In this fight for the long term future of America there is no substitute for victory. There is no substitute for the America that each and every one of us loves with all of our heart, that we believe in with all of our heart and that together we will restore as a shining city on the hill for every generation to come. Thank you to each of you and god bless you.

(APPLAUSE)

Full Text Political Transcripts April 30, 2016: President Obama’s 2016 White House correspondents’ dinner speech

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

The complete transcript of President Obama’s 2016 White House correspondents’ dinner speech

Source: Washington Post, 4-30-16

[“Cups” playing as Obama walks up. Audience can hear “You’re going to miss me when I’m gone…”]

You can’t say it, but you know it is true.

Good evening everybody. It is an honor to be here at my last, and perhaps the last White House correspondents’ dinner. You all look great. The end of the Republic has never looked better.

I do apologize. I know I was a little late tonight. I was running on CPT, which stands for jokes that white people should not make. That’s a tip for you, Jeff.

Anyway, here we are, my eighth and final appearance at this unique event. And I am excited. If this material works well, I’m going to use it at Goldman Sachs next year. Earn me some serious Tubmans. That’s right. That’s right.

My brilliant and beautiful wife Michelle is here tonight. She looks so happy to be here. It’s called practice. It’s like learning to do three-minute planks. She makes it look easy now. But…

[For Obama’s final correspondents’ dinner, the obvious targets: Trump, Cruz and himself]

Next year at this time, someone else will be standing here in this very spot and it’s anyone guess who she will be. But standing here I can’t help but be reflective and a little sentimental.

Eight years ago I said it was time to change the tone of our politics. In hindsight, I clearly should have been more specific. Eight years ago, I was a young man full of idealism and vigor. And look at me now, I am gray, grizzled and just counting down the days to my death panel.

Hillary once questioned whether I would be up ready for a 3 a.m .phone call. Now, I’m awake anyway because I have to go to the bathroom. I’m up.

In fact somebody recently said to me, ‘Mr. President, you are so yesterday. Justin Trudeau has completely replaced you. He is so handsome and he’s so charming. He’s the future.’ And I said ‘Justin, just give it a rest.’ I resented that.

Meanwhile, Michelle has not aged a day. The only way you can date her in photos is by looking at me. Take a look. [Show photos over the years] Here we are in 2008. Here we are a few years later. And this one is from two weeks ago. [skelton photo from Canada dinner] So time passes.

In just six short months, I will be officially a lame duck, which means Congress now will flat out reject my authority, and Republican leaders won’t take my phone calls. And this is going to take some getting use to. It’s really gonna… It’s a curve ball. I don’t know what to do with it. Of course, in fact, for four months now congressional Republicans have been saying there are things I cannot do in my final year. Unfortunately, this dinner was not one of them.

But on everything else, it’s another story. And you know who you are, Republicans. In fact, I think we’ve got Republican senators Tim Scott and Cory Gardner. They are in the house, which reminds me … security bar the doors. Judge Merrick Garland come on out. We are going to do this right here. Right now.

It’s like the red wedding.

But it’s not just Congress. Even some foreign leaders, they’ve been looking ahead, anticipating my departure. Last week, Prince George showed up to our meeting in his bathrobe. That was a slap in the face. A clear breach of protocol.

Although, while in England I did have lunch with her Majesty the Queen, took in a performance of Shakespeare, hit the links with David Cameron. Just in case anyone was debating whether I am black enough, I think that settles the debate.

I won’t lie, look, this is a tough transition. It’s hard. Key staff are now starting to leave the White House. Even reporters have left me. Savannah Guthrie, she has left the White House press corps to host the “Today” show. Norah O’Donnell left the briefing room to host ‘CBS This Morning.’ Jake Tapper left journalism to join CNN.

But the prospect of leaving the White House is a mixed bag. You might have heard that someone jumped the White House fence last week, but I have to give the Secret Service credit. They found Michelle and brought her back. She’s safe back at home now. It’s only nine more months, baby. Settle down.

And yet somehow, despite all this, despite the churn, in my final year my approval ratings keep going up. The last time I was this high I was trying to decide on my major.

And here’s the thing, I haven’t really done anything differently. So it’s odd. Even my age can’t explain the rising poll numbers. What has changed nobody can figure it out. [Image of Cruz and Trump]. Puzzling.

Anyway. In this last year, I do have more appreciation for those who have been with me on this amazing ride. Like one of our finest public servants, Joe Biden. God bless him. I love that guy. I love Joe Biden. I really do. And I want to thank him for his friendship, for his counsel, for always giving it to me straight, for not shooting anybody in the face. Thank you, Joe.

Also, I would be remiss. Let’s give it up for our host, Larry Wilmore. Also known as one of the two black guys who’s not Jon Stewart. You’re the South African guy, right? I love Larry. And his parents are here, who are from Evanston, which is great town. I also would like to acknowledge some of the award winning reporters that we have with us here tonight. Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, Liev Schreiber. Thank you all for everything you have done. I’m just joking. As you know, “Spotlight” is a film, a movie about investigative journalists with the resources and the autonomy to chase down the truth and hold the powerful accountable. Best fantasy film since “Star Wars.”

Look. That was maybe a cheap shot. I understand the news business is tough these days. It keeps changing all the time. Every year at this dinner somebody makes a joke about Buzzfeed, for example, changing the media landscape. And every year The Washington Post laughs a little bit less hard. Kind of a silence there. Especially at the Washington Post table.

GOP chairman Reince Priebus is here as well. Glad to see that you feel you have earned a night off. Congratulations on all your success, the republican party, the nomination process. It’s all going great. Keep it up.

Kendall Jenner is also here. And we had a chance to meet her backstage. She seems like a very nice, young woman. I’m not exactly sure what she does, but I’m told that my twitter mentions are about to go through the roof.

Helen Mirren is here tonight. I don’t even have a joke here, I just think Helen Mirren is awesome. She’s awesome.

Sitting at the same table I see Mike Bloomberg. Mike, a combative, controversial New York billionaire is leading the GOP primary and it is not you. That has to sting a little bit. Although it’s not an entirely fair comparison between you and the Donald. After all Mike was a big city mayor. He knows policy in depth. And he’s actually worth the amount of money that he says he is.

What an election season. For example, we’ve got the bright new face of the Democratic party here tonight, Mr. Bernie Sanders. Bernie, you look like a million bucks. Or, to put in terms you’ll understand, you look like 37,000 donations of $27 each.

A lot of folks have been surprised by the Bernie phenomenon, especially his appeal to young people. But not me. I get it. Just recently a young person came up to me and said she was sick of politicians standing in the way of her dreams. As if we were actually going to let Malia go to Burning Man this year. Was not going to happen. Bernie might have let her go. Not us.

I am hurt though, Bernie, that you have been distancing yourself little from me. I mean that’s just not something that you do to your comrade.

Bernie’s slogan has helped his campaign catch fire among young people. ‘Feel the Bern.’ ‘Feel the Bern.’ That’s a good slogan. Hillary’s slogan has not had the same effect. Let’s see this. [image of a boulder on a hill with the slogan “Trudge up the Hill”]

Look, I’ve said how much I admire Hillary’s toughness, her smarts, her policy chops, her experience. You’ve got admit it though, Hillary trying appeal to young voters is a little bit like your relative who just signed up for Facebook. ‘Dear America, did you get my poke? Is it appearing on your wall? I’m not sure I’m using this right. Love, Aunt Hillary.’ It’s not entirely persuasive.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, things are a little more, how shall we say this, a little more loose. Just look at the confusion over the invitations to tonight’s dinner. Guests were asked to check whether they wanted steak or fish. But instead, a whole bunch of you wrote in Paul Ryan. That’s not an option people. Steak or fish. You may not like steak or fish, but that’s your choice.

Meanwhile, some candidates aren’t polling high enough to qualify for their own joke tonight. [image of Kasich eating]. The rules were well established ahead of time.

And then there’s Ted Cruz. Ted had a tough week. He went to Indiana. Hoosier country. Stood on a basketball court and called the hoop a basketball ring. What else is in his lexicon. Baseball sticks. Football hats. But sure, I’m the foreign one.

Well let me conclude tonight on a more serious note. I want thank the Washington press corps. I want to thank Carol for all that you do. The free press is central to our democracy and, nah, I’m just kidding! You know I’m going to talk about Trump. Come on. We weren’t just going to stop there. Come on.

Although I am a little hurt that he’s not here tonight. We had so much fun that last time, And it is surprising. You’ve got a room full of reporters, celebrities, cameras. And he says no. Is this dinner too tacky for the Donald? What could he possibly be doing instead? Is he at home eating a Trump steak, tweeting out insults to Angela Merkel? What’s he doin’?

The republican establishment is incredulous that he is their most likely nominee. Incredulous. Shocking. They say Donald lacks the foreign policy experience to be president. But in fairness, he has spent years meeting with leaders from around the world: Miss Sweden, Miss Argentina, Miss Azerbaijan.

And there is one area where Donald’s experience could be invaluable and that’s closing Guantanamo because Trump knows a thing or two about running waterfront properties into the ground. Alright, that is probably enough. I mean I’ve got more material. No, no, no.

I don’t want to spend too much time on The Donald. Following your lead, I want to show some restraint. Because I think we can all agree that from the start he’s gotten the appropriate amount of coverage befitting the seriousness of his candidacy. Ha. I hope you all are proud of yourselves. The guy wanted to give his hotel business a boost and now we are praying that Cleveland makes it through July. Mmm mmm mmn. Hmmm.

As for me and Michelle, we’ve decided to stay in D.C. for a couple more years. Thank you. This way our youngest daughter can finish up high school. Michelle can stay closer to her plot of carrots. She’s already making plans to see them every day. Take a look [image of Michelle].

But our decision has actually presented a bit of a dilemma because traditionally presidents don’t stick around after they’re done. And it’s something that I’ve been brooding about a little bit. Take a look…

There you go. I am still waiting for all of you to respond to my invitation to connect to LinkedIn. But I know you have jobs to do which is what really brings us here tonight.

I know that there are times that we’ve had differences and that’s inherent in our institutional roles. That is true of every president and his press corps. But we’ve always shared the same goal to root our public discourse in the truth. To open the doors of this democracy. To do whatever we can to make our country and our world more free and more just.

And I’ve always appreciated the role that you have all played as equal partners in reaching these goals. Our free press is why we once again recognize the real journalists who uncover the horrifying scandal and brought some measure of justice for thousands of victims around the world. They are here with us tonight: Sacha Pfeiffer, Mike Rezendes, Walter Robinson, Matt Caroll and Ben Bradlee Jr. Please give them a big round of applause.

A free press is why, once again, we honor Jason Rezaian, as Carol noted. Last time this year we spoke of Jason’s courage as he endured the isolation of an Iranian prison. This year we see that courage in the flesh, and it’s a living testament to the very idea of a free press and a reminder of the rising level of danger and political intimidation and the physical threats faced by reporters overseas.

And I can make this commitment that as long as I hold this office my administration will continue to fight for the release of American journalists held against their will. And we will not stop until they see the same freedom as Jason had.

 

At home and abroad journalists like all of you engage in the dogged pursuit of informing citizens and holding leaders accountable, and making our government of the people possible. And it’s an enormous responsibility. And I realize it’s an enormous challenge at a time when the economics of the business sometimes incentivizes speed over depth, and when controversy and conflict are what most immediately attract readers and viewers. The good news is there are so many of you that are pushing against those trends and as a citizen of this great democracy, I am grateful for that.

For this is also a time around the world when some of the fundamental ideals of liberal democracies are under attack and when notions of objectively and of a free press and of facts and of evidence are trying to be undermined or in some cases ignored entirely. And in such a climate it’s not enough just to give people a megaphone. And that’s why your power and your responsibility to dig and to question and to counter distortions and untruths is more important than even ever.

Taking a stand on behalf of what is true does not require you shedding your objectivity. In fact, it is the essence of good journalism. It affirms the idea that the only way we can build consensus, the only way that we can move forward as a country, the only way we can help the world mend itself is by agreeing on a baseline of facts when it comes to the challenges that confront us all. So this night is a testament to all of you who have devoted your lives to that idea, who push to shine a light on the truth every single day. So, I want to close my final White House correspondents’ dinner by just saying thank you. I’m very proud of what you’ve done. It has been an honor and a privilege to work side by side with you to strengthen our democracy. With that I just have two more words to say: Obama out. [Drops mic].
OBAMAOUT

Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 April 27, 2016: Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy Speech Transcript

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy Speech

Source: Time, 4-27-16

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump outlined an “America first” foreign policy approach in a major address at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and thank you to the Center for National Interest for honoring me with this invitation. It truly is a great honor. I’d like to talk today about how to develop a new foreign policy direction for our country, one that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace.

TRUMP: It’s time to shake the rust off America’s foreign policy. It’s time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold, something we have to do. The direction I will outline today will also return us to a timeless principle. My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. It has to be first. Has to be.

That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make. America…

(APPLAUSE)

America first will be the major and overriding theme of my administration. But to chart our path forward, we must first briefly take a look back. We have a lot to be proud of.

In the 1940s we saved the world. The greatest generation beat back the Nazis and Japanese imperialists. Then we saved the world again. This time, from totalitarianism and communism. The Cold War lasted for decades but, guess what, we won and we won big. Democrats and Republicans working together got Mr. Gorbachev to heed the words of President Reagan, our great president, when he said, tear down this wall.

(APPLAUSE)

History will not forget what he did. A very special man and president. Unfortunately, after the Cold War our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another.

They just kept coming and coming. We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper. Very bad. It all began with a dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interests in becoming a western democracy.

We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of Americans and just killed be lives, lives, lives wasted. Horribly wasted. Many trillions of dollars were lost as a result. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill that void much to their really unjust enrichment.

They have benefited so much, so sadly, for us. Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision. No purpose. No direction. No strategy. Today I want to identify five main weaknesses in our foreign policy.

First, our resources are totally over extended. President Obama has weakened our military by weakening our economy. He’s crippled us with wasteful spending, massive debt, low growth, a huge trade deficit and open borders. Our manufacturing trade deficit with the world is now approaching $1 trillion a year.

We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own. Ending the theft of American jobs will give us resources we need to rebuild our military, which has to happen and regain our financial independence and strength. I am the only person running for the presidency who understands this and this is a serious problem.

I’m the only one — believe me, I know them all, I’m the only one who knows how to fix it.

(APPLAUSE)

Secondly, our allies are not paying their fair share, and I’ve been talking about this recently a lot. Our allies must contribute toward their financial, political, and human costs, have to do it, of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so.

TRUMP: They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us. In NATO, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries besides America, are spending the minimum required 2 percent of GDP on defense. We have spent trillions of dollars over time on planes, missiles, ships, equipment, building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia.

The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.

(APPLAUSE)

The whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security. A Trump administration will lead a free world that is properly armed and funded, and funded beautifully.

Thirdly, our friends are beginning to think they can’t depend on us. We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies, something that we’ve never seen before in the history of our country. He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms even before the ink was dry. Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, cannot be allowed. Remember that, cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

(APPLAUSE)

And under a Trump administration, will never, ever be allowed to have that nuclear weapon.

(APPLAUSE)

All of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the United States with Iran’s treatment of our ten captured sailors — so vividly I remember that day. In negotiation, you must be willing to walk. The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table.

When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win — you just can’t win. At the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. You’ve made that agreement, you have to stand by it and the world will be a better place. President Obama gutted our missile defense program and then abandoned our missile defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic. He supported the ouster of a friendly regime in Egypt that had a longstanding peace treaty with Israel, and then helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in its place.

Israel, our great friend and the one true democracy in the Middle East has been snubbed and criticized by an administration that lacks moral clarity. Just a few days ago, Vice President Biden again criticized Israel, a force for justice and peace, for acting as an impatient peace area in the region.

President Obama has not been a friend to Israel. He has treated Iran with tender love and care and made it a great power. Iran has, indeed, become a great, great power in just a very short period of time, because of what we’ve done. All of the expense and all at the expense of Israel, our allies in the region and very importantly, the United States itself.

We’ve picked fights with our oldest friends, and now they’re starting to look elsewhere for help. Remember that. Not good.

Fourth, our rivals no longer respect us. In fact, they’re just as confused as our allies, but in an even bigger problem is they don’t take us seriously anymore. The truth is they don’t respect us. When President Obama landed in Cuba on Air Force One, to leader was there, nobody, to greet him.

Perhaps an incident without precedent in the long and prestigious history of Air Force One. Then amazingly, the same thing happened in Saudi Arabia. It’s called no respect. Absolutely no respect.

TRUMP: Do you remember when the president made a long and expensive trip to Copenhagen, Denmark, to get the Olympics for our country, and after this unprecedented effort, it was announced that the United States came in fourth — fourth place? The president of the United States making this trip — unprecedented — comes in fourth place. He should have known the result before making such an embarrassing commitment. We were laughed at all over the world, as we have been many, many times.

The list of humiliations go on and on and on. President Obama watches helplessly as North Korea increases its aggression and expands further and further with its nuclear reach. Our president has allowed China to continue its economic assault on American jobs and wealth, refusing to enforce trade deals and apply leverage on China necessary to rein in North Korea. We have the leverage. We have the power over China, economic power, and people don’t understand it. And with that economic power, we can rein in and we can get them to do what they have to do with North Korea, which is totally out of control.

He has even allowed China to steal government secrets with cyber attacks and engaged in industrial espionage against the United States and its companies. We’ve let our rivals and challengers think they can get away with anything, and they do. They do at will. It always happens. If President Obama’s goal had been to weaken America, he could not have done a better job.

Finally, America no longer has a clear understanding of our foreign policy goals. Since the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union, we’ve lacked a coherent foreign policy. One day, we’re bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians. The next day, we’re watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. Lives lost, massive moneys lost. The world is a different place.

We’re a humanitarian nation, but the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess. We’ve made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before. We left Christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide.

(APPLAUSE)

We have done nothing to help the Christians, nothing, and we should always be ashamed for that, for that lack of action. Our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS, and we’re in a war against radical Islam, but President Obama won’t even name the enemy, and unless you name the enemy, you will never ever solve the problem.

(APPLAUSE)

Hillary Clinton also refuses to say the words radical Islam, even as she pushes for a massive increase in refugees coming into our country. After Secretary Clinton’s failed intervention in Libya, Islamic terrorists in Benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave Americans. Then, instead of taking charge that night, Hillary Clinton decided to go home and sleep. Incredible.

Clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was a total lie, proven to be absolutely a total lie. Our ambassador was murdered and our secretary of state misled the nation. And, by the way, she was not awake to take that call at 3 o’clock in the morning. And now ISIS is making millions and millions of dollars a week selling Libya oil. And you know what? We don’t blockade, we don’t bomb, we don’t do anything about it. It’s almost as if our country doesn’t even know what’s happening, which could be a fact and could be true.

TRUMP: This will all change when I become president.

To our friends and allies, I say America is going to be strong again. America is going to be reliable again. It’s going to be a great and reliable ally again. It’s going to be a friend again. We’re going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests and the shared interests of our allies.

(APPLAUSE)

We’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world. Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water’s edge. We need a new rational American foreign policy, informed by the best minds and supported by both parties, and it will be by both parties — Democrats, Republicans, independents, everybody, as well as by our close allies.

This is how we won the Cold War and it’s how we will win our new future struggles, which may be many, which may be complex, but we will win if I become president.

(APPLAUSE)

First, we need a long-term plan to halt the spread and reach of radical Islam. Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States and indeed the world. Events may require the use of military force, but it’s also a philosophical struggle, like our long struggle in the Cold War.

In this, we’re going to be working very closely with our allies in the Muslim world, all of which are at risk from radical Islamic violence, attacks and everything else. It is a dangerous world, more dangerous now than it has ever been.

We should work — thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

We should work together with any nation in the region that is threatened by the rise of radical Islam. But this has to be a two-way street. They must also be good to us. Remember that. They have to be good to us, no longer one way. It’s now two-way. And remember, us and all we’re doing, they have to appreciate what we’ve done to them. We’re going to help, but they have to appreciate what we’ve done for them. The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens and dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies. We have no idea where these people are coming from. There’s no documentation. There’s no paperwork. There’s nothing. We have to be smart. We have to be vigilant.

A pause for reassessment will help us to prevent the next San Bernardino or frankly, much worse. All you have to do is look at the World Trade Center and September 11th, one of the great catastrophes, in my opinion, the single greatest military catastrophe in the history of our country; worse than Pearl Harbor because you take a look at what’s happened, and citizens were attacked, as opposed to the military being attacked — one of the true great catastrophes.

And then there’s ISIS. I have a simple message for them. Their days are numbered. I won’t tell them where and I won’t tell them how. We must…

(APPLAUSE)

… we must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything. We’re sending troops. We tell them. We’re sending something else. We have a news conference. We have to be unpredictable. And we have to be unpredictable starting now.

But they’re going to be gone. ISIS will be gone if I’m elected president. And they’ll be gone quickly. They will be gone very, very quickly.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy. The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look at what’s happened to us. Our nuclear weapons arsenal, our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal. And it has to happen immediately. Our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today. The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air Force is about one-third smaller than 1991. Pilots flying B-52s in combat missions today. These planes are older than virtually everybody in this room.

And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget that in real dollars, cuts nearly 25 percent from what we were spending in 2011. Our military is depleted and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.

We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest, single investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned, and I mean unquestioned, by anybody and everybody.

But we will look for savings and spend our money wisely. In this time of mounting debt, right now we have so much debt that nobody even knows how to address the problem. But I do. No one dollar can be wasted. Not one single dollar can we waste. We’re also going to have to change our trade, immigration and economic policies to make our economy strong again. And to put Americans first again.

This will ensure that our own workers, right here in America, get the jobs and higher pay that will grow our tax revenues, increase our economic might as a nation, make us strong financially again. So, so important. We need to think smart about areas where our technological superiority, and nobody comes close, gives us an edge.

This includes 3D printing, artificial intelligence and cyber warfare. A great country also takes care of its warriors. Our commitment to them is absolute, and I mean absolute. A trump administration will give our servicemen and women the best equipment and support in the world when they serve and where they serve. And the best care in the world when they return as veterans and they come back home to civilian life. Our veterans…

(APPLAUSE)

Our veterans have not been treated fairly or justly. These are our great people and we must treat them fairly. We must even treat them really, really well and that will happen under the Trump administration.

(APPLAUSE)

Finally, we must develop a foreign policy based on American interests. Businesses do not succeed when they lose sight of their core interests and neither do countries. Look at what happened in the 1990s. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania — and this was a horrible time for us — were attacked. and 17 brave sailors were killed on the USS Cole.

And what did we do? It seemed we put more effort into adding China into the World Trade organization, which has been a total disaster for the United States. Frankly, we spent more time on that than we did in stopping Al Qaida. We even had an opportunity to take out Osama bin Laden and we didn’t do it

And then we got hit at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Again, the worst attack on our country in its history. Our foreign policy goals must be based on America’s core national security interests. And the following will be my priorities.

In the Middle East our goals must be, and I mean must be, to defeat terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change. We need to be clear sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies. And believe me, we have groups that no matter what you do, they will be the enemy.

TRUMP: We have to be smart enough to recognize who those groups are, who those people are, and not help them. And we must only be generous to those that prove they are indeed our friends.

(APPLAUSE)

We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes, but we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests.

Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism. I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.

Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a deal under my administration, a deal that’s great — not good, great — for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It’s as simple as that. We’re going to find out.

Fixing our relations with China is another important step — and really toward creating an even more prosperous period of time. China respects strength and by letting them take advantage of us economically, which they are doing like never before, we have lost all of their respect.

We have a massive trade deficit with China, a deficit that we have to find a way quickly, and I mean quickly, to balance. A strong and smart America is an America that will find a better friend in China, better than we have right now. Look at what China is doing in the South China Sea. They’re not supposed to be doing it.

No respect for this country or this president. We can both benefit or we can both go our separate ways. If need be, that’s what’s going to have to happen.

After I’m elected president, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges. For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure, grown out of the Cold War to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism.

(APPLAUSE)

I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must only fight to win.

(APPLAUSE)

I will never sent our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V.

(APPLAUSE)

Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction. The best way to achieve those goals is through a disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy. With President Obama and Secretary Clinton we’ve had the exact opposite — a reckless, rudderless and aimless foreign policy, one that has blazed the path of destruction in its wake.

After losing thousands of lives and spending trillions of dollars, we are in far worst shape in the Middle East than ever, ever before. I challenge anyone to explain the strategic foreign policy vision of Obama/Clinton. It has been a complete and total disaster.

I will also be prepared to deploy America’s economic resources. Financial leverage and sanctions can be very, very persuasive, but we need to use them selectively and with total determination.

TRUMP: Our power will be used if others do not play by the rules. In other words, if they do not treat us fairly. Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce that line in the sand. Believe me.

(APPLAUSE)

However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. Although not in government service, I was totally against the war in Iraq, very proudly, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East. Sadly, I was correct, and the biggest beneficiary has been has been Iran, who is systematically taking over Iraq and gaining access to their very rich oil reserves, something it has wanted to do for decades.

And now, to top it off, we have ISIS. My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. That’s why I also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. We have to look to new people.

(APPLAUSE)

We have to look to new people because many of the old people frankly don’t know what they’re doing, even though they may look awfully good writing in the New York Times or being watched on television.

Finally, I will work with our allies to reinvigorate Western values and institutions. Instead of trying to spread universal values that not everybody shares or wants, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world than military interventions.

(APPLAUSE)

These are my goals as president. I will seek a foreign policy that all Americans, whatever their party, can support, so important, and which our friends and allies will respect and totally welcome. The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends and when old friends become allies, that’s what we want. We want them to be our allies.

We want the world to be — we want to bring peace to the world. Too much destruction out there, too many destructive weapons. The power of weaponry is the single biggest problem that we have today in the world.

To achieve these goals, Americans must have confidence in their country and its leadership. Again, many Americans must wonder why we our politicians seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than in defending their own. Americans…

(APPLAUSE)

Americans must know that we’re putting the American people first again on trade.

(APPLAUSE)

So true. On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy. The jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority.

(APPLAUSE)

No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must start doing the same. We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down and will never enter…

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.

(APPLAUSE)

NAFTA, as an example, has been a total disaster for the United States and has emptied our states — literally emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs. And I’ve just gotten to see it. I’ve toured Pennsylvania. I’ve toured New York. I’ve toured so many of the states. They have been cleaned out. Their manufacturing is gone.

Never again, only the reverse — and I have to say this strongly — never again; only the reverse will happen. We will keep our jobs and bring in new ones. There will be consequences for the companies that leave the United States only to exploit it later. They fire the people. They take advantage of the United States. There will be consequences for those companies. Never again.

Under a Trump administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of a foreign country.

(APPLAUSE)

I will view as president the world through the clear lens of American interests. I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion. We will not apologize for becoming successful again, but will instead embrace the unique heritage that makes us who we are.

The world is most peaceful and most prosperous when America is strongest. America will continue and continue forever to play the role of peacemaker. We will always help save lives and indeed humanity itself, but to play the role, we must make America strong again.

(APPLAUSE)

And always — always, always, we must make, and we have to look at it from every angle, and we have no choice, we must make America respected again. We must make America truly wealthy again. And we must — we have to and we will make America great again. And if we do that — and if we do that, perhaps this century can be the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever, ever known. Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate it. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 April 15, 2016: Bernie Sanders’s speech to the Academic Conference at the Vatican on economic inequality transcript

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

The Speech Bernie Sanders Gave at the Vatica

I am honored to be with you today and was pleased to receive your invitation to speak to this conference of The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Today we celebrate the encyclical Centesimus Annus and reflect on its meaning for our world a quarter-century after it was presented by Pope John Paul II. With the fall of Communism, Pope John Paul II gave a clarion call for human freedom in its truest sense: freedom that defends the dignity of every person and that is always oriented towards the common good.

The Church’s social teachings, stretching back to the first modern encyclical about the industrial economy, Rerum Novarum in 1891, to Centesimus Annus, to Pope Francis’s inspiring encyclical Laudato Si’ this past year, have grappled with the challenges of the market economy. There are few places in modern thought that rival the depth and insight of the Church’s moral teachings on the market economy.

Over a century ago, Pope Leo XIII highlighted economic issues and challenges in Rerum Novarum that continue to haunt us today, such as what he called “the enormous wealth of a few as opposed to the poverty of the many.”

And let us be clear. That situation is worse today. In the year 2016, the top one percent of the people on this planet own more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, while the wealthiest 60 people – 60 people – own more than the bottom half – 3 1/2 billion people. At a time when so few have so much, and so many have so little, we must reject the foundations of this contemporary economy as immoral and unsustainable.

The words of Centesimus Annus likewise resonate with us today. One striking example:

Furthermore, society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain amount for savings. This requires a continuous effort to improve workers’ training and capability so that their work will be more skilled and productive, as well as careful controls and adequate legislative measures to block shameful forms of exploitation, especially to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable workers, of immigrants and of those on the margins of society. The role of trade unions in negotiating minimum salaries and working conditions is decisive in this area. (Para15)

The essential wisdom of Centesimus Annus is this: A market economy is beneficial for productivity and economic freedom. But if we let the quest for profits dominate society; if workers become disposable cogs of the financial system; if vast inequalities of power and wealth lead to marginalization of the poor and the powerless; then the common good is squandered and the market economy fails us. Pope John Paul II puts it this way: profit that is the result of “illicit exploitation, speculation, or the breaking of solidarity among working people . . . has not justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man.” (Para43).

We are now twenty-five years after the fall of Communist rule in Eastern Europe. Yet we have to acknowledge that Pope John Paul’s warnings about the excesses of untrammeled finance were deeply prescient. Twenty-five years after Centesimus Annus, speculation, illicit financial flows, environmental destruction, and the weakening of the rights of workers is far more severe than it was a quarter century ago. Financial excesses, indeed widespread financial criminality on Wall Street, played a direct role in causing the world’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

We need a political analysis as well as a moral and anthropological analysis to understand what has happened since 1991. We can say that with unregulated globalization, a world market economy built on speculative finance burst through the legal, political, and moral constraints that had once served to protect the common good. In my country, home of the world’s largest financial markets, globalization was used as a pretext to deregulate the banks, ending decades of legal protections for working people and small businesses. Politicians joined hands with the leading bankers to allow the banks to become “too big to fail.” The result: eight years ago the American economy and much of the world was plunged into the worst economic decline since the 1930s. Working people lost their jobs, their homes and their savings, while the government bailed out the banks.

Inexplicably, the United States political system doubled down on this reckless financial deregulation, when the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of deeply misguided decisions, unleashed an unprecedented flow of money into American politics. These decisions culminated in the infamous Citizen United case, which opened the financial spigots for huge campaign donations by billionaires and large corporations to turn the U.S. political system to their narrow and greedy advantage. It has established a system in which billionaires can buy elections. Rather than an economy aimed at the common good, we have been left with an economy operated for the top 1 percent, who get richer and richer as the working class, the young and the poor fall further and further behind. And the billionaires and banks have reaped the returns of their campaign investments, in the form of special tax privileges, imbalanced trade agreements that favor investors over workers, and that even give multinational companies extra-judicial power over governments that are trying to regulate them.

But as both Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis have warned us and the world, the consequences have been even direr than the disastrous effects of financial bubbles and falling living standards of working-class families. Our very soul as a nation has suffered as the public lost faith in political and social institutions. As Pope Francis has stated: “Man is not in charge today, money is in charge, money rules.” And the Pope has also stated: “We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.”

And further: “While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good.”

Pope Francis has called on the world to say: “No to a financial system that rules rather than serves” in Evangeli Gaudium. And he called upon financial executives and political leaders to pursue financial reform that is informed by ethical considerations. He stated plainly and powerfully that the role of wealth and resources in a moral economy must be that of servant, not master.

The widening gaps between the rich and poor, the desperation of the marginalized, the power of corporations over politics, is not a phenomenon of the United States alone. The excesses of the unregulated global economy have caused even more damage in the developing countries. They suffer not only from the boom-bust cycles on Wall Street, but from a world economy that puts profits over pollution, oil companies over climate safety, and arms trade over peace. And as an increasing share of new wealth and income goes to a small fraction of those at the top, fixing this gross inequality has become a central challenge. The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great economic issue of our time, the great political issue of our time, and the great moral issue of our time. It is an issue that we must confront in my nation and across the world.

Pope Francis has given the most powerful name to the predicament of modern society: the Globalization of Indifference. “Almost without being aware of it,” he noted, “we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own.” We have seen on Wall Street that financial fraud became not only the norm but in many ways the new business model. Top bankers have shown no shame for their bad behavior and have made no apologies to the public. The billions and billions of dollars of fines they have paid for financial fraud are just another cost of doing business, another short cut to unjust profits.

Some might feel that it is hopeless to fight the economic juggernaut, that once the market economy escaped the boundaries of morality it would be impossible to bring the economy back under the dictates of morality and the common good. I am told time and time again by the rich and powerful, and the mainstream media that represent them, that we should be “practical,” that we should accept the status quo; that a truly moral economy is beyond our reach. Yet Pope Francis himself is surely the world’s greatest demonstration against such a surrender to despair and cynicism. He has opened the eyes of the world once again to the claims of mercy, justice and the possibilities of a better world. He is inspiring the world to find a new global consensus for our common home.

I see that hope and sense of possibility every day among America’s young people. Our youth are no longer satisfied with corrupt and broken politics and an economy of stark inequality and injustice. They are not satisfied with the destruction of our environment by a fossil fuel industry whose greed has put short term profits ahead of climate change and the future of our planet. They want to live in harmony with nature, not destroy it. They are calling out for a return to fairness; for an economy that defends the common good by ensuring that every person, rich or poor, has access to quality health care, nutrition and education.

As Pope Francis made powerfully clear last year in Laudato Si’, we have the technology and know-how to solve our problems – from poverty to climate change to health care to protection of biodiversity. We also have the vast wealth to do so, especially if the rich pay their way in fair taxes rather than hiding their funds in the world’s tax and secrecy havens- as the Panama Papers have shown.

The challenges facing our planet are not mainly technological or even financial, because as a world we are rich enough to increase our investments in skills, infrastructure, and technological know-how to meet our needs and to protect the planet. Our challenge is mostly a moral one, to redirect our efforts and vision to the common good. Centesimus Annus, which we celebrate and reflect on today, and Laudato Si’, are powerful, eloquent and hopeful messages of this possibility. It is up to us to learn from them, and to move boldly toward the common good in our time.

Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 April 14, 2016: 8th Democratic Presidential Debate in Brooklyn Transcript

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Transcript: Democratic Presidential Debate in Brooklyn

Source: NYT, 4-14-16

Following is a transcript of the Democratic debate, as transcribed by the Federal News Service.

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, you can now move to your lecterns while I explain a few ground rules. As moderator, I’ll guide the discussion, asking questions and follow-ups. You’ll also get questions from Dana Bash and Errol Louis. You’ll each have one minute and 15 seconds to answer questions, 30 seconds for follow- ups. Timing lights will signal when your time is up. Both candidates have agreed to these rules now. Opening statements, you’ll each have two minutes.

Let’s begin with Senator Sanders.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Wolf, thank you very much. CNN, thank you very much. Secretary Clinton, thank you very much.

When we began this campaign almost a year ago, we started off at 3 percent in the polls. We were about 70 points behind Secretary Clinton. In the last couple of weeks, there were two polls out there that had us ahead.

(APPLAUSE)

Of the last nine caucuses and primaries, we have won eight of them, many of them by landslide victories.

(APPLAUSE)

Over the last year, we have received almost 7 million individual campaign contributions, averaging — guess what — $27 apiece, more individual campaign contributions than any candidate in American history at this point in a campaign.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

The reason that our campaign has done so well is because we’re doing something very radical: We’re telling the American people the truth. And the truth is that this country is not going to move forward in a significant way for working people unless we overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision…

(APPLAUSE)

… and unless we have real campaign reform so that billionaires and super PACs cannot buy elections.

(APPLAUSE)

This campaign is also determined to end a rigged economy where the rich get richer and everybody else get poorer, and create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.

Thank you.

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton? CLINTON: Well, first of all, it’s great to be here in New York, and I am delighted to…

(APPLAUSE)

… have this chance to discuss the issues that are important to our future. I was so honored to serve as a senator from New York for eight years…

(APPLAUSE)

… and to work to provide opportunity for all of our citizens to make it possible that we could knock down the barriers that stand in the way of people getting ahead and staying ahead.

And during those eight years, we faced some difficult challenges together. We faced 9/11. We worked hard to rebuild New York. I was particularly concerned about our first responders and others who’d been affected in their health by what they had experienced. We worked hard to bring jobs from Buffalo to Albany and all parts of New York to give more hard-working people a chance to really make the most out of their own talents.

And we worked hard to really keep New York values at the center of who we are and what we do together.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

(APPLAUSE)

And that is — that is exactly what I want to do as your president. We will celebrate our diversity. We will work together, bringing us back to being united, setting some big, bold, progressive goals for America. That’s what I’m offering in this campaign, to build on the work, to build on the value that we share here in New York, to take those to Washington, and to knock down those barriers that in any way hold back not only individual Americans, bur our country from reaching our full potential. That is what my campaign is about.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

We are going to deal with many of the issues both of you just raised. I want to begin with a question that goes right to the heart of which one of you should be the Democratic presidential nominee.

BLITZER: Senator Sanders, in the last week, you’ve raised questions about Secretary Clinton’s qualifications to be president. You said that something is clearly lacking in terms of her judgment and you accused her of having a credibility gap.

So let me ask you, do you believe that Secretary Clinton has the judgment to be president?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I’ve known Secretary Clinton, how long, 25 years?

We worked together in the Senate. And I said that in response to the kind of attacks we were getting from the Clinton, uh, campaign. “Washington Post” headline says “Clinton Campaign says Sanders is Unqualified” and that’s what the surrogates were saying.
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Does Secretary Clinton have the experience and the intelligence to be a president?

Of course she does.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: But I do question…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: — but I do question her judgment. I question a judgment which voted for the war in Iraq…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: — the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, voted for virtually every disastrous trade agreement which cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. And I question her judgment about running super PACs which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests, including $15 million from Wall Street.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

I don’t believe that that is…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: — the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need.

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton?

HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:Well, it is true that now that the spotlight is pretty bright here in New York, some things have been said and Senator Sanders did call me unqualified. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life. That was a first.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: And then he did say that…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — he had to question my judgment. Well, the people of New York voted for me twice to be their senator from New York and…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — and…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — and President Obama trusted my judgment enough to ask me to be secretary of State for the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: So, look, we have disagreements on policy. There’s no doubt about it. But if you go and read, which I hope all of you will before Tuesday, Senator Sanders’ long interview with the “New York Daily News,” talk about judgment and talk about the kinds of problems he had answering questions about even his core issue, breaking up the banks.

When asked, he could not explain how…

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: — that would be done and…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — when asked…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — when asked about a number of foreign policy issues, he could not answer about Afghanistan, about Israel, about counterterrorism, except to say if he’d had some paper in front of him, maybe he could.

I think you need to have the judgment on day one to be both president and commander-in-chief.

BLITZER: Senator…

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: And let’s talk about judgment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes!

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: And let us talk about the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: I led the opposition to that war. Secretary Clinton voted for that. Well, let’s talk about judgment. Let’s talk about super PACs and 501(c)(4)s, money which is completely undisclosed.

Where does the money come from?

Do we really feel confident about a candidate saying that she’s going to bring change in America when she is so dependent on big money interests?

I don’t think so.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, let me…

SANDERS: We have…

CLINTON: — let me just say…

SANDERS: — (INAUDIBLE)…

CLINTON: — let me — let me say…

BLITZER: Madam Secretary, let him finish.

CLINTON: OK.

SANDERS: Thirdly, we have got to understand that in America, we should be thinking big, not small.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you.

SANDERS: We need to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people. So I…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: — my (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

Secretary?

CLINTON: Well, make — make no mistake about it, this is not just an attack on me, it’s an attack on President Obama. President Obama…

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

(BOOS)

CLINTON: You know, let me tell you why. You may not like the answer, but I’ll tell you why. President Obama had a super PAC when he ran. President Obama took tens of millions of dollars from contributors. And President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulations…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — on Wall Street in many a year.

CLINTON: So this is — this is a phony — this is a phony attack that is designed to raise questions when there is no evidence or support, to undergird the continuation that he is putting forward in these attacks.

BLITZER: Thank, Secretary. We’re going to continue on this, but I want Dana Bash to continue with the questioning.

BASH: Secretary Clint, the government announced yesterday that five of the biggest banks on Wall Street have failed to develop plans to dismantle themselves in the event of another financial crisis. This is the second time in two years those banks neglected to come up with credible plans. So, as president, would you call on regulators to start the process of breaking up these banks? Something that the law not only allows, but actually explicitly encourages?

CLINTON: Absolutely. You know, this is what I’ve saying for the past year. No bank is too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail.

I have been talking about what we should be doing under Dodd- Frank. I’m glad that Senator Sanders is now joining in talking about Dodd-Frank, because Dodd-Frank sets forth the approach that needs to be taken. I believe, and I will appoint regulators who are tough enough and ready enough to break up any bank that fails the test under Dodd-Frank.

There are two sections there. If they fail either one, that they’re a systemic risk, a grave risk to our economy, or if they fail the other, that their living wills, which is what you’re referring to, is inadequate.

Let’s look at what is at stake here. We can never let Wall Street wreck Main street again. I spoke out against Wall Street when I was a Senator from New York. I have been standing up and saying continuously we have the law. We’ve got to execute under it. So, you’re right. I will move immediately to break up any financial institution, but I go further because I want the law to extend to those that are part of the shadow banking industry. The big insurance companies, the hedge funds, something that I have been arguing for now a long time…

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

BASH: … Thank you, Secretary. Senator Sanders, you were recently asked what you would replace the big Wall Street banks with if you could break them up. You said, quote, “That’s their decision.”

Why would you trust the banks to restructure themselves? SANDERS: First, Dana…

BASH: when you said the whole business model was fraudulent?

SANDERS: That’s right. So, let’s start off with the basic premise. A few days ago Goldman Sachs formally reached a settlement with the United States government for $5 billion dollars. What Goldman Sachs acknowledged was, essentially, that they were selling fraudulent packages of subprime mortgage loans.

Goldman Sachs was not the only bank, other banks, of course, did the same. Now, I don’t need Dodd-Frank now to tell me that we have got to break up these banks, A, because they’re based on fraudulent principles, and B, because when you have six financial institutions that have assets equivalent to 58% of the GFP of this country, they are just too big, too much concentration of wealth and power.

BASH: But, Senator…

SANDERS: The point is we have got to break them up so that they do not pose a systemic risk and so that we have a vibrant economy with a competitive financial system.

BASH: But Senator, you didn’t answer the specific question which is not just about breaking up the banks, but why allow the banks to do it themselves?

SANDERS: Because I’m not sure that the government should say is you are too big to fail. You’ve got to be a certain size. And, then the banks themselves can figure out what they want to sell off. I don’t know that it’s appropriate that the Department of Treasury to be making those decisions. What we need is to make sure that they are safe.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Dana, you know — I love being in Brooklyn.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

CLINTON: Dana, let me add here that there are two ways to at this under Dodd-Frank, which is after all the law we passed under President Obama, and I’m proud that Barney Frank, one of the authors, has endorsed me because what I have said continuously is, yes, sometimes the government may have to order certain actions. Sometime the government can permit the institution themselves to take those actions. That has to be the judgement of the regulators.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

But, there’s another element to this. I believe strongly that executives of any of these organizations should be financially penalized if there is a settlement.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: They should have to pay up through compensation or bonuses because we have to go after not just the big giant institution, we have got to go after the people who are making the decisions in the institutions.

BASH: Thank you, Madam Secretary.

CLINTON: And hold them accountable as well.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Senator Sanders, you have consistently criticized Secretary Clinton for accepting money from Wall Street. Can you name one decision that she made as senator that shows that he favored banks because of the money she received?

SANDERS: Sure. Sure. The obvious decision is when the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior of wall street brought this country into the worst economic downturn since the Great Recession — the Great Depression of the ’30s, when millions of people lost their jobs, and their homes, and their life savings, the obvious response to that is that you’ve got a bunch of fraudulent operators and that they have got to be broken up.

That was my view way back, and I introduced legislation to do that. Now, Secretary Clinton was busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225,000 a speech.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: So the problem response — the proper response in my view is we should break them up. And that’s what my legislation does.

CLINTON: Well, you can tell, Dana, he cannot come up with any example, because there is no example.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: It is important — it’s always important. It may be inconvenient, but it’s always important to get the facts straight. I stood up against the behaviors of the banks when I was a senator.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

I called them out on their mortgage behavior. I also was very willing to speak out against some of the special privileges they had under the tax code. When I went to the secretary of state office, the president — President Obama led the effort to pass the Dodd-Frank bill.

That is the law. Now, this is our ninth debate. In the prior eight debates, I have said, we have a law. You don’t just say, we’re upset about this. I’m upset about it. You don’t just say, go break them up. You have a law, because we are a nation of laws.

BASH: Thank you, Madam Secretary.

CLINTON: So I support Dodd-Frank, but I have consistently said that’s not enough. We’ve got to include the shadow banking sector.

BASH: Thank you. Senator Sanders.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Secretary Clinton called them out. Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements? So they must have been very, very upset by what you did.

Look, here is the difference and here is the clear difference. These banks, in my view, have too much power. They have shown themselves to be fraudulent organizations endangering the well-being of our economy.

If elected president, I will break them up. We have got legislation to do that, end of discussion.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Secretary Clinton, if I may, Senator Sanders keeping bringing up the speeches that you gave to Goldman Sachs. So I’d like to ask you, so you’ve said that you don’t want to release the transcripts, until everybody does it, but if there’s nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters’ minds, why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed?

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: You know, first of all — first of all, there isn’t an issue. When I was in public service serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks. I did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

I’m the only one on this stage who did not vote to deregulate swaps and derivatives, as Senator Sanders did, which led to a lot of the problems that we had with Lehman Brothers.

Now, if you’re going to look at the problems that actually caused the Great Recession, you’ve got to look at the whole picture. It was a giant insurance company, AIG. It was an investment bank, Lehman Brothers. It was mortgage companies like Countrywide.

I’m not saying that Senator Sanders did something untoward when he voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives…

BASH: Madam Secretary…

CLINTON: … but the fact is he did.

CLINTON: And that contributed to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and started the cascade…

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Senator Sanders, one second, please. Secretary Clinton, the question was about the transcripts of the speeches to Goldman Sachs.

(APPLAUSE)

Why not release them?

CLINTON: I have said, look, there are certain — there are certain expectations when you run for president. This is a new one. And I’ve said, if everybody agrees to do it — because there are speeches for money on the other side. I know that.

But I will tell you this, there is — there is a long-standing expectation that everybody running release their tax returns, and you can go — you can go to my website and see eight years of tax returns. And I’ve released 30 years of tax returns. And I think every candidate, including Senator Sanders and Donald Trump, should do the same.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Secretary Clinton, we’re going to get to the tax returns later, but just to put a button on this, you’re running now for the Democratic nomination.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

CLINTON: Right.

BASH: And it is your Democratic opponent and many Democratic voters who want to see those transcripts. It’s not about the Republicans…

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: You know, let’s set the same standard for everybody. When everybody does it, OK, I will do it, but let’s set and expect the same standard on tax returns. Everybody does it, and then we move forward.

BLITZER: Thank you.

SANDERS: Well, let me respond. Secretary Clinton, you just heard her, everybody else does it, she’ll do it. I will do it.

(APPLAUSE)

I am going to release all of the transcripts of the speeches that I gave on Wall Street behind closed doors, not for $225,000, not for $2,000, not for two cents. There were no speeches.

(APPLAUSE)

And second of all, of course we will release our taxes. Jane does our taxes. We’ve been a little bit busy lately. You’ll excuse us. But we will…

BLITZER: Senator…

SANDERS: We will get them out.

BLITZER: Senator…

CLINTON: Well, you know, there are a lot of copy machines around.

BLITZER: Senator, when are you — when are you — you’ve been asked for weeks and weeks to release your tax returns.

SANDERS: Well, I think we got one that’s coming out tomorrow.

BLITZER: Which one?

SANDERS: Last year’s.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

BLITZER: 2014?

SANDERS: Yes.

BLITZER: What about 2013, all the other ones?

SANDERS: You’ll get them, yes. Yeah, look, I don’t want to get anybody very excited. They are very boring tax returns. No big money from speeches, no major investments. Unfortunately — unfortunately, I remain one of the poorer members of the United States Senate. And that’s what that will show.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: So, Senator, just to be clear, tomorrow you will release the 2014 tax returns from you and your family?

SANDERS: Yes.

BLITZER: And what about the earlier ones? What’s the problem… SANDERS: Yes.

BLITZER: What’s taking so long? Because you just have to go to the filing cabinet, make a copy, and release them.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Wolf, the answer is, you know, what we have always done in my family is, Jane does them. And she’s been out on the campaign trail. We will get them out. We’ll get them out very shortly. It’s not a big deal.

BLITZER: Thank you. Senator, Senator, you’ve slammed companies like General Electric and Verizon for moving jobs outside of the United States. Yesterday, the CEO of Verizon called your views contemptable and said in your home state of Vermont Verizon has invested more than $16 million and pays millions of dollars a year to local businesses. He says you are, quote, “uninformed on this issue” and disconnected from reality. Given your obvious contempt for large American corporations, how would you as president of the United States be able to effectively promote American businesses around the world?

SANDERS: Well, for a start, I would tell the gentleman who’s the CEO at Verizon to start negotiating with the Communication Workers of America.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is — this is a perfect example, Wolf, of the kind of corporate greed which is destroying the middle class of this country. This gentleman makes $18 million a year in salary. That’s his — that’s his compensation. This gentleman is now negotiating to take away health care benefits of Verizon workers, outsource call center jobs to the Philippines, and — and trying to create a situation where workers will lose their jobs. He is not investing in the way he should in inner cities in America.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right. Senator, but the question was, the question was, given your contempt for large American corporations, as president, how would you be able to promote American business around the world?

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

SANDERS: First of all, the word contempt is not right. There are some great businesses who treat their workers and the environment with respect.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Verizon happens not to be one of them.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: And what we need to do is to tell this guy Immelt, who’s the head of General Electric, he doesn’t like me, well, that’s fine. He has outsourced hundreds of thousands of decent-paying jobs throughout the world…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: — cut his workforce here substantially and in a given year, by the way, it turns out that both Verizon and General Electric, in a given year, pay nothing in federal income tax despite making billions in profits.

(BOOS)

BLITZER: But Senator, experts say that no matter the means to bring back these jobs to the United States, prices of goods for consumers in the United States would go up, which would disproportionately impact the poor and middle class.

So how do you bring back these jobs to the United States without affecting the cost of goods to America’s middle class and poor?

SANDERS: Well, for a start, we’re going to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: And number two, while it is true we may end up paying a few cents more for a hamburger in McDonald’s, at the end of the day, what this economy desperately needs is to rebuild our manufacturing sector with good-paying jobs.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: We cannot continue to sustain the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs that we have seen over the last 20, 30 years, based on trade agreements of which Secretary Clinton has voted for almost every one of those. That has got to change.

BLITZER: Thank you.

Secretary…

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: — Secretary Clinton?

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, first of all, I do have a very comprehensive plan to create more jobs and I think that has to be at the center of our economic approach. And so I think it is important that we do more on manufacturing. I went to Syracuse and laid out a $10 billion plan that would, I believe, really jump-start advanced manufacturing.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

I have seen the results of what can happen when we have the government cooperating with business. And that’s exactly what I will do.

When I was secretary of State, I helped to lead the way to increased exports of American good around the world, which supports tens of thousands of jobs.

So I think you’ve got to go at this with a sense of how to accomplish the goal we are setting — more good jobs with rising incomes for people everywhere from inner cities to rural areas to every distressed community in America. And that’s exactly what my plan would bring about.

I think we have a pretty good record if we look at what happened…

BLITZER: Senator…

CLINTON: — in the 1990s, we got 23 million new jobs and incomes went up for everybody.

BLITZER: Thank you.

CLINTON: Let’s do that again in America.

BLITZER: Senator, how do you…

SANDERS: I’m going to respond…

BLITZER: I’ll have you respond in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Stand by.

SANDERS: Well, look…

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton… (CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: You will respond in a moment, but I have to follow-up with Secretary Clinton.

You stood on the stage with Governor Cuomo in support of new legislation to raise New York’s minimum wage to $15 an hour. But you do not support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

As president…

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: — if a Democratic Congress put a $15 minimum wage bill on your desk, would you sign it?

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

CLINTON: Well, of course I would. And I have supported…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — I have supported the fight for 15. I am proud to have the endorsement of most of the unions that have led the fight for 15. I was proud to stand on the stage with Governor Cuomo, with SEIU and others who have been leading this battle and I will work as hard as I can to raise the minimum wage. I always have. I supported that when I was in the Senate.

SANDERS: Well, look…

CLINTON: But what I have also said is that we’ve got to be smart about it, just the way Governor Cuomo was here in New York. If you look at it, we moved more quickly to $15 in New York City, more deliberately toward $12, $12.50 upstate then to $15. That is exactly my position. It’s a model for the nation and that’s what I will do as president.

BLITZER: Thank you.

CLINTON: Go as quickly as…

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: — to get to $15.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: You know, wait a minute…

SANDERS: (INAUDIBLE).

CLINTON: — wait a minute. SANDERS: (INAUDIBLE).

CLINTON: — wait, wait…

SANDERS: That’s just not accurate. Well…

CLINTON: Come on, I have stood on the debate stage…

SANDERS: — well and I…

CLINTON: — with Senator Sanders eight…

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: — times.

SANDERS: Excuse me.

CLINTON: I have said the…

SANDERS: Well…

CLINTON: Exact same thing.

BLITZER: Secretary, Senator, please.

CLINTON: If we can…

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: — raise it to $15 in New York…

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: — or Los Angeles or Seattle…

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

BLITZER: Secretary, the viewers…

CLINTON: — let’s do it.

BLITZER: If you’re both screaming at each other, the viewers won’t be able to hear either of you.

SANDERS: OK.

BLITZER: So please…

SANDERS: I will…

BLITZER: — don’t talk over each other.

SANDERS: I believe I was…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Go ahead.

SANDERS: — responding.

All right? When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let’s raise it to $12. There’s a difference. And, by the way, what has happened is history has outpaced Secretary Clinton, because all over this country, people are standing up and they’re saying $12 is not good enough, we need $15 an hour.

CLINTON: OK.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Go ahead, Secretary. Secretary?

SANDERS: And suddenly…

BLITZER: Secretary, go ahead.

SANDERS: To suddenly…

CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you very much.

SANDERS: To suddenly announce now that you’re for $15, I don’t think is quite accurate.

BLITZER: All right. Secretary?

CLINTON: All right. I have said from the very beginning that I supported the fight for $15. I supported those on the front lines of the fight for — it happens to be true. I also — I supported the $15 effort in L.A. I supported in Seattle. I supported it for the fast food workers in New York.

The minimum wage at the national level right now is $7.25, right? We want to raise it higher than it ever has been, but we also have to recognize some states and some cities will go higher, and I support that. I have taken my cue from the Democrats in the Senate, led by Senator Patty Murray and others, like my good friend Kirsten Gillibrand, who has said we will set a national level of $12 and then urge any place that can go above it to go above it.

Going from $7.25 to $12 is a huge difference. Thirty-five million people will get a raise. One in four working mothers will get a raise. I want to get something done. And I think setting the goal to get to $12 is the way to go, encouraging others to get to $15. But, of course, if we have a Democratic Congress, we will go to $15.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.

SANDERS: Well, I think the secretary has confused a lot of people. I don’t know how you’re there for the fight for $15 when you say you want a $12-an-hour national minimum wage.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, in fact — in fact, there is an effort, Patty Murray has introduced legislation for $12 minimum wage. That’s good. I introduced legislation for $15 an hour minimum wage which is better.

(APPLAUSE)

And ultimately what we have got to determine is after massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent, when millions of our people are working longer hours for low wages…

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

SANDERS: I think we have got to be clear, not equivocate, $15 in minimum wage in 50 states in this country as soon as possible.

BLITZER: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

We’re going to turn to another critically important issue right now, guns in America. Secretary Clinton, you’ve said that Vermont, Senator Sanders’ home state, has, quote, “the highest per capita number of guns that end up committing crimes in New York.” But only 1.2 percent of the guns recovered in New York in 2014 were from Vermont. Are you seriously blaming Vermont, and implicitly Senator Sanders, for New York’s gun violence?

CLINTON: No, of course not. Of course not. This is — this is a serious difference between us.

(LAUGHTER)

And what I want to start by saying — it’s not a laughing matter — 90 people on average a day are killed or commit suicide or die in accidents from guns, 33,000 people a year. I take it really seriously, because I have spent more time than I care to remember being with people who have lost their loved ones.

So, yes, we have a problem in America. We need a president who will stand up against the gun lobby. We need a president who will fight for commonsense gun safety reforms.

(APPLAUSE)

And what we have here is a big difference. Senator Sanders voted against the Brady Bill five times. He voted for the most important NRA priority, namely giving immunity from liability to gun-makers and dealers, something that is at the root of a lot of the problems that we are facing.

Then he doubled down on that in the New York Daily News interview, when asked whether he would support the Sandy Hook parents suing to try to do something to rein in the advertising of the AR-15, which is advertised to young people as being a combat weapon, killing on the battlefield. He said they didn’t deserve their day in court.

CLINTON: I could not disagree more.

And, finally, this is the only industry in America, the only one.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: That has this kind of special protection. We hear a lot from Senator Sanders about the greed and recklessness of Wall Street, and I agree. We’ve got to hold Wall Street accountable…

BLITZER: … Thank you…

CLINTON: … Well, what about the greed and recklessness of gun manufacturers and dealers in America?

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

BLITZER: Senator? Well, the only problem is, Wolf, she didn’t answer your question.

You asked her whether she thought that Vermont was responsible. You asked her whether she thought that Vermont was responsible for a lot of the gun violence. You made the point what she said was totally absurd.

BLITZER: I asked her, are you seriously blaming Vermont and implicitly Senator Sanders for New York’s gun violence. She said no. But, go ahead.

SANDERS: Then why did she put out that statement?

CLINTON: I put it out…

SANDERS: … Excuse me, I think I’m responding now.

BLITZER: Please, go ahead sir.

SANDERS: A statement that was refuted by the governor of the state of Vermont, who was a supporter of hers, who said, yeah, in campaigns people tend to exaggerate.
Video
Highlights From the Democratic Debate

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton met in the Democratic presidential debate Thursday night in New York, where each has a major history.
By CNN on Publish Date April 14, 2016. Photo by Chang W. Lee/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »

* embed

Here is the fact on guns. Let’s talk about guns. That horrible, horrible Sandy Hook — what’s the word we want to use, murder, assault, slaughter, unspeakable act.

Back in 1988, I ran for the United States Congress one seat in the state of Vermont. I probably lost that election, which I lost by three points, because I was the only candidate running who said, you know what? We should ban assault weapons, not seen them sold or distributed in the United States of America.

I’ve got a D-minus voting record from the NRA.

(APPLAUSE)

And, in fact, because I come from a state which has virtually no gun control, I believe that I am the best qualified candidate to bring back together that consensus that is desperately needed in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Thank you.

(CHEERING)

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton, I want you to respond to that, but why did you put out that statement blaming Vermont and its gun policy for some of the death of — by guns in New York?

CLINTON: Well, the facts are that most of the guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from out of state. They come from the states that don’t have kind of serious efforts to control guns that we do in New York.

But let me say this — in 1988, as we’ve heard on every debate occasion, Senator Sanders did run for the Congress and he lost. He came back in 1990 and he won, and during that campaign he made a commitment to the NRA that he would be against waiting periods.

And, in fact, in his own book, he talks about his 1990 campaign, and here’s what he said. He clearly was helped by the NRA, because they ran ads against his opponent. So, then he went to the Congress, where he has been a largely very reliable supporter of the NRA. Voting — he kept his word to the NRA, he voted against the Brady Bill five times because it had waiting periods in it.

Thankfully, enough people finally voted for it to keep guns out of the hands of who should not have them.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator, I want you to respond, but I also want you to respond to this. You recently said you do not think crime victims should be able to sue gun makers for damages. The daughter of the Sandy Hook Elementary School who was killed back in the 2012 mass shooting, says you owe her and families an apology. Do you?

SANDERS: What we need to do is to do everything that we can to make certain that guns do not fall into the hands of people who do not have them.

Now, I voted against this gun liability law because I was concerned that in rural areas all over this country, if a gun shop owner sells a weapon legally to somebody, and that person then goes out and kills somebody, I don’t believe it is appropriate that that gun shop owner who just sold a legal weapon to be held accountable and be sued.

But, what I do believe is when gun shop owners and others knowingly are selling weapons to people who should not have them — somebody walks in.SANDERS: They want thousands of rounds of ammunition, or they want a whole lot of guns, yes, that gun shop owner or that gun manufacturer should be held liable.

BLITZER: So, Senator, do you owe the Sandy Hook families an apology?

SANDERS: No, I don’t think I owe them an apology. They are in court today, and actually they won a preliminary decision today. They have the right to sue, and I support them and anyone else who wants the right to sue.

CLINTON: Well, I believe that the law that Senator Sanders voted for that I voted against, giving this special protection to gun manufacturers and to dealers, is an absolute abdication of responsibility on the part of those who voted for it.

This is a — this is a unique gift given to only one industry in the world by the United States Congress, as Senator Murphy from Connecticut said, we have tougher standards holding toy gun manufacturers and sellers to account than we do for real guns.

And the point that Senator Sanders keeps making about how he wouldn’t want a mom and pop store — that was not the point of this. And if he can point to any, any incident where that happened, I would love to hear about it.

What was really going on, I’ll tell you, because it has a lot to do with New York City. New York City was on the brink of being able to hold manufacturers and dealers accountable through a very carefully crafted legal strategy.

BLITZER: Thank you.

CLINTON: The NRA came to their supporters in the Congress and said, stop it, stop it now, and Senator Sanders joined those who did.

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

Senator, go ahead.

SANDERS: Let me just reiterate — just reiterate so there is no confusion, decades ago, before it was popular, in a rural state with no gun control, Bernie Sanders said, let’s ban assault weapons, not see them distributed in the United States of America.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

Let’s turn it over to Errol Lewis, of New York 1 Time Warner Cable News.

LOUIS: Secretary Clinton, the 1994 crime bill that you supported added 100,000 police officers across the country and banned certain assault weapons. It also imposed tougher prison sentences and eliminated federal funding for inmate education.

Looking at the bill as a whole, do you believe it was a net positive or do you think it was a mistake?

CLINTON: Well, I think that it had some positive aspects to it. And you mentioned some of them. The Violence Against Women Act, which has been a very important piece of legislation, in my opinion.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And it also did some things which were to provide more opportunities for young people. So if we were to have the balance sheet on one side, there are some positive actions and changes.

On the other side, there were decisions that were made that now we must revisit and we have to correct. I think that sentences got much too long. The original idea was not that we would increase sentences for non-violent low-level offenders, but once the federal government did what it did, states piled on.

So we have a problem. And the very first speech I gave in this campaign was about what I will do to reform the criminal justice system and end the over-mass incarceration.

So I think that if all of us go and look back at where we were, Senator Sanders voted for the crime bill, and he says the same thing, there were some good things, and things that we have to change and learn from.

So that’s how I see it. And I think we ought to be putting our attention on forging a consensus to make the changes that will divert more people from the criminal justice system to start.

LOUIS: Thank you, Secretary.

CLINTON: To tackle systemic racism and divert people in the beginning.

LOUIS: Now earlier this year, a South Carolina voter told your daughter Chelsea, quote, “I think a lot of African-Americans want to hear, you know what, we made a mistake.” Chelsea said she has heard you apologize, but went on to say that if the voter hadn’t heard it then, quote, “it’s clearly insufficient.”

Do you regret your advocacy for the crime bill?

CLINTON: Well, look, I supported the crime bill. My husband has apologized. He was the president who actually signed it, Senator Sanders…

LOUIS: But what about you, Senator?

CLINTON: … voted for it. I’m sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people’s lives.

I’ve seen the results of what has happened in families and in communities.

CLINTON: That’s why I chose to make my very first speech a year ago on this issue, Errol, because I want to focus the attention of our country and to make the changes we need to make. And I also want people…

(APPLAUSE)

… especially I want — I want white people — I want white people to recognize that there is systemic racism. It’s also in employment, it’s in housing, but it is in the criminal justice system, as well.

(APPLAUSE)

LOUIS: Senator Sanders, earlier this week at the Apollo Theater in Harlem, you called out President Clinton for defending Secretary Clinton’s use of the term super-predator back in the ’90s when she supported the crime bill. Why did you call him out?

SANDERS: Because it was a racist term, and everybody knew it was a racist term.

(APPLAUSE)

Look, much of what Secretary Clinton said was right. We had a crime bill. I voted for it. It had the Violence Against Women Act in it. When as mayor of Burlington, we worked very hard to try to eliminate domestic violence. This took us a good step forward. We’re talking about the weapon that killed the children in Sandy Hook. This banned assault weapons, not insignificant.

But where we are today is we have a broken criminal justice system. We have more people in jail than any other country on Earth. And in my view, what we have got to do is rethink the system from the bottom on up. And that means, for a start — and we don’t talk about this. The media doesn’t talk about it — you got 51 percent of African-American kids today who graduated high school who are unemployed or underemployed. You know what I think? Maybe we invest in jobs and education for those kids, not jails and incarceration.

(APPLAUSE)

And I’ll tell you what else. And I’ll tell you what else I think. And that is, we have got — and this is the difference between the secretary and myself as I understand it. We have got to have the guts to rethink the so-called war on drugs. Too many lives… BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

SANDERS: Too many lives have been destroyed because people possessed marijuana, millions over a 30-year period. And that is why I believe we should take marijuana out of the federal Controlled Substance Act.

(APPLAUSE)

LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you. Let’s — let’s get Secretary Clinton’s response.

CLINTON: Well, look, I think that, as Senator Sanders said about what I said, I will say about what he said. I think that we recognize that we have a set of problems that we cannot ignore and we must address. And that is why I have been promoting for my entire adult life, I think, the idea of investing early in kids, early childhood education, universal pre-K, like what Mayor de Blasio brought to New York. We have got to help more kids get off to a good start. That’s why I want a good teacher in a good school for every child, regardless of the ZIP Code that child lives in…

LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Clinton.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: … and to be really focused on how we build ladders of opportunity and tear down these barriers that stand in the way of people getting ahead.

LOUIS: Your time’s up, Secretary Clinton.

Senator Sanders, I have a question for you related to this. So you’ve said that by the end of your first term as president, the U.S. will no longer lead the world in mass incarceration. To fulfill that promise, you’d have to release roughly half a million prisoners. How are you going to do that, since the vast majority of American prisoners are not under federal jurisdiction?

SANDERS: We’re going to work with state governments all over this country. And you know what? In a very divided Congress, and a very divided politics in America, actually the one area where there is some common ground is conservatives understand that it’s insane to be spending $80 billion a year locking up 2.2 million people.

With federal and presidential leadership, we will work with state governments to make sure that people are released from jail under strong supervision, that they get the kind of job training and education they need so they can return to their communities. On this one, Errol, actually I think you’re going to see progressive and conservative support. We can do it, if we’re prepared to be bold.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Secretary. We have to take a quick commercial break. We have a lot more questions for Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Let’s turn to another critically important issue.

Senator, Secretary, the issue of energy and the environment.

Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders has said you are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. You say you’re sick and tired of him lying about your record.

What are his lies?

CLINTON: Well, let me start by saying we need to talk about this issue and we should talk about it in terms of the extraordinary threats that climate change pose to our country and our world. And that’s why for the last many years, both in the Senate and as secretary of State, it’s been a big part of my commitment to see what could be done.

But there has never been any doubt that when I was a senator, I tried — I joined with others to try to get rid of the subsidies for big oil. And I have proposed that again, because that’s what I think needs to be done as we transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

CLINTON: And everyone who’s looked at this independently, “The Washington Post” and others, who give us both hard times when called for on facts, have said that this is absolutely an incorrect false charge.

So, we both have relatively small amounts of contributions from people who work for fossil fuel companies. Best we can tell from the reports that are done.

But, that is not being supported by big oil, and I think it’s important to distinguish that. And, let’s talk about what each of us has proposed to try to combat greenhouse gas emissions and put us on the fastest track possible to clean energy.

BLITZER: Thank you. We’re going to get to that to, but I want you to respond, Senator.

SANDERS: It is one thing, as the Secretary indicated, to talk about workers. I’m sure I have contributions, you have contributions from workers in every industry in the country. But, as I understand it, 43 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry maxed out, gave the maximum amount of money to Secretary Clinton’s campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Now, that’s not saying — and, then some people say, well, given the hundreds of millions of dollars she raises it’s a small amount. That’s true. But, that does not mean to say that the lobbyists thought she was a pretty good bet on this issue.

Now, what I think is when we look at climate change now, we have got to realize that this is a global environmental crisis of unprecedented urgency.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

And, it is not good enough. You know, if we, God forbid, were attacked tomorrow the whole country would rise up and say we got an enemy out there and we got to do something about it. That was what 9/11 was about.

We have an enemy out there, and that enemy is going to cause drought and floods and extreme weather disturbances. There’s going to be international conflict.

(APPLAUSE) I am proud, Wolf, that I have introduced the most comprehensive climate change legislation…

BLITZER: …. Thank you…

SANDERS: … Including a tax on carbon. Something I don’t believe Secretary Clinton supports.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton, go ahead and respond.

CLINTON: Well, let’s talk about the global environmental crisis. Starting in 2009 as your Secretary of State, I worked with President Obama to bring China and India to the table for the very first time, to get a commitment out of them that they would begin to address their own greenhouse gas emissions.

(APPLAUSE)

I continued to work on that throughout the four years as Secretary of State, and I was very proud that President Obama and America led the way to the agreement that was finally reached in Paris with 195 nations committing to take steps to actually make a difference in climate change.

(APPLAUSE)

And, I was surprised and disappointed when Senator Sanders attacked the agreement, said it was not enough, it didn’t go far enough. You know, at some point putting together 195 countries, I know a little bit about that, was a major accomplishment…

BLITZER: … Thank you…

(APPLAUSE CHEERING)

CLINTON: … And, our President led the effort to protect our world and he deserve our appreciation, not our criticism…

BLITZER: … Go ahead, Senator…

SANDERS: … Let’s talk about that. When you were Secretary of State, you also worked hard to expand fracking to countries all over the world.

(CHEERING)

SANDERS: The issue here — of course the agreement is a step forward, but you know agreements and I know agreements, there’s a lot of paper there. We’ve got to get beyond paper right now.

We have got to lead the world in transforming our energy system, not tomorrow, but yesterday.

(APPLAUSE) And, what that means, Wolf, it means having the guts to take on the fossil fuel industry. Now, I am on board legislation that says, you know what, we ain’t going to excavate for fossil fuel on public land. That’s not Secretary Clinton’s position.

BLITZER: Thank you.

Let us support a tax on carbon…

BLITZER: … Secretary Clinton…

SANDERS: … Not Secretary Clinton’s position.

BLITZER: … Go ahead and respond.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, I’m a little bewildered about how to respond when you have an agreement which gives you the framework to actually take the action that would have only come about because under the Obama administration in the face of implacable hostility from the Republicans in Congress, President Obama moved forward on gas mileage, he moved forward on the clean power plant. He has moved forward on so many of the fronts that he could given the executive actions that he was able to take.

(APPLAUSE)

And, you know, I am getting a little bit — I’m getting a little bit concerned here because, you know, I really believe that the President has done an incredible job against great odds and deserves to be supported.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

CLINTON: Now, it’s easy — it’s easy to diagnose the problem. It’s harder to do something about the problem. And…

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary. We’ll continue on this. Errol — Errol Louis, go ahead with your question.

SANDERS: Wolf. Wolf.

BLITZER: We’re going to continue on this. Errol, go ahead.

LOUIS: OK. Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. Fracking, of course, a way of extracting natural gas. Now as a candidate for president, you say that by the time you’re done with all your rules and regulations, fracking will be restricted in many places around the country. Why have you changed your view on fracking?

CLINTON: No, well, I don’t think I’ve changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas.

And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can.

That’s why I’ve set big goals. I want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide electricity to every home in America within 10 years.

(APPLAUSE)

So I have big, bold goals, but I know in order to get from where we are, where the world is still burning way too much coal, where the world is still too intimidated by countries and providers like Russia, we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy.

LOUIS: Thank you, Secretary. All right, Senator?

SANDERS: All right, here is — here is a real difference. This is a difference between understanding that we have a crisis of historical consequence here, and incrementalism and those little steps are not enough.

(APPLAUSE)

Not right now. Not on climate change. Now, the truth is, as secretary of state, Secretary Clinton actively supported fracking technology around the world. Second of all, right now, we have got to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet.

(APPLAUSE)

And that means — and I would ask you to respond. Are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transit away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do?

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: You know, I have laid out a set of actions that build on what President Obama was able to accomplish, building on the clean power plan, which is currently under attack by fossil fuels and the right in the Supreme Court, which is one of the reasons why we need to get the Supreme Court justice that President Obama has nominated to be confirmed so that we can actually continue to make progress.

I don’t take a back seat to your legislation that you’ve introduced that you haven’t been able to get passed. I want to do what we can do to actually make progress in dealing with the crisis. That’s exactly what I have proposed.

LOUIS: OK, thank you, Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: And my approach I think is going to get us there faster without tying us up into political knots with a Congress that still would not support what you are proposing.

(CROSSTALK)

LOUIS: Senator Sanders, you’ve said that climate change is the greatest change to our nation’s security.

SANDERS: Secretary Clinton did not answer one simple question.

LOUIS: Excuse me, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator…

SANDERS: Are you for a tax on carbon or not? LOUIS: I have a question for you. You’ve said that climate change is the greatest threat to our nation’s security. You’ve called for a nationwide ban on fracking. You’ve also called for phasing out all nuclear power in the U.S. But wouldn’t those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?

SANDERS: No, they wouldn’t. Look, here’s where we are. Let me reiterate. We have a global crisis. Pope Francis reminded us that we are on a suicide course. Our legislation understands, Errol, that there will be economic dislocation. It is absolutely true. There will be some people who lose their job. And we build into our legislation an enormous amount of money to protect those workers. It is not their fault…

SANDERS: It is not their fault that fossil fuels are destroying our climate.

But we have got to stand up and say right now, as we would if we were attacked by some military force, we have got to move urgency — urgently and boldly.

What does that mean?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator — senator, jobs…

SANDERS: Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: — jobs are one thing, but with less than 6 percent of all U.S. energy coming from solar, wind and geothermal, and 20 percent of U.S. power coming from nuclear, if you phase out all of that, how do you make up…

SANDERS: Well, you don’t phase…

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: — that difference?

SANDERS: — it all out tomorrow. And you certainly don’t phase nuclear out tomorrow. But this is what you do do.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: What you do do is say that we are going to have a massive program — and I had introduced — introduced legislation for 10 million solar rooftops. We can put probably millions of people to work retrofitting and weatherizing buildings all over this country.

(CHEERING)

SANDERS: Saving — rebuilding our rail system.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Our mass transit system.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: If we approach this, Errol, as if we were literally at a war — you know, in 1941, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we moved within three years, within three more years to rebuild our economy to defeat Nazism and Japanese imperialism. That is exactly the kind of approach we need right now.

BLITZER: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Lead the world.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Let’s turn to another critically important issue…

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: — the issue of national security and foreign policy.

Secretary Clinton, President Obama says the worst mistake in office that he made over these past seven and a half years was not preparing for Libya after Moammar Qadafi was removed. You were his secretary of State.

Aren’t you also responsible for that?

CLINTON: Well, let me say I think we did a great deal to help the Libyan people after Qadafi’s demise. And here’s what we did.

We helped them hold two successful elections, something that is not easy, which they did very well because they had a pent up desire to try to chart their own future after 42 years of dictatorship.

I was very proud of that.

We got rid of the chemical weapons stockpile that Qadafi had, getting it out of Libya, getting it away from militias or terrorist groups.

We also worked to help them set up their government. We sent a lot of American experts there. We offered to help them secure their borders, to train a new military.

They, at the end, when it came to security issues, Wolf, did not want troops from any other country, not just us, European or other countries, in Libya.

And so we were caught in a very difficult position. They could not provide security on their own, which we could see and we told them that, but they didn’t want to have others helping to provide that security.

And the result has been a clash between different parts of the country, terrorists taking up some locations in the country.

And we can’t walk away from that. We need to be working with European and Arab partners…

BLITZER: Thank you.

CLINTON: — with the United Nations in order to continue to try to support them.

The Libyan people deserve a chance at democracy and self- government. And I, as president, will keep trying to give that to them

BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.

SANDERS: According to “The New York Times.”..

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: — for President Obama, this was a pretty tough call, like a 51-49 call, do you overthrow Qadafi, who, of course, was a horrific dictator?

“The New York Times” told us it was Secretary Clinton who led the effect for that regime change. And this is the same type of mentality that supported the war in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Look…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: — Qadafi, Saddam Hussein are brutal, brutal murdering thugs. No debate about that.

But what we have got to do and what the president was saying is we didn’t think thoroughly about what happens the day after you get rid of these dictators.

Regime change often has unintended consequences in Iraq and in Libya right now, where ISIS has a very dangerous foothold. And I think if you studied the whole history of…

BLITZER: Yes.

SANDERS: — American involvement in regime change, you see that quite often.

BLITZER: Secretary, we’re going to let you respond.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Yes, well, I…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — I…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — I — I would just point out that there was a vote in the Senate as to whether or not the United States should support the efforts by the Libyan people to protect themselves against the threats, the genocidal threats coming from Gadhafi, and whether we should go to the United Nations to seek Security Council support.

Senator sanders voted for that, and that’s exactly what we did.

SANDERS: No.

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: We went to the United Nations — yes, he did. We went to the United Nations Security Council. We got support from the Security Council. And we then supported the efforts of our European and Arab allies and partners.

This was a request made to our government by the Europeans and by the Arabs because of their great fear of what chaos in Syria would do to them. And if you want to know what chaos does, not just to the people inside but the people on the borders, look at Syria.

Nobody stood up to Assad and removed him, and we have had a far greater disaster in Syria than we are currently dealing with right now in Libya.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.

SANDERS: Secretary Clinton made this charge in previous debates and just repeating it doesn’t make it truer. What you are talking about is what I think was what they call the unanimous consent, you know what that is, where basically, do we support Libya moving to democracy?

Well, you know what, I surely have always supported Libya moving to democracy. But please do not confuse that with your active effort for regime change without contemplating what happened the day after. Totally different issue.

CLINTON: Well, that isn’t…

SANDERS: Second of all — second of all, if I might, in terms of Syria, in terms of Syria…

BLITZER: Senator, let her respond to that, then we’ll get to that.

Go ahead, Secretary.

CLINTON: There was also in that a reference to the Security Council, and I know you’re not shy when you oppose something, Senator. So, yes, it was unanimous. That’s exactly right, including you.

And what we did was to try to provide support for our European and Arab allies and partners. The decision was the president’s. Did I do the due diligence? Did I talk to everybody I could talk to? Did I visit every capital and then report back to the president? Yes, I did. That’s what a secretary of state does.

But at the end of the day, those are the decisions that are made by the president to in any way use American military power. And the president made that decision. And, yes, we did try without success because of the Libyans’ obstruction to our efforts, but we did try and we will continue to try to help the Libyan people.

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

Go ahead, Senator.

SANDERS: If you listen, you know — two points. Number one, yes, 100-0 in the Senate voted for democracy in Libya and I would vote for that again. But that is very different from getting actively involved to overthrow and bring about regime change without fully understanding what the consequence of that regime change would be.

Second of all, I know you keep referring to Barack Obama all night here, but you in Syria, you in Syria talked about a no-fly zone, which the president certainly does not support, nor do I support because, A, it will cost an enormous sum of money, second of all, it runs the risk of getting us sucked into perpetual warfare in that region.

Thirdly, when we talk about Syria right now, no debate, like Gadhafi, like Saddam Hussein, Assad is another brutal murdering dictator, but right now our fight is to destroy ISIS first, and to get rid of Assad second.

CLINTON: Well, I think Senator Sanders has just reinforced my point. Yes, when I was secretary of state I did urge, along with the Department of Defense and the CIA that we seek out, vet, and train, and arm Syrian opposition figures so that they could defend themselves against Assad.

The president said no. Now, that’s how it works. People who work for the president make recommendations and then the president makes the decision. So I think it’s only fair to look at where we are in Syria today.

And, yes, I do still support a no-fly zone because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe.

BLITZER: Staying on national security, Dana Bash has a question.

BASH: Senator Sanders, in 1997, you said this about NATO, you said, quote: “It is not the time to continue wasting tens of billions of dollars helping to defend Europe, let alone assuming more than our share of any cost associated with expanding NATO.”

Do you still feel that way?

SANDERS: Well, what I believe, if my memory is correct here, we spend about 75 percent of the entire cost of the military aspect of NATO. Given the fact that France has a very good health care system and free public education, college education for their people, the U.K. has a good National Health Service and they also provide fairly reasonable higher education, you know what, yeah, I do believe that the countries of Europe should pick up more of the burden for their defense. Yes, I do.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: And just following up, Senator Sanders, Donald Trump also argues that NATO is unfair economically to the U.S. because America pays a disproportionate share. So how is what you say about NATO and your proposal different than his?

SANDERS: Well, you got to ask — you got to ask Trump. All I can tell you is, with a huge deficit, with 47 million people living in poverty, with our inner cities collapsing, yeah, I do think countries like Germany and U.K. and France and European countries whose economy, or at least its standard of living and health care and education, they’re doing pretty well.

So I would not be embarrassed as president of the United States to stay to our European allies, you know what, the United States of America cannot just support your economies. You got to put up your own fair share of the defense burden. Nothing wrong with that.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: I support our continuing involvement in NATO. And it is important to ask for our NATO allies to pay more of the cost. There is a requirement that they should be doing so, and I believe that needs to be enforced.

But there’s a larger question here. NATO has been the most successful military alliance in probably human history. It has bound together across the Atlantic countries that are democracies, that have many of the same values and interests, and now we need to modernize it and move it into the 21st century to serve as that head of our defense operations in Europe when it comes to terrorism and other threats that we face. So…

BASH: But, Madam Secretary… CLINTON: … yes, of course they should be paying more, but that doesn’t mean if they don’t we leave, because I don’t think that’s in America’s interests.

BASH: That’s going to be part of my — my question to you is, to that point, there are 28 countries in the alliance, and the United States gives more money to NATO’s budget than 21 of those countries combined. If they don’t agree to pay more, as you suggested, then what would you do as commander-in-chief?

CLINTON: I will stay in NATO. I will stay in NATO, and we will continue to look for missions and other kinds of programs that they will support. Remember, NATO was with us in Afghanistan. Most of the member countries also lost soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. They came to our rallying defense after 9/11. That meant a lot.

And, yes, we have to work out the financial aspects of it, but let’s not forget what’s really happening. With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in Eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

Senator, let’s talk about the U.S. relationship with Israel. Senator Sanders, you maintained that Israel’s response in Gaza in 2014 was, quote, “disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life.”

(APPLAUSE)

What do you say to those who believe that Israel has a right to defend itself as it sees fit?

SANDERS: Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel, who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack. That is not a debate.

(APPLAUSE)

But — but what you just read, yeah, I do believe that. Israel was subjected to terrorist attacks, has every right in the world to destroy terrorism. But we had in the Gaza area — not a very large area — some 10,000 civilians who were wounded and some 1,500 who were killed.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Free Palestine!

SANDERS: Now, if you’re asking not just me, but countries all over the world was that a disproportionate attack, the answer is that I believe it was, and let me say something else.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

SANDERS: And, let me say something else. As somebody who is 100% pro-Israel, in the long run — and this is not going to be easy, God only knows, but in the long run if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

SANDERS: So what is not to say — to say that right now in Gaza, right now in Gaza unemployment is s somewhere around 40%. You got a log of that area continues, it hasn’t been built, decimated, houses decimated health care decimated, schools decimated. I believe the United States and the rest of the world have got to work together to help the Palestinian people.

That does not make me anti-Israel. That paves the way, I think…

BLITZER: … Thank you, Senator…

SANDERS: …to an approach that works in the Middle East.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

BLITZER: Thank you. Secretary Clinton, do you agree with Senator Sanders that Israel overreacts to Palestinians attacks, and that in order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel must, quote, end its disproportionate responses?
Graphic
How the Rest of the Delegate Race Could Unfold

An interactive delegate calculator that lets you simulate how the 2016 Republican nomination process could unfold.
OPEN Graphic

CLINTON: I negotiated the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November of 2012. I did it in concert with…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: President Abbas of the Palestinian authority based in Ramallah, I did it with the then Muslim Brotherhood President, Morsi, based in Cairo, working closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet. I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages.

(APPLAUSE)

They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. And, so when it came time after they had taken the incoming rockets, taken the assaults and ambushes on their soldiers and they called and told me, I was in Cambodia, that they were getting ready to have to invade Gaza again because they couldn’t find anybody to talk to tell them to stop it, I flew all night, I got there, I negotiated that.

So, I don’t know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist tact, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.

(APPLAUSE)

That does not mean — that does not mean that you don’t take appropriate precautions. And, I understand that there’s always second guessing anytime there is a war. It also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and…

BLITZER: … Thank you…

CLINTON: … just let me finish. The rights and the autonomy that they deserve. And, let me say this, if Yasser Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David in the Late 1990s to the offer then Prime Minister Barat put on the table, we would have had a Palestinian state for 15 years.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator, go ahead — go ahead, Senator.

SANDERS: I don’t think that anybody would suggest that Israel invites and welcomes missiles flying into their country. That is not the issue.

And, you evaded the answer. You evaded the question. The question is not does Israel have a right to respond, nor does Israel have a right to go after terrorists and destroy terrorism. That’s not the debate. Was their response disproportionate?

I believe that it was, you have not answered that.

(CHEERING)

CLINTON: I will certainly be willing to answer it. I think I did answer it by saying that of course there have to be precautions taken but even the most independent analyst will say the way that Hamas places its weapons, the way that it often has its fighters in civilian garb, it is terrible.

(AUDIENCE REACTION)

I’m not saying it’s anything other than terrible. It would be great — remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people.

CLINTON: And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza.

So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

Senator.

SANDERS: I read Secretary Clinton’s statement speech before AIPAC. I heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the Palestinian people. Almost none in that speech.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: So here is the issue: of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but long term there will never be peace in that region unless the United States plays a role, an even-handed role trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the Palestinian people.

That is what I believe the world wants to us do and that’s the kind of leadership that we have got to exercise.

CLINTON: Well, if I — I want to add, you know, again describing the problem is a lot easier than trying to solve it. And I have been involved, both as first lady with my husband’s efforts, as a senator supporting the efforts that even the Bush administration was undertaking, and as secretary of state for President Obama, I’m the person who held the last three meetings between the president of the Palestinian Authority and the prime minister of Israel.

There were only four of us in the room, Netanyahu, Abbas, George Mitchell, and me. Three long meetings. And I was absolutely focused on what was fair and right for the Palestinians.

I was absolutely focused on what we needed to do to make sure that the Palestinian people had the right to self-government. And I believe that as president I will be able to continue to make progress and get an agreement that will be fair both to the Israelis and the Palestinians without ever, ever undermining Israel’s security.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: A final word, Senator, go ahead.

SANDERS: There comes a time — there comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well…

BLITZER: Secretary.

CLINTON: … you know, I have spoken about and written at some length the very candid conversations I’ve had with him and other Israeli leaders. Nobody is saying that any individual leader is always right, but it is a difficult position.

If you are from whatever perspective trying to seek peace, trying to create the conditions for peace when there is a terrorist group embedded in Gaza that does not want to see you exist, that is a very difficult challenge.

BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.

SANDERS: You gave a major speech to AIPAC, which obviously deals with the Middle East crisis, and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. And I think, again, it is a complicated issue and God knows for decades presidents, including President Clinton and others, Jimmy Carter and others have tried to do the right thing.

All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Secretary.

We have to take another quick, quick break. But much more on the CNN Democratic presidential debate live from Brooklyn, New York. That is coming up right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to the CNN presidential debate. We’re here in Brooklyn. Secretary, Senator, both of you talk about major reforms to college tuition, health care, and Social Security, all of which will take significant changes from Congress, currently controlled by Republicans.

Senator Sanders, you’re promising health care and free college for all, and those plans would be met with both political and practical challenges. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says your initiatives would cost up to $28 trillion and, even after massive tax increases, that would add as much as $15 trillion to the national debt. How is this fiscally responsible?

SANDERS: Well, first of all, I disagree with that study. There are many economists who come up with very, very different numbers.

For example, we are the only country, major country on Earth, that does not guarantee health care to all people, and yet we end up spending almost three times what the British do, 50 percent more than the French. My proposal, a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program, will save…

(APPLAUSE)

… will save middle-class families many thousands of dollars a year in their health care costs. Public colleges and universities tuition free? Damn right. That is exactly what we should be doing.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: And I’d pay for that — I’d pay for that by telling Wall Street that, yeah, we are going to have a tax on Wall Street speculation, which will bring in more than enough money to provide free tuition at public colleges and universities and lower the outrageous level of student debt.

Wolf, we have seen in the last 30 years a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent. The establishment does not like this idea, but, yes, I am determined to transfer that money back to the working families of this country.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Secretary, go ahead and respond.

CLINTON: Well, again — again, I absolutely agree with the diagnosis, the diagnosis that we’ve got to do much more to finish the work of getting universal health care coverage, something that I’ve worked on for 25 years. Before there was something called Obamacare, there was something called Hillarycare. And we’re now at 90 percent of coverage; I’m going to get us to 100 percent.

And with respect to college, I think we have to make college affordable. We are pricing out middle-class, working, and poor families. There’s no doubt about that.

But I do think when you make proposals and you’re running for president, you should be held accountable for whether or not the numbers add up and whether or not the plans…

(APPLAUSE)

… are actually going to work. And just very briefly, on health care, most of the people who have analyzed what Senator Sanders put out — remember, he had a plan for about, I don’t know, 18, 20 years. He changed in the middle of this campaign. He put out another plan. People have been analyzing the new plan. And there is no doubt by those who have analyzed it, progressive economists, health economists, and the like, that it would pose an incredible burden, not just on the budget, but on individuals. In fact, the Washington Post called it a train-wreck for the poor. A working woman on Medicaid who already has health insurance would be expected to pay about $2,300.

The same for free college. The free college offer — you know, my late father said, if somebody promises you something for free, read the fine print. You read the fine print, and here’s what it says.

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

CLINTON: The fine print says this, that it will — the federal government will cover two-thirds of the cost and require the states, even those led by Republican governors…

BLITZER: Senator, go ahead. Thank you.

CLINTON: … to carry out what the remaining one-third of the cost.

SANDERS: I know what Secretary Clinton is saying.

BLITZER: Secretary please.

SANDERS: We are not a country that has the courage to stand up to big money and do what has to be done for the working families of the country.

(APPLAUSE)

Secretary Clinton will have to explain to the people of our country how it could be that every other major country on Earth manages to guarantee health care to all of their people, spending significantly less per capita than we can.

I live 50 miles away from Canada, you know? It’s not some kind of communist authoritarian country. They’re doing OK. They got a health care system that guarantees health care to all people. We can do the same.

In terms of public colleges and universities, please don’t tell me that we cannot do what many other countries around the world are doing. Kids should not be punished and leave school deeply in debt, for what crime? For trying to get an education.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

SANDERS: So, yes, we are going to pay for it…

CLINTON: Well…

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton — Secretary Clinton, go ahead.

CLINTON: We have — we have a difference of opinion. We both want to get to universal health care coverage. I did stand up to the special interests and the powerful forces, the health insurance companies and the drug companies.

(APPLAUSE)

And perhaps that’s why I am so much in favor of supporting President Obama’s signature accomplishment with the Affordable Care Act, because I know how hard it was to get that passed, even with a Democratic Congress. So rather than letting the Republicans repeal it or rather starting all over again, trying to throw the country into another really contentious debate, let’s make the Affordable Care Act work for everybody…

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

CLINTON: … let’s get to 100 percent coverage, let’s get the cost down, and let’s guarantee health care.

BLITZER: Secretary, let’s talk about Social Security, another critically important issue. Senator Sanders has challenged you to give a clear answer when it comes to extending the life of Social Security and expanding benefits. Are you prepared to lift the cap on taxable income, which currently stands at $118,500? Yes or no, would you lift the cap?

CLINTON: I have said repeatedly, Wolf, I am going to make the wealthy pay into Social Security to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. That is one way. If that is the way that we pursue, I will follow that.

CLINTON: But there are other ways. We should be looking at taxing passive income by wealthy people. We should be looking at taxing all of their investment.

But here’s the real issue, because I — I’ve heard this, I’ve seen the reports of it. I have said from the very beginning, we are going to protect Social Security. I was one of the leaders in the fight against Bush when he was trying to privatize Social Security.

But we also, in addition to extending the Trust Fund, which I am absolutely determined to do, we’ve got to help people who are not being taken care of now. And because Social Security started in the 1930s, a lot of women have been left out and left behind.

And it’s time that we provide more benefits for widows, divorcees, for caregivers, for women who deserve more from the Social Security…

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

CLINTON: — system and that will be my highest priority.

BLITZER: Senator?

Go ahead, Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: An interesting comment, but you didn’t answer the question.

CLINTON: I did. If that’s the way we’re…

SANDERS: No, you didn’t. My legi…

CLINTON: — yes, I did.

SANDERS: Can I answer…

CLINTON: I did answer the…

SANDERS: — may I please…

CLINTON: Well, don’t — don’t put words…

SANDERS: — can I have… (CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: — into my mouth and say something…

SANDERS: — do I not?

CLINTON: — that’s not accurate.

BLITZER: Go ahead, Senator.

SANDERS: All right. Essentially what you described is my legislation, which includes (INAUDIBLE)…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Now, we’ve got — here is the issue. Your answer has been the same year after year. In fact, the idea that I’m bringing forth, I have to admit it, you know, it wasn’t my idea. It was Barack Obama’s idea in 2008, the exact same idea.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: He called for lifting the cap, which is now higher — it’s at 118 — and starting at 250 and going on up. If you do that, you’re going to extend the life of Social Security for 58 years. You will significantly expand benefits by 1,300 bucks a year for seniors and disabled vets under $16,000 a year.

What’s wrong with that?

Are you prepared to support it?

CLINTON: I have supported it. You know, we are in vigorous agreement here, Senator.

SANDERS: You have sup…

CLINTON: I think it’s important…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — to point out that…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — you know, we’re — we’re having a discussion about the best way to raise money from wealthy people to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. Think about what the other side wants to do. They’re calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. They still want to privatize it.

In fact, their whole idea is to turn over the Social Security Trust Fund to Wall Street, something you and I would never let happen.

SANDERS: All right, so…

CLINTON: So, yes, we both want to make sure…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Look, Wolf…

CLINTON: — Social Security (INAUDIBLE)…

SANDERS: — I am very glad that…

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: — and well-funded…

SANDERS: I am very glad to…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.

SANDERS: — campaign of challenging, if I hear you correctly, Madam Secretary, you are now coming out finally in favor of lifting the cap on taxable income…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: — and extending and expanding Social Security. If that is the case, welcome on board. I’m glad you’re here.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: No.

BLITZER: Thank you.

Errol — Errol Louis, go ahead.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: We are going…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — we are…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — we are going…

LOUIS: Secretary…

CLINTON: I — as he said, I’ve said the same thing for years. I didn’t say anything different tonight. We are going to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. There is still something called Congress. Now, I happen to support Democrats and I want to get Democrats to take back the majority in the United States Senate…

BLITZER: Errol…

CLINTON: — so a lot of — a lot of what we’re talking about can actually be implemented…

BLITZER: Errol, hold on a second.

CLINTON: — when I am president.

LOUIS: Secretary…

BLITZER: Go ahead.

Hold on, Errol…

SANDERS: — I’m still…

BLITZER: — Errol. Hold on.

SANDERS: I’ve got to admit…

BLITZER: Go ahead, Senator.

SANDERS: — maybe I’m a little bit confused.

Are you or are you not supporting legislation to lift the cap on taxable income and expand Social Security for 58 years and increase benefits…

CLINTON: I am…

SANDERS: — yes or no?

CLINTON: I have said yes, we are going to pick the best way or combination…

SANDERS: Oh, you — ah.

(APPLAUSE)

(BOOS)

SANDERS: OK.

CLINTON: — or combination of ways…

(BOOS)

CLINTON: — you know…

(BOOS)

CLINTON: — it — it’s all — it’s always a little bit, uh, challenging because, you know, if Senator Sanders doesn’t agree with how you are approaching something, then you are a member of the establishment.

Well, let me say then…

SANDERS: Well, look…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — let me say this…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: — we are going to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. We’ve got some good ideas to do it. Let’s get a Congress elected…

BLITZER: Thank you.

CLINTON: — that will actually agree…

BLITZER: Well, thank you…

CLINTON: — with us in doing it.

BLITZER: Errol, go ahead.

LOUIS: OK, Secretary Clinton, I’ve got a question for you from a reader…

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: Let me interject here.

LOUIS: — of the “New York Daily News.”

SANDERS: Yes, Secretary Clinton…

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: — you are a member of the establishment.

LOUIS: — this was a reader…

SANDERS: (INAUDIBLE).

LOUIS: — of “The Daily News” who sent us a…

(CHEERING)

LOUIS: — a question for you.

LOUIS: Just a second, Senator.

Hannah Green (ph) wants to know your position, Secretary Clinton, regarding President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Gaarland to the Supreme m Court. President Obama said earlier this week that he would not withdraw the nomination, even after the presidential election. If elected, would you ask the president to withdraw the nomination?

CLINTON: I am not going to contradict the president’s strategy on this. And I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals. I fully support the president.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And I believe that the president — the president is on the right side of both the Constitution and history. And the Senate needs to immediately begin to respond. So I’m going to support the president. When I am president, I will take stock of where we are and move from there.

LOUIS: Senator Sanders.

SANDERS: Well, there is no question. I mean, it really is an outrage. And it just continues, the seven-and-a-half years of unbelievable obstructionism we have seen from these right-wing Republicans.

I mean, a third-grader in America understands the president of the United States has the right to nominate individuals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Apparently everybody understands that except the Republicans in Congress.

LOUIS: So, Senator Sanders, would you ask him to withdraw the nomination?

SANDERS: Yes, but here is the point, and obviously i will strongly support that nomination as a member of the Senate. But, if elected president, I would ask the president to withdraw that nomination because I think — I think this.

I think that we need a Supreme Court justice who will make it crystal clear, and this nominee has not yet done that, crystal clear that he or she will vote to overturn Citizens United and make sure that American democracy is not undermined.

(APPLAUSE) CLINTON: You know, there is no doubt that the only people that I would ever appoint to the Supreme Court are people who believe that Roe V. Wade is settled law and Citizens United needs to be overturned.

And I want to say something about this since we’re talking about the Supreme Court and what’s at stake. We’ve had eight debates before, this is our ninth. We’ve not had one question about a woman’s right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care, not one question.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And in the meantime we have states, governors doing everything they can to restrict women’s rights. We have a presidential candidate by the name of Donald Trump saying that women should be punished. And we are never asked about this.

And to be complete in my concern, Senator Sanders says with respect to Trump it was a distraction. I don’t think it’s a distraction. It goes to the heart of who we are as women, our rights, our autonomy, our ability to make our own decisions, and we need to be talking about that and defending Planned Parenthood from these outrageous attacks.

BASH: Senator Sanders, your response.

SANDERS: You’re looking at a senator and former congressman who proudly has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record, who will take on those Republican governors who are trying to restrict a woman’s right to choose, who will take on those governors right now who are discriminating outrageously against the LGBT community, who comes from a state which led the effort for gay marriage in this country, proudly so.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Thank you, Senator.

SANDERS: Who not only thinks we are not going to — not defund Planned Parenthood, we’ve got to expand funding for Planned Parenthood.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Senator Sanders, you’ve spoken a lot tonight about your votes in Congress. You have been in Congress for over a quarter of the century, and there as an independent, not a Democrat.

Now you’re seeking the Democratic nomination, but Secretary Clinton has suggested that she’s not even sure you are a Democrat. Are you?

SANDERS: Well, why would I be running for the Democratic nomination to be president of the United States?

(APPLAUSE) SANDERS: But here is a good point. You know, in virtually all of the general election match-up polls between Trump and Secretary Clinton and Trump and Bernie Sanders, in almost all of those polls, I do better than Secretary Clinton both in the CNN poll I was 20 points ahead of Trump.

I think Secretary Clinton was 12 points. And you know why? Because in fact a whole lot of people — this may be a shock to the secretary, but there a whole lot of independents in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Senator Sanders…

SANDERS: And we are not going to win the White House based on just long-term Democratic votes. We have got to reach out to independents and I think I am well qualified to do that.

BASH: Senator Sanders.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: I am in this race as a Democrat. I have raised millions of dollars for my colleagues in the United States Senate to help them get elected. I will do everything I can to open the Democratic party to the young people who are flocking into our political campaign.

(CHEERING)

BASH: On that very subject, on that very subject, Secretary Clinton mentions electing a Democratic congress several times. She says that she raised $15 million for the Democratic party in the first three months of this year. You don’t appear to have raised any money for the party. Yesterday you did announce that you will help three members of Congress who have endorsed you. Why aren’t you doing more to help the party you say you want to lead?

SANDERS: The truth is, and you can speak to my colleagues, we have raised millions of dollars to the DSCC. I have written letter that have raised, if I may use the word, huge amount of money so that’s just not accurate.

But, I will also say, and this is important and maybe the Secretary disagrees with me, but I am proud that millions of young people who previously were not involved in the political process are now coming into it, and I do believe, I do believe that we have got to open the door of the Democratic party to those people.

(APPLAUSE)

And, I think the future of the Democratic party is not simply by raising money from wealthy campaign contributors. I think that the way we are doing it in this campaign…

BASH: … Thank you Senator.

SANDERS: $27 a contribution…

BASH: … Senator, your time is up…

SANDERS; not being dependent on Wall Street, or big money, that is the future of the Democratic Party that I want to see.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

BASH: Thank you, Senator Sanders. Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: Let us talk about where we are in this race. I’ve gotten more votes than anybody running. 9.6 million at the last count.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

That is 2.3 million more than Senator Sanders.

(APPLAUSE)

And it is 1.4 million more than Donald Trump.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

I think you have to look at the facts. And, the facts are that I’m putting together a very broad-based, inclusive coalition from the South to the North, from the East to the West, with African-American, Latinos, women, union households, working people and I am very proud of the campaign we are running. It is a campaign that will not only capture the Democratic nomination, but a campaign that will defeat whoever the Republican end up nominating.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

BASH: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Senator Sanders.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

CLINTON: And, I want to say — I also want to say that I do — I do think it is absolutely critical and incredible that we have so many young people involved in the political process. I applaud all of those who are applauding you, Senator Sanders. We’re happy that they are supporting you, that they are passionately committed to you and to the issues.

But, let me also say it’s going to be important that we unify the Democratic party when the nomination process has been completed…

BASH: … Secretary Clinton, thank you.

CLINTON: And, I know something about that…

BASH: … Secretary Clinton…

CLINTON: Thank you so much. Because, when I went to the very end of the 2008 campaign with then Senator Obama…

BASH: …Secretary Clinton, you’re out of time…

CLINTON: … We did unify the party, and we did elect a Democratic president…

BASH: …Senator Sanders, on that note….

SANDERS: … Let me, if I may just briefly say something…

BASH: … Senator Sanders, I want to ask you a question about this, and you can incorporate that into your response. Three months now between now and the Democratic convention. Your campaign manager says that you will absolutely take the fight to the floor if neither you nor Secretary Clinton clinches the nomination with pledged delegates alone.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Do you vow to take this fight to Philadelphia no matter what?

SANDERS: I think we’re going to win this nomination to tell you the truth.

(CHEERING)

SANDERS: Look, let me acknowledge what is absolutely true. Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South. No question about it. We got murdered there. That is the most conservative part of this great country. That’s the fact.

But you know what? We’re out of the Deep South now. And we’re moving up. We got here. We’re going to California. We got a number of large states there. And having won seven out of the last eight caucuses and primaries, having a level of excitement and energy among working people and low-income people doing better against Donald Trump and the other Republicans in poll after poll than Secretary Clinton is, yeah, I believe that we’re going to win this nomination, and I believe we’re going to obliterate Donald Trump or whoever the Republican candidate is.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Now, let me say this…

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton, go ahead.

CLINTON: I think it’s — I think it’s important for people out there watching this tonight to know that I also have a considerable lead in pledged delegates. And my lead in pledged delegates is actually wider than Barack Obama’s lead was over me.

And in addition to winning states in the Deep South, we won Florida, Texas, Arizona, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina, Missouri.

(APPLAUSE)

And so I think where we stand today is that we are in this campaign very confident and optimistic, but it all comes down to reaching every single voter. I’m not taking anything for granted or any voter or any place.

So I’m going to work my heart out here in New York until the polls close on Tuesday. I’m going to work in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland, all the way through California. And when we end up with the number of delegates we need, we will unite the party and have a unified convention…

BLITZER: Senator, go ahead. CLINTON: … that we’ll go onto the general election with.

SANDERS: The reason — the reason why in virtually every contest we are winning by very strong margins younger people — and I’m not just talking about very young. You know, the older you get, the younger young gets — 45 or younger — is I think people are sensing that establishment politics and dependence on Wall Street and big money interest is really never going to address the crises that we face.

(APPLAUSE)

And people understand, you can’t take money from powerful special interests into your PAC and then really expect the American people to believe you’re going to stand up to these powerful special interests. So I am very proud of the fact that we have brought millions of new people into the political process…

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

SANDERS: … many of whom previously had given up.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator, very much. The candidates, they will make their final pitches to New York voters right after this.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to the CNN presidential debate. It’s time for the candidates’ closing statements. Each candidate will have two minutes. Senator Sanders, you’re first.

SANDERS: I grew up in Brooklyn, New York…

(APPLAUSE)

… the son of an immigrant who came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket, never made a whole lot of money, but was a very proud American, because this country gave him and my mom the opportunity to send their kids to college.

I believe that this country has enormous potential if we have the guts to take on the big money interests who dominate our economic and political life. And I disagree with Secretary Clinton in the belief that you can get money from Wall Street, that you can get money for a super PAC from powerful special interests, and then at the end of the day do what has to be done for the working families of this country. I just don’t accept that.

What I believe is that this country, if we stand together and not let the Trumps of the world divide us up, can guarantee health care to all people as a right, can have paid family and medical leave, can make public colleges and universities tuition-free, can lead the world in transforming our energy system and combatting climate change, can break up the large financial institutions, can demand that the wealthiest people in this country start paying their fair share of taxes.

And we can do that when millions of people stand up, fight back, and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.

(APPLAUSE)

That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about. And with your help, we’re going to win here in New York. Thank you. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton? Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Thank you. I am very grateful for the fact that the people of New York gave me the great honor of serving as your senator. You took a chance on me in 2000, and then you re-elected me with one of the biggest margins we’ve had in our state in 2006. During those years, we worked closely together. I tried to have your back, and time and time again, you had mine.

We took on the challenges of 9/11 together. We got the money to rebuild New York. We came to the aid of our brave first responders, construction workers, and others who endangered their own health by helping to save lives and search for survivors.

(APPLAUSE)

We worked to create jobs — despite the disastrous policies of George W. Bush — across New York. And we stood up time and time again against all kinds of vested powerful interests.

I’m asking for your support again in the primary on Tuesday to continue that work together, to take what we did in New York and to take those New York values to the White House, and put them to work on behalf of all of our people, to knock down the barriers that stand in the way.

You know, of course we have economic barriers. I’ve been fighting against those trying to even the odds most of my adult life. But we also have racial barriers, gender barriers, homophobic barriers, disability barriers.

(APPLAUSE)

We have a lot of barriers that stand in the way of people being treated as they should and having the chance to live up to their own God-given potential.

So I am humbly asking for your support on Tuesday. I’ll work my heart out for you again. And together, we won’t just make promises we can’t keep. We’ll deliver results that will improve the lives of the people in New York and in America.

(APPLAUSE)

That’s what we’ll do together. Thank you, New York.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary. Thank you very much, Senator.

I want to thank the candidates for a really terrific debate. Thanks also to Dana Bash and Errol Louis, as well as NY1, the Democratic National Committee, and everyone here at the Duggal Greenhouse at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Stay with CNN now for complete coverage of the New York primary next Tuesday.

Anderson Cooper picks up our debate coverage right now.

 

Full Text Political Transcripts April 5, 2016: President Barack Obama Remarks at Press Briefing on Economy, Tax Inversion, Mocks Trump and Cruz Immigration Plans

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President on the Economy

Source: WH, 4-5-16

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I’m horning in on Josh’s time just for a hot second.  As we learned last week, America’s economy added 215,000 jobs in March.  That means that our businesses extended the longest streak of private sector job creation on record — 73 straight months, 14.4 million new jobs,  unemployment about half of what it was six years ago.

This progress is due directly to the grit and determination and hard work and the fundamental optimism of the American people.  As I travel around the country, what always stands out is the fact that the overwhelming majority of folks work hard and they play by the rules, and they deserve to see their hard work rewarded.  They also deserve to know that big corporations aren’t playing by a different set of rules; that the wealthiest among us aren’t able to game the system.

That’s why I’ve been pushing for years to eliminate some of the injustices in our tax system.  So I am very pleased that the Treasury Department has taken new action to prevent more corporations from taking advantage of one of the most insidious tax loopholes out there, and fleeing the country just to get out of paying their taxes.  This got some attention in the business press yesterday, but I wanted to make sure that we highlighted the importance of Treasury’s action and why it did what it did.

This directly goes at what’s called corporate inversions.  They are not new.  Simply put, in layman’s terms, it’s when big corporations acquire small companies, and then change their address to another country on paper in order to get out of paying their fair share of taxes here at home.  As a practical matter, they keep most of their actual business here in the United States because they benefit from American infrastructure and technology and rule of law.  They benefit from our research and our development and our patents.  They benefit from American workers, who are the best in the world.  But they effectively renounce their citizenship.  They declare that they’re based somewhere else, thereby getting all the rewards of being an American company without fulfilling the responsibilities to pay their taxes the way everybody else is supposed to pay them.

When companies exploit loopholes like this, it makes it harder to invest in the things that are going to keep America’s economy going strong for future generations.  It sticks the rest of us with the tab.  And it makes hardworking Americans feel like the deck is stacked against them.

So this is something that I’ve been pushing for a long time.  Since I became President, we’ve made our tax code fairer, and we’ve taken steps to make sure our tax laws are actually enforced, including leading efforts to crack down on offshore evasion.  I will say that it gets tougher sometimes when the IRS is starved for resources and squeezed by the congressional appropriation process so that there are not enough people to actually pay attention to what all the lawyers and accountants are doing all the time.  But we have continued to emphasize the importance of basic tax enforcement.

In the news over the last couple of days, we’ve had another reminder in this big dump of data coming out of Panama that tax avoidance is a big, global problem.  It’s not unique to other countries because, frankly, there are folks here in America who are taking advantage of the same stuff.  A lot of it is legal, but that’s exactly the problem.  It’s not that they’re breaking the laws, it’s that the laws are so poorly designed that they allow people, if they’ve got enough lawyers and enough accountants, to wiggle out of responsibilities that ordinary citizens are having to abide by.

Here in the United States, there are loopholes that only wealthy individuals and powerful corporations have access to.  They have access to offshore accounts, and they are gaming the system.  Middle-class families are not in the same position to do this.  In fact, a lot of these loopholes come at the expense of middle-class families, because that lost revenue has to be made up somewhere.  Alternatively, it means that we’re not investing as much as we should in schools, in making college more affordable, in putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure, creating more opportunities for our children.

So this is important stuff.  And these new actions by the Treasury Department build on steps that we’ve already taken to make the system fairer.  But I want to be clear:  While the Treasury Department actions will make it more difficult and less lucrative for companies to exploit this particular corporate inversions loophole, only Congress can close it for good, and only Congress can make sure that all the other loopholes that are being taken advantage of are closed.

I’ve often said the best way to end this kind of irresponsible behavior is with tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, simplifies the tax code for everybody.  And in recent years, I’ve put forward plans — repeatedly — that would make our tax system more competitive for all businesses, including small businesses.  So far, Republicans in Congress have yet to act.

My hope is that they start getting serious about it.  When politicians perpetuate a system that favors the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, it’s not surprising that people feel like they can’t get ahead.  It’s not surprising that oftentimes it may produce a politics that is directed at that frustration.  Rather than doubling down on policies that let a few big corporations or the wealthiest among us play by their own rules, we should keep building an economy where everybody has a fair shot and everybody plays by the same rules.

Rather than protect wasteful tax loopholes for the few at the top, we should be investing more in things like education and job creation and job training that we know grow the economy for everybody.  And rather than lock in tax breaks for millionaires, or make it harder to actually enforce existing laws, let’s give tax breaks to help working families pay for child care or for college.  And let’s stop rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas and profit overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here at home and are good corporate citizens.

That’s how we’re going to build America together.  That’s how we battled back from this Great Recession.  That’s the story of these past seven years.  That can be the story for the next several decades if we make the right decisions right now.  And so I hope this topic ends up being introduced into the broader political debate that we’re going to be having leading up to election season.

And with that, I turn it over to Mr. Josh Earnest.

Q    A question about the Panama Papers, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

Q    Given the release of these millions of pages of financial information, are you concerned that that reflects on the ability of the Treasury Department to sort of be able to see all the financial transactions across the globe — they clearly didn’t see these — and whether that suggests that the sanctions regime that you’ve put in place in a bunch of places around the world might not be as strong as you think it is?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we know the sanctions regime is strong because Iran wouldn’t have, for example, cut a deal to end their nuclear program in the absence of strong sanctions enforcement.

But there is no doubt that the problem of global tax avoidance, generally, is a huge problem.  It’s been brought up in G7 meetings.  It’s been brought up in G20 meetings.  There has been some progress made in coordinating between tax authorities of different countries so that we can make sure that we’re catching some of the most egregious examples.

But as I said before, one of the big problems that we have, Michael, is that a lot of this stuff is legal — not illegal.  And unless the United States and other countries lead by example in closing some of these loopholes and provisions, then in many cases you can trace what’s taking place, but you can’t stop it.  And there is always going to be some illicit movement of funds around the world.  But we shouldn’t make it easy.  We shouldn’t make it legal to engage in transactions just to avoid taxes.

And that’s why I think it is important that the Treasury acted on something that’s different from what happened in Panama.  The corporate inversions issue is a financial transaction that is brokered among major Fortune 500 companies to avoid paying taxes.  But the basic principle of us making sure that everybody is paying their fair share, and that we don’t just have a few people who are able to take advantage of tax provisions, that’s something that we really have to pay attention to.

Because as I said, this is all net outflows of money that could be spent on the pressing needs here in the United States.  And the volume that you start seeing when you combine legal tax avoidance with illicit tax avoidance, or some of the activities that we’re seeing, this is not just billions of dollars.  It’s not even just hundreds of billions of dollars.  Estimates are this may be trillions of dollars worldwide, and it could make a big difference in terms of what we can do here.

I’m going to take one more question and then I’m going to turn it over to Josh.  One last one, go ahead.

Q    Mr. President, the Republican frontrunner today outlined his plan to —

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, no.  (Laughter.)

Q    — pay for a wall along the border —

Q    Climate change?

Q    — barring undocumented immigrants in the U.S. from sending money back home.  What would be the real implication of this plan?  And are his foreign policy proposals already doing damage to U.S. relations abroad?

THE PRESIDENT:  The answer to the latter question is yes.  I think that I’ve been very clear earlier that I am getting questions constantly from foreign leaders about some of the wackier suggestions that are being made.  I do have to emphasize that it’s not just Mr. Trump’s proposals.  You’re also hearing concerns about Mr. Cruz’s proposals, which in some ways are just as draconian when it comes to immigration, for example.

The implications with respect to ending remittances — many of which, by the way, are from legal immigrants and from individuals who are sending money back to their families — are enormous.  First of all, they’re impractical.  We just talked about the difficulties of trying to enforce huge outflows of capital.  The notion that we’re going to track every Western Union bit of money that’s being sent to Mexico, good luck with that.

Then we’ve got the issue of the implications for the Mexican economy, which in turn, if it’s collapsing, actually sends more immigrants north because they can’t find jobs back in Mexico.  But this is just one more example of something that is not thought through and is primarily put forward for political consumption.

And as I’ve tried to emphasize throughout, we’ve got serious problems here.  We’ve got big issues around the world.  People expect the President of the United States and the elected officials in this country to treat these problems seriously, to put forward policies that have been examined, analyzed, are effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account.  They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House.  We can’t afford that.

All right?  I’m turning it over to Josh.  Thank you, guys.

END
12:29 P.M. EDT

Full Text Political Transcripts March 28, 2016: President Barack Obama’s Speech on Politics and Journalism at the 2016 Toner Prize Ceremony

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President at the 2016 Toner Prize Ceremony

Source: WH, 3-28-16

Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium
Washington, D.C.

7:49 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good evening, everybody.  And thank you, Chancellor Syverud for those wonderful remarks and reminding me of how badly my bracket is doing.  (Laughter.)  Congratulations, Syracuse.  You guys are doing great.  (Applause.)  I want to thank Robin’s wonderful husband, Peter, and their incredible kids, Jake and Nora, for organizing this annual tribute to her memory.  And I want to thank all of you for having me here this evening.

A Washington press dinner usually means ill-fitting tuxes, celebrity sightings, and bad jokes.  So this is refreshing.

And it is a great honor to be here to celebrate the 2015 Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting.  In this political season, it is worth reflecting on the kind of journalism Robin practiced — and the kind of journalism this prize rewards.

A reporter’s reporter — that was Robin.  From her first job at the Charleston Daily Mail to her tenure as the New York Times’ national political correspondent — the first woman to hold that position — she always saw herself as being a servant for the American public.  She had a sense of mission and purpose in her work.  For Robin, politics was not a horserace, or a circus, or a tally of who scored more political points than whom, but rather was fundamentally about issues and how they affected the lives of real people.

She treated the public with respect — didn’t just skim the surface.  Few reporters understood the intricacies of health care policy better.  Few could cut to the heart of a tax reform plan more deeply — and analyze how it would affect everybody, from a struggling worker to a hedge fund manager.  Few could explain complicated, esoteric political issues in a way that Americans could digest and use to make informed choices at the ballot box.

Robin’s work was meticulous.  No detail was too small to confirm, and no task too minor to complete.  And that, too, she saw as her responsibility — the responsibility of journalism.  She famously developed her own fact-checking system, cleaning up every name and date and figure in her piece — something most reporters relied on others to do.  And it’s no wonder then that of her almost 2,000 articles, only six required published corrections.  And knowing Robin, that was probably six too many for her taste.

And this speaks to more than just her thoroughness or some obsessive compulsiveness when it came to typos.  It was about Robin’s commitment to seeking out and telling the truth.  She would not stand for any stray mark that might mar an otherwise flawless piece — because she knew the public relied on her to give them the truth as best as she could find it.

Of course, these were qualities were harder to appreciate when her lens was focused on you.  She held politicians’ feet to the fire, including occasionally my own.  And in her quiet, dogged way, she demanded that we be accountable to the public for the things that we said and for the promises that we made. We should be held accountable.

That’s the kind of journalism that Robin practiced.  That’s the kind of journalism this prize honors.  It’s the kind of journalism that’s never been more important.  It’s the kind of journalism that recognizes its fundamental role in promoting citizenship, and hence undergirds our democracy.

As I’ve said in recent weeks, I know I’m not the only one who may be more than a little dismayed about what’s happening on the campaign trail right now.  The divisive and often vulgar rhetoric that’s aimed at everybody, but often is focused on the vulnerable or women or minorities.   The sometimes well-intentioned but I think misguided attempts to shut down that speech.  The violent reaction that we see, as well as the deafening silence from too many of our leaders in the coarsening of the debate.  The sense that facts don’t matter, that they’re not relevant.  That what matters is how much attention you can generate.  A sense that this is a game as opposed to the most precious gift our Founders gave us — this collective enterprise of self-government.

And so it’s worth asking ourselves what each of us — as politicians or journalists, but most of all, as citizens — may have done to contribute to this atmosphere in our politics.  I was going to call is “carnival atmosphere,” but that implies fun.  And I think it’s the kind of question Robin would have asked all of us.  As I said a few weeks ago, some may be more to blame than others for the current climate, but all of us are responsible for reversing it.

I say this not because of some vague notion of “political correctness,” which seems to be increasingly an excuse to just say offensive things or lie out loud.  I say this not out of nostalgia, because politics in America has always been tough.  Anybody who doubts that should take a look at what Adams and Jefferson and some of our other Founders said about each other.  I say this because what we’re seeing right now does corrode our democracy and our society.  And I’m not one who’s faint of heart.  I come from Chicago. Harold Washington once explained that “politics ain’t beanbag.”  It’s always been rough and tumble.

But when our elected officials and our political campaign become entirely untethered to reason and facts and analysis, when it doesn’t matter what’s true and what’s not, that makes it all but impossible for us to make good decisions on behalf of future generations.  It threatens the values of respect and tolerance that we teach our children and that are the source of America’s strength.  It frays the habits of the heart that underpin any civilized society — because how we operate is not just based on laws, it’s based on habits and customs and restraint and respect.  It creates this vacuum where baseless assertions go unchallenged, and evidence is optional.  And as we’re seeing, it allows hostility in one corner of our politics to infect our broader society.  And that, in turn, tarnishes the American brand.

The number one question I am getting as I travel around the world or talk to world leaders right now is, what is happening in America — about our politics.  And it’s not because around the world people have not seen crazy politics; it is that they understand America is the place where you can’t afford completely crazy politics.  For some countries where this kind of rhetoric may not have the same ramifications, people expect, they understand, they care about America, the most powerful nation on Earth, functioning effectively, and its government being able to make sound decisions.

So we are all invested in making this system work.  We are all responsible for its success.  And it’s not just for the United States that this matters.  It matters for the planet.

Whether it was exposing the horrors of lynching, to busting the oil trusts, to uncovering Watergate, your work has always been essential to that endeavor, and that work has never been easy.  And let’s face it, in today’s unprecedented change in your industry, the job has gotten tougher.  Even as the appetite for information and data flowing through the Internet is voracious, we’ve seen newsrooms closed.  The bottom line has shrunk.  The news cycle has, as well.  And too often, there is enormous pressure on journalists to fill the void and feed the beast with instant commentary and Twitter rumors, and celebrity gossip, and softer stories.  And then we fail to understand our world or understand one another as well as we should.  That has consequences for our lives and for the life of our country.

Part of the independence of the Fourth Estate is that it is not government-controlled, and media companies thereby have an obligation to pursue profits on behalf of their shareholders, their owners, and also has an obligation to invest a good chunk of that profit back into news and back into public affairs, and to maintain certain standards and to not dumb down the news, and to have higher aspirations for what effective news can do.  Because a well-informed electorate depends on you.  And our democracy depends on a well-informed electorate.

So the choice between what cuts into your bottom lines and what harms us as a society is an important one.  We have to choose which price is higher to pay; which cost is harder to bear.

Good reporters like the ones in this room all too frequently find yourselves caught between competing forces, I’m aware of that.  You believe in the importance of a well-informed electorate.  You’ve staked your careers on it.  Our democracy needs you more than ever.  You’re under significant financial pressures, as well.

So I believe the electorate would be better served if your networks and your producers would give you the room, the capacity to follow your best instincts and dig deeper into the things that might not always be flashy, but need attention.

And Robin proves that just because something is substantive doesn’t mean it’s not interesting.  I think the electorate would be better served if we spent less time focused on the he said/she said back-and-forth of our politics.  Because while fairness is the hallmark of good journalism, false equivalency all too often these days can be a fatal flaw.  If I say that the world is round and someone else says it’s flat, that’s worth reporting, but you might also want to report on a bunch of scientific evidence that seems to support the notion that the world is round.  And that shouldn’t be buried in paragraph five or six of the article.  (Applause.)

A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone.  It is to probe and to question, and to dig deeper, and to demand more.  The electorate would be better served if that happened.  It would be better served if billions of dollars in free media came with serious accountability, especially when politicians issue unworkable plans or make promises they can’t keep.  (Applause.)  And there are reporters here who know they can’t keep them.  I know that’s a shocking concept that politicians would do that.  But without a press that asks tough questions, voters take them at their word.  When people put their faith in someone who can’t possibly deliver on his or her promises, that only breeds more cynicism.

It’s interesting — this is a little going off script.  But we still have our house in Chicago, and because Michelle, me and the kids had to leave so quickly, it’s a little bit like a time capsule, especially my desk — which wasn’t always very neat.  So I’ve got old phone bills that I think I paid — (laughter) — but they’re still sitting there.  And for a long time, I had my old laptop with the AOL connection.  But there’s also these big stacks of newspapers from right before the election.  And every time I go back, I have occasion to look back and read what I said at the time.  And Lord knows I’ve made mistakes in this job, and there are areas where I’ve fallen short, but something I’m really proud of is the fact that, if you go back and see what I said in 2007 and you see what I did, they match up.  (Applause.)

Now, part of the reason they match up is because in 2008, during the campaign, people asked me really tough questions about whether they’d match up.  And we had to spend a lot of time worrying about whether what I said I could deliver on, and whether we believed it was true.  And there was a price if you said one thing and then did something completely different.  And the question is, in the current media environment, is that still true?  Does that still hold?

I think Robin understood this because she asked those questions.  She asked me some of those questions.

One of the reasons I ran for this office was to try and change the tone of our politics in Washington.  And I remember back in early 2008 — eight years ago this month — Robin wrote a story wondering whether I could; whether it was even possible.  At the time, I probably thought the piece was fairly cynical.  And while I still believe Americans are hungry for a better politics, as I’ve said several times now, one of my great regrets is that the tone of our politics has gotten worse.  And I won’t take all the responsibility for it, but I’ll take some.  We all own some of it.  I’ll take my share.  But Robin asked that question.  She cast a critical eye from the very beginning.  And that was useful.  Still is.

As I believe that that for all the sideshows of the political season, Americans are still hungry for truth, it’s just hard to find.  It’s hard to wade through.  The curating function has diminished in this smartphone age.  But people still want to know what’s true.

Think about it.  Hollywood released films about getting stuck on Mars, and demolition derbies in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, and you even had Leo DiCaprio battling a grizzly bear.  And yet it was a movie about journalists spending months meticulously calling sources from landlines, and poring over documents with highlighters and microfiche, chasing the truth even when it was hard, even when it was dangerous.  And that was the movie that captured the Oscar for Best Picture.

I’m not suggesting all of you are going to win Oscars.  But I am saying it’s worth striving to win a Toner.  (Applause.)

So, look, ultimately I recognize that the news industry is an industry — it’s a business.  There’s no escaping the pressures of the industry and all its attendant constraints.    But I also know that journalism at its best is indispensable — not in some abstract sense of nobility, but in the very concrete sense that real people depend on you to uncover the truth.  Real people depend on getting information they can trust because they are giving over decision-making that has a profound effect on their lives to a bunch of people who are pretty remote and very rarely will they ever have the chance to ask that person a direct question, or be able to sort through the intricacies of the policies that will determine their wages or their ability to retire, or their ability to send their kid to college, or the possibility that their child will be sent to war.

These are folks who trust you when you tell them that there’s a problem in their schools, or that their water has been poisoned, or that their political candidates are promoting plans that don’t add up.

That’s why the deep reporting, the informed questioning, the in-depth stories — the kind of journalism that we honor today — matters more than ever and, by the way, lasts longer than some slapdash Tweet that slips off our screens in the blink of an eye, that may get more hits todays, but won’t stand up to the test of time.  (Applause.)  That’s the only way that our democracy can work.

And as I go into my last year, I spend a lot of time reflecting on how this system, how this crazy notion of self-government works; how can we make it work.  And this is as important to making it work as anything — people getting information that they can trust, and that has substance and evidence and facts and truth behind it.  In an era in which attention spans are short, it is going to be hard because you’re going to have to figure out ways to make it more entertaining, and you’re going to have to be more creative, not less.  Because if you just do great reporting and nobody reads it, that doesn’t do anybody any good, either.

But 10, 20, 50 years from now, no one seeking to understand our age is going to be searching the Tweets that got the most retweets, or the post that got the most likes.  They’ll look for the kind of reporting, the smartest investigative journalism that told our story and lifted up the contradictions in our societies, and asked the hard questions and forced people to see the truth even when it was uncomfortable.

Many of you are already doing that, doing incredible work.  And in some ways, the new technologies are helping you do that work.  Journalists are using new data techniques to analyze economics and the environment, and to analyze candidates’ proposals.  Anchors are asking candidates exactly how they’re going to accomplish their promises, pressing them so they don’t evade the question.  Some reporters recently watched almost five hours of a certain candidate’s remarks to count the number of times he said something that wasn’t true.  It turned out to be quite a large number.  So talk about taking one for the team.  That was a significant sacrifice they made.

This is journalism worth honoring and worth emulating.  And to the young aspiring journalist that I had a chance to meet before I came on stage, those are the models you want to follow.

As all of you know, I just came back from Cuba, where I held a press conference with President Castro that was broadcast all over the country.  So in a country without a free press, this was big news.  And it was a remarkable thing that the Cuban people were able to watch two leaders — their own, and the leader of a country that they’d grown up understanding as their archenemy — answer tough questions and be held accountable.  And I don’t know exactly what it will mean for Cuba’s future.  I think it made a big difference to the Cuban people.  And I can’t think of a better example of why a free press is so vital to freedom.  (Applause.)

In any country, including our own, there will be an inherent tension between the President and the press.  It’s supposed to be that way.  I may not always agree with everything you report or write.  In fact, it’s fair to say I do not.  (Laughter.)  But if I did, that would be an indication that you weren’t doing your job.

I’ll tell you — I probably maybe shouldn’t do this, but what the heck, I’m in my last year.  (Laughter.)  I had an in-depth conversation with President Putin a while back about Syria and Ukraine.  And he had read an article in The Atlantic that Jeff Goldberg had done about my foreign policy doctrine.  And he said, well, I disagree with some of the things that you said in there.  And Jeff is a remarkable journalist who I admire greatly, and all the quotes that were directly attributed to me in there I completely agreed with.  I said, well, but some of the things that were shaped may not fully reflect all the nuance of my thoughts on the particular topic that President Putin was mentioning.  But I pointed out to him, of course, that unlike you, Vladimir, I don’t get to edit the piece before it’s published.  (Laughter and applause.)

So you are supposed to push those in power for more evidence and more access.  You’re supposed to challenge our assumptions.  Sometimes I will find this frustrating.  Sometimes I may not be able to share with you all of the context of decisions that I make.  But I never doubt how much — how critical it is to our democracy for you to do that; how much I value great journalism.  And you should not underestimate the number of times that I have read something that you did, and I have called somebody up and said, what’s going on here?  Because as Bob Gates told me when I first came in — I think it was my first or second week — I said, well, what advice do you have, Bob?  You’ve been around seven presidents.  You’ve served in Washington, in the administration.  He said, Mr. President, the only thing I can tell you for sure is that you’ve got about two million employees, and at any given moment in any given day, somebody, somewhere, is screwing up.  (Laughter.)

So you help me do my job better, and I’m grateful for that.  Because the point of politics, as Robin understood it — certainly as I’ve tried to understand it throughout my tenure in this job — the point of politics is not simply the amassing of power.  It’s about what you do with that power that has been lent to you through a compact, with a citizenry, who give you their proxy and say “I’m counting on you” to not just make my life better, but more importantly, to make my kids’ lives better, and my grandkids’ lives better.  Who will we help?  How will we help them?  What kind of country do we leave to the next generation?

My hope is, is that you continue to ask us questions that keep us honest and elevate our democracy.  I ask that you continue to understand your role as a partner in this process.  I say this often when I speak to Democratic partisan crowds:  I never said, “Yes, I can.”  I said, “Yes, we can.”  And that means all of us.  (Applause.)  If we can keep supporting the kind of work that Robin championed, if we cultivate the next generation of smart, tough, fair-minded journalists, if we can all, every single one of us, carry on her legacy of public service and her faith in citizenry — because you have to have a certain faith to be a really good journalist; you have to believe that me getting it right matters, that it’s not just sending something into the void, but that there’s somebody on the other end who’s receiving it, and that matters — if you continue to believe that, if you have faith, I have no doubt that America’s best days are ahead.

So thank you to Robin’s family.  Congratulations to this year’s winner.  And thank all of you.  God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

Full Text Political Transcripts March 28, 2016: President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama’s Remarks at the 2016 Easter Egg Roll

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President and First Lady at the 2016 Easter Egg Roll

Source: WH, 3-28-16

 

South Lawn

10:41 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  How’s everybody doing today?  (Applause.)  Happy Easter!  You guys brought the sun out, so we appreciate that so much.  This is always one of our favorite events of the year.  It’s so much fun.  And I don’t want to talk too long, but I do want to make sure that everybody thanks our outstanding Marine band, who does such a great job.  (Applause.)  I want to thank all the volunteers who have helped to make this day possible.  Give them a huge round of applause.  (Applause.)  And I want to thank the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama!  (Applause.)

MRS. OBAMA:  Yay!  Thank you, honey.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

MRS. OBAMA:  Here, you take Sunny.  Hi, everybody!  (Applause.)  Happy Easter Egg Roll Day!  Are you all having a good time?

AUDIENCE:  Yeah!

MRS. OBAMA:  It is going to be perfect weather.  The sun is coming out, which is always a great omen for the day.  We’re just thrilled to have you all here.  Today is a little bit bittersweet for us, because this is the Obama administration’s last Easter Egg Roll.

AUDIENCE:  Aww —

MRS. OBAMA:  Yes.  And if we think about what we’ve accomplished over these past seven years, it’s pretty incredible.  Because when Barack and I first got here, one of the goals that we had was to open up the White House to as many people from as many backgrounds as possible.  So open it up to our kids, to our musicians, to explore our culture, to expose families to healthy living, and to just have a lot of fun.

THE PRESIDENT:  And our military families.

MRS. OBAMA:  And also to our military families.  I’ve got the peanut crew back here reminding me of stuff.  But we can’t forget all of our military families, who we love, honor and respect, for their service and sacrifice.  (Applause.)

And since we started having Easter Egg Rolls, we’ve had more than 250,000 people come to this lawn every year.  It’s been amazing.  Today we’re going to have 35,000 people who will come in and out of the South Lawn over the course of the day.  And we couldn’t be more excited for this last Easter Egg Roll.  We have danced.  We have done yoga.  We’ve got our Soul Cyclers here.  We’ve got some tremendous athletes and entertainers and artists who are going to read and play games with you all.  We’ve got a little “whip” and a little “nae nae” — or however you do it.  (Laughter.)  Something like that.

So we just want you to have fun.  And the theme this year in our final year is pretty simple.  It’s:  Let’s celebrate.  Let’s celebrate all the good work that we’ve done, all the great messaging we’ve had.  All the amazing change that we’ve seen in this country.  And we want to celebrate our families.  We want to celebrate our nation — everything that makes us strong.  It’s our diversity, it’s our values.  That’s what makes us strong.

And me and this President, we have been honored to be here as your President and First Lady to be able to host you in our backyard every single year.  So I hope you guys have a terrific time.  We’re going to be out there doing a little egg-rolling.  We’re going to have a fun-run today.  I’m going to be running around the White House with a bunch of kids — and any adults who feel like they can hang.  (Laughter.)  You guys can run along with me.  Don’t feel shy.

So just have a good time.  And just know that we love you.  We love you all, and we’re grateful for the love and support that you’ve shown us all these years.  So thank you all.

THE PRESIDENT:  Happy Easter, everybody!

MRS. OBAMA:  Happy Easter!  (Applause.)  Let’s celebrate!

END
10:45 A.M. EST

Full Text Political Transcripts March 23, 2016: Speaker Paul Ryan’s Speech on the State of American Politics

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

FULL TEXT: Speaker Ryan on the State of American Politics

“I want to thank you all for coming. I want to thank Chairman Brady and the Ways and Means Committee for hosting us here. I had the privilege of joining this committee my second term in Congress. It’s the perfect setting for what I want to talk with you about today. Because it is here, in this committee, that we debate some of the biggest, most consequential issues. Our tax code, health care, trade, entitlement programs, welfare reform. t’s a big deal to be on this committee. And understanding the privilege and the responsibility that came along with it, we took our job seriously.

“And we always held ourselves to a higher standard of decorum. We treated each other with respect. We disagreed—often fiercely so—but we disagreed without being disagreeable. I speak of this in the past tense only because I no longer serve here. But it almost sounds like I’m speaking of another time, doesn’t it? It sounds like a scene unfamiliar to your generation.

“Looking around at what’s taking place in politics today, it is easy to get disheartened. How many of you find yourself just shaking your head at what you see from both sides? You know, I see myself in each of you. I came here as a curious college intern. Trying to get a sense of everything. Trying to figure out where to take my life. I would always ask older, more experienced people: what do you know that you wished you knew when you were my age?

“This is my answer to that. Here is what I know now that I want you to know—that you cannot see yourself today. And that is not just a lesson for young minds, but a message for all Americans. Our political discourse—both the kind we see on TV and the kind we experience among each other—did not use to be this bad and it does not have to be this way. Now, a little skepticism is healthy. But when people distrust politics, they come to distrust institutions. They lose faith in their government, and the future too. We can acknowledge this. But we don’t have to accept it. And we cannot enable it either.

“My dad used to say, if you’re not a part of the solution, you’re a part of the problem. So I have made it a mission of my Speakership to raise our gaze and aim for a brighter horizon. Instead of talking about what politics is today, I want to talk about what politics can be. I want to talk about what our country can be…about what our Founders envisioned it to be. America is the only nation founded an idea—not an identity. That idea is the notion that the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. Our rights are natural. They come from God, not government.

“While it was a beautiful idea, it had never been tried before. Early on, as our founders struggled to establish a suitable order, they decided that we would not maintain this idea by force. In the first Federalist paper, Alexander Hamilton wrote that “in politics,” it is “absurd to aim at making” converts “by fire and sword.” Instead, we would govern ourselves, with the people’s consent. Again, there was no manual for how to do this. That’s why they call it the American experiment.

“So they made each other—and those who came after—take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And every generation since has inherited this responsibility. Leaders with different visions and ideas have come and gone; parties have risen and fallen; majorities and White Houses won and lost. But the way we govern endures: through debate, not disorder. This is one thing about our country that makes it the greatest on earth.

“I must admit, I didn’t always find this idea so exciting…As I said, I came to Washington unsure of what I was going to do with my life. And then I ended up working for a guy named Jack Kemp. Jack once played quarterback for the Buffalo Bills. He went on to represent the people of Western New York in the House in the 1970s and 80s. He served in the Cabinet under President George H.W. Bush. And, like me, he was once our party’s nominee for vice president.

“But I first met Jack exactly where you’d expect…at Tortilla Coast. It’s true…I was waiting on his table. I didn’t bother him that day, but I told a friend I’d love to have the chance to work for him. And, as luck would have it, such an opening soon arose. The thing about Jack was, he was an optimist all the way. He refused to accept that any part of America–or the American Idea–could be written off. Here was a conservative willing—no, eager—to go to America’s bleakest communities and talk about how free enterprise could lift people out of poverty. These were areas that hadn’t seen a Republican leader come through in years, if ever.

“I had the chance to accompany Jack on some of these visits. I saw how people took to him. I saw how he listened, and took new lessons from each experience. He found common cause with poverty fighters on the ground. Instead of a sense of drift, I began to feel a sense of purpose. Jack inspired me to devote my professional life to public policy. It became a vocation.

“Ideas, passionately promoted and put to the test—that’s what politics can be.That’s what our country can be. It can be a confident America, where we have a basic faith in politics and leaders. It can be a place where we’ve earned that faith. All of us as leaders can hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity and decency. Instead of playing to your anxieties, we can appeal to your aspirations. Instead of playing the identity politics of “our base” and “their base,” we unite people around ideas and principles. And instead of being timid, we go bold.

“We don’t resort to scaring you, we dare to inspire you. We don’t just oppose someone or something. We propose a clear and compelling alternative. And when we do that, we don’t just win the argument. We don’t just win your support. We win your enthusiasm. We win hearts and minds. We win a mandate to do what needs to be done to protect the American Idea.

“In a confident America, we also have a basic faith in one another. We question each other’s ideas—vigorously—but we don’t question each other’s motives. If someone has a bad idea, we don’t think they’re a bad person. We just think they have a bad idea. People with different ideas are not traitors. They are not our enemies. They are our neighbors, our coworkers, our fellow citizens. Sometimes they’re our friends. Sometimes they’re even our own flesh and blood, right? We all know someone we love who disagrees with us politically, or votes differently.

“But in a confident America, we aren’t afraid to disagree with each other. We don’t lock ourselves in an echo chamber, where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold. We don’t shut down on people—and we don’t shut people down. If someone has a bad idea, we tell them why our idea is better. We don’t insult them into agreeing with us. We try to persuade them. We test their assumptions. And while we’re at it, we test our own assumptions too.

“I’m certainly not going to stand here and tell you I have always met this standard. There was a time when I would talk about a difference between “makers” and “takers” in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong. “Takers” wasn’t how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, just trying to take care of her family. Most people don’t want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn’t castigate a large group of Americans to make a point.

“So I stopped thinking about it that way—and talking about it that way. But I didn’t come out and say all this to be politically correct. I was just wrong. And of course, there are still going to be times when I say things I wish I hadn’t. There are still going to be times when I follow the wrong impulse.

“Governing ourselves was never meant to be easy. This has always been a tough business. And when passions flair, ugliness is sometimes inevitable. But we shouldn’t accept ugliness as the norm. We should demand better from ourselves and from one another. We should think about the great leaders that have bestowed upon us the opportunity to live the American Idea. We should honor their legacy. We should build that more confident America.

“This, as much as anything, is what makes me an optimist. It is knowing that ideas can inspire a country and help people. Long before I worked for him, Jack Kemp had a tax plan that he was incredibly passionate about. He wasn’t even on the Ways and Means Committee and Republicans were deep in the minority back then. So the odds of it going anywhere seemed awfully low. But he was like a dog with a bone. He took that plan to any audience he could get in front of. He pushed it so hard that he eventually inspired our party’s nominee for president—Ronald Reagan—to adopt it as his own. And in 1981 the Kemp-Roth bill was signed into law, lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions of Americans back to work.

“All it took was someone willing to put policy on paper and promote it passionately. This is the basic concept behind the policy agenda that House Republicans are building right now. As leaders, we have an obligation to put our best ideas forward—no matter the consequences. With so much at stake, the American people deserve a clear picture of what we believe. Personalities come and go, but principles endure. Ideas endure, ready to inspire generations yet to be born.

“That’s the thing about politics. We think of it in terms of this vote or that election. But it can be so much more than that. Politics can be a battle of ideas, not insults. It can be about solutions. It can be about making a difference. It can be about always striving to do better. That’s what it can be and what it should be. This is the system our Founders envisioned. It’s messy. It’s complicated. It’s infuriating at times. And it’s a beautiful thing too. Thank you all for being here today.”
– See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/full-text-speaker-ryan-state-american-politics#sthash.g3GUP1yX.dpuf

 

Full Text Political Transcripts March 22, 2016: President Barack Obama’s Speech to the People of Cuba

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by President Obama to the People of Cuba

Source: WH, 3-22-16

Gran Teatro de la Habana
Havana, Cuba

10:10 A.M. CST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Muchas gracias.  Thank you so much.  Thank you very much.

President Castro, the people of Cuba, thank you so much for the warm welcome that I have received, that my family have received, and that our delegation has received.  It is an extraordinary honor to be here today.

Before I begin, please indulge me.  I want to comment on the terrorist attacks that have taken place in Brussels.  The thoughts and the prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium.  We stand in solidarity with them in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people.  We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally, Belgium, in bringing to justice those who are responsible.  And this is yet another reminder that the world must unite, we must be together, regardless of nationality, or race, or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.  We can — and will — defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people all around the world.

To the government and the people of Cuba, I want to thank you for the kindness that you’ve shown to me and Michelle, Malia, Sasha, my mother-in-law, Marian.

“Cultivo una rosa blanca.”  (Applause.)  In his most famous poem, Jose Marti made this offering of friendship and peace to both his friend and his enemy.  Today, as the President of the United States of America, I offer the Cuban people el saludo de paz.  (Applause.)

Havana is only 90 miles from Florida, but to get here we had to travel a great distance — over barriers of history and ideology; barriers of pain and separation.  The blue waters beneath Air Force One once carried American battleships to this island — to liberate, but also to exert control over Cuba.  Those waters also carried generations of Cuban revolutionaries to the United States, where they built support for their cause.  And that short distance has been crossed by hundreds of thousands of Cuban exiles — on planes and makeshift rafts — who came to America in pursuit of freedom and opportunity, sometimes leaving behind everything they owned and every person that they loved.

Like so many people in both of our countries, my lifetime has spanned a time of isolation between us.  The Cuban Revolution took place the same year that my father came to the United States from Kenya.  The Bay of Pigs took place the year that I was born. The next year, the entire world held its breath, watching our two countries, as humanity came as close as we ever have to the horror of nuclear war.  As the decades rolled by, our governments settled into a seemingly endless confrontation, fighting battles through proxies.  In a world that remade itself time and again, one constant was the conflict between the United States and Cuba.

I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas.  (Applause.)  I have come here to extend the hand of friendship to the Cuban people.  (Applause.)

I want to be clear:  The differences between our governments over these many years are real and they are important.  I’m sure President Castro would say the same thing — I know, because I’ve heard him address those differences at length.  But before I discuss those issues, we also need to recognize how much we share.  Because in many ways, the United States and Cuba are like two brothers who’ve been estranged for many years, even as we share the same blood.

We both live in a new world, colonized by Europeans.  Cuba, like the United States, was built in part by slaves brought here from Africa.  Like the United States, the Cuban people can trace their heritage to both slaves and slave-owners.  We’ve welcomed both immigrants who came a great distance to start new lives in the Americas.

Over the years, our cultures have blended together.       Dr. Carlos Finlay’s work in Cuba paved the way for generations of doctors, including Walter Reed, who drew on Dr. Finlay’s work to help combat Yellow Fever.  Just as Marti wrote some of his most famous words in New York, Ernest Hemingway made a home in Cuba, and found inspiration in the waters of these shores.  We share a national past-time — La Pelota — and later today our players will compete on the same Havana field that Jackie Robinson played on before he made his Major League debut.  (Applause.)  And it’s said that our greatest boxer, Muhammad Ali, once paid tribute to a Cuban that he could never fight — saying that he would only be able to reach a draw with the great Cuban, Teofilo Stevenson.  (Applause.)

So even as our governments became adversaries, our people continued to share these common passions, particularly as so many Cubans came to America.  In Miami or Havana, you can find places to dance the Cha-Cha-Cha or the Salsa, and eat ropa vieja.  People in both of our countries have sung along with Celia Cruz or Gloria Estefan, and now listen to reggaeton or Pitbull.  (Laughter.)  Millions of our people share a common religion — a faith that I paid tribute to at the Shrine of our Lady of Charity in Miami, a peace that Cubans find in La Cachita.

For all of our differences, the Cuban and American people share common values in their own lives.  A sense of patriotism and a sense of pride — a lot of pride.  A profound love of family.  A passion for our children, a commitment to their education.  And that’s why I believe our grandchildren will look back on this period of isolation as an aberration, as just one chapter in a longer story of family and of friendship.

But we cannot, and should not, ignore the very real differences that we have — about how we organize our governments, our economies, and our societies.  Cuba has a one-party system; the United States is a multi-party democracy.  Cuba has a socialist economic model; the United States is an open market.  Cuba has emphasized the role and rights of the state; the United States is founded upon the rights of the individual.

Despite these differences, on December 17th 2014, President Castro and I announced that the United States and Cuba would begin a process to normalize relations between our countries.  (Applause.)  Since then, we have established diplomatic relations and opened embassies.  We’ve begun initiatives to cooperate on health and agriculture, education and law enforcement.  We’ve reached agreements to restore direct flights and mail service.  We’ve expanded commercial ties, and increased the capacity of Americans to travel and do business in Cuba.

And these changes have been welcomed, even though there are still opponents to these policies.  But still, many people on both sides of this debate have asked:  Why now?  Why now?

There is one simple answer:  What the United States was doing was not working.  We have to have the courage to acknowledge that truth.  A policy of isolation designed for the Cold War made little sense in the 21st century.  The embargo was only hurting the Cuban people instead of helping them.  And I’ve always believed in what Martin Luther King, Jr. called “the fierce urgency of now” — we should not fear change, we should embrace it.  (Applause.)

That leads me to a bigger and more important reason for these changes:  Creo en el pueblo Cubano.  I believe in the Cuban people.  (Applause.)  This is not just a policy of normalizing relations with the Cuban government.  The United States of America is normalizing relations with the Cuban people.  (Applause.)

And today, I want to share with you my vision of what our future can be.  I want the Cuban people — especially the young people — to understand why I believe that you should look to the future with hope; not the false promise which insists that things are better than they really are, or the blind optimism that says all your problems can go away tomorrow.  Hope that is rooted in the future that you can choose and that you can shape, and that you can build for your country.

I’m hopeful because I believe that the Cuban people are as innovative as any people in the world.

In a global economy, powered by ideas and information, a country’s greatest asset is its people.  In the United States, we have a clear monument to what the Cuban people can build: it’s called Miami.  Here in Havana, we see that same talent in cuentapropistas, cooperatives and old cars that still run.  El Cubano inventa del aire.  (Applause.)

Cuba has an extraordinary resource — a system of education which values every boy and every girl.  (Applause.)  And in recent years, the Cuban government has begun to open up to the world, and to open up more space for that talent to thrive.  In just a few years, we’ve seen how cuentapropistas can succeed while sustaining a distinctly Cuban spirit.  Being self-employed is not about becoming more like America, it’s about being yourself.

Look at Sandra Lidice Aldama, who chose to start a small business.  Cubans, she said, can “innovate and adapt without losing our identity…our secret is in not copying or imitating but simply being ourselves.”

Look at Papito Valladeres, a barber, whose success allowed him to improve conditions in his neighborhood.  “I realize I’m not going to solve all of the world’s problems,” he said.  “But if I can solve problems in the little piece of the world where I live, it can ripple across Havana.”

That’s where hope begins — with the ability to earn your own living, and to build something you can be proud of.  That’s why our policies focus on supporting Cubans, instead of hurting them.  That’s why we got rid of limits on remittances — so ordinary Cubans have more resources.  That’s why we’re encouraging travel — which will build bridges between our people, and bring more revenue to those Cuban small businesses. That’s why we’ve opened up space for commerce and exchanges — so that Americans and Cubans can work together to find cures for diseases, and create jobs, and open the door to more opportunity for the Cuban people.

As President of the United States, I’ve called on our Congress to lift the embargo.  (Applause.)  It is an outdated burden on the Cuban people.  It’s a burden on the Americans who want to work and do business or invest here in Cuba.  It’s time to lift the embargo.  But even if we lifted the embargo tomorrow, Cubans would not realize their potential without continued change here in Cuba.  (Applause.)  It should be easier to open a business here in Cuba.  A worker should be able to get a job directly with companies who invest here in Cuba.  Two currencies shouldn’t separate the type of salaries that Cubans can earn.  The Internet should be available across the island, so that Cubans can connect to the wider world — (applause) — and to one of the greatest engines of growth in human history.

There’s no limitation from the United States on the ability of Cuba to take these steps.  It’s up to you.  And I can tell you as a friend that sustainable prosperity in the 21st century depends upon education, health care, and environmental protection.  But it also depends on the free and open exchange of ideas.  If you can’t access information online, if you cannot be exposed to different points of view, you will not reach your full potential.  And over time, the youth will lose hope.

I know these issues are sensitive, especially coming from an American President.  Before 1959, some Americans saw Cuba as something to exploit, ignored poverty, enabled corruption.  And since 1959, we’ve been shadow-boxers in this battle of geopolitics and personalities.  I know the history, but I refuse to be trapped by it.  (Applause.)

I’ve made it clear that the United States has neither the capacity, nor the intention to impose change on Cuba.  What changes come will depend upon the Cuban people.  We will not impose our political or economic system on you.  We recognize that every country, every people, must chart its own course and shape its own model.  But having removed the shadow of history from our relationship, I must speak honestly about the things that I believe — the things that we, as Americans, believe.  As Marti said, “Liberty is the right of every man to be honest, to think and to speak without hypocrisy.”

So let me tell you what I believe.  I can’t force you to agree, but you should know what I think.  I believe that every person should be equal under the law. (Applause.)  Every child deserves the dignity that comes with education, and health care and food on the table and a roof over their heads.  (Applause.)  I believe citizens should be free to speak their mind without fear — (applause) — to organize, and to criticize their government, and to protest peacefully, and that the rule of law should not include arbitrary detentions of people who exercise those rights.  (Applause.)  I believe that every person should have the freedom to practice their faith peacefully and publicly. (Applause.)  And, yes, I believe voters should be able to choose their governments in free and democratic elections.  (Applause.)

Not everybody agrees with me on this.  Not everybody agrees with the American people on this.  But I believe those human rights are universal.  (Applause.)  I believe they are the rights of the American people, the Cuban people, and people around the world.

Now, there’s no secret that our governments disagree on many of these issues.  I’ve had frank conversations with President Castro.  For many years, he has pointed out the flaws in the American system — economic inequality; the death penalty; racial discrimination; wars abroad.  That’s just a sample.  He has a much longer list.  (Laughter.)  But here’s what the Cuban people need to understand:  I welcome this open debate and dialogue. It’s good.  It’s healthy.  I’m not afraid of it.

We do have too much money in American politics.  But, in America, it’s still possible for somebody like me — a child who was raised by a single mom, a child of mixed race who did not have a lot of money — to pursue and achieve the highest office in the land.  That’s what’s possible in America.  (Applause.)

We do have challenges with racial bias — in our communities, in our criminal justice system, in our society — the legacy of slavery and segregation.  But the fact that we have open debates within America’s own democracy is what allows us to get better.  In 1959, the year that my father moved to America, it was illegal for him to marry my mother, who was white, in many American states.  When I first started school, we were still struggling to desegregate schools across the American South.  But people organized; they protested; they debated these issues; they challenged government officials.  And because of those protests, and because of those debates, and because of popular mobilization, I’m able to stand here today as an African-American and as President of the United States.  That was because of the freedoms that were afforded in the United States that we were able to bring about change.

I’m not saying this is easy.  There’s still enormous problems in our society.  But democracy is the way that we solve them.  That’s how we got health care for more of our people.  That’s how we made enormous gains in women’s rights and gay rights.  That’s how we address the inequality that concentrates so much wealth at the top of our society.  Because workers can organize and ordinary people have a voice, American democracy has given our people the opportunity to pursue their dreams and enjoy a high standard of living.  (Applause.)

Now, there are still some tough fights.  It isn’t always pretty, the process of democracy.   It’s often frustrating.  You can see that in the election going on back home.  But just stop and consider this fact about the American campaign that’s taking place right now.  You had two Cuban Americans in the Republican Party, running against the legacy of a black man who is President, while arguing that they’re the best person to beat the Democratic nominee who will either be a woman or a Democratic Socialist.  (Laughter and applause.)  Who would have believed that back in 1959?  That’s a measure of our progress as a democracy.  (Applause.)

So here’s my message to the Cuban government and the Cuban people:  The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution — America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world — those ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.  Not because American democracy is perfect, but precisely because we’re not.  And we — like every country — need the space that democracy gives us to change.  It gives individuals the capacity to be catalysts to think in new ways, and to reimagine how our society should be, and to make them better.

There’s already an evolution taking place inside of Cuba, a generational change.  Many suggested that I come here and ask the people of Cuba to tear something down — but I’m appealing to the young people of Cuba who will lift something up, build something new.  (Applause.)  El futuro  de Cuba tiene que estar en las manos del pueblo Cubano.  (Applause.)

And to President Castro — who I appreciate being here today — I want you to know, I believe my visit here demonstrates you do not need to fear a threat from the United States.  And given your commitment to Cuba’s sovereignty and self-determination, I am also confident that you need not fear the different voices of the Cuban people — and their capacity to speak, and assemble, and vote for their leaders.  In fact, I’m hopeful for the future because I trust that the Cuban people will make the right decisions.

And as you do, I’m also confident that Cuba can continue to play an important role in the hemisphere and around the globe — and my hope is, is that you can do so as a partner with the United States.

We’ve played very different roles in the world.  But no one should deny the service that thousands of Cuban doctors have delivered for the poor and suffering.  (Applause.)  Last year, American health care workers — and the U.S. military — worked side-by-side with Cubans to save lives and stamp out Ebola in West Africa.  I believe that we should continue that kind of cooperation in other countries.

We’ve been on the different side of so many conflicts in the Americas.  But today, Americans and Cubans are sitting together at the negotiating table, and we are helping the Colombian people resolve a civil war that’s dragged on for decades.  (Applause.)  That kind of cooperation is good for everybody.  It gives everyone in this hemisphere hope.

We took different journeys to our support for the people of South Africa in ending apartheid.  But President Castro and I could both be there in Johannesburg to pay tribute to the legacy of the great Nelson Mandela.  (Applause.)  And in examining his life and his words, I’m sure we both realize we have more work to do to promote equality in our own countries — to reduce discrimination based on race in our own countries.  And in Cuba, we want our engagement to help lift up the Cubans who are of African descent — (applause) — who’ve proven that there’s nothing they cannot achieve when given the chance.

We’ve been a part of different blocs of nations in the hemisphere, and we will continue to have profound differences about how to promote peace, security, opportunity, and human rights.  But as we normalize our relations, I believe it can help foster a greater sense of unity in the Americas — todos somos Americanos.  (Applause.)

From the beginning of my time in office, I’ve urged the people of the Americas to leave behind the ideological battles of the past.  We are in a new era.  I know that many of the issues that I’ve talked about lack the drama of the past.  And I know that part of Cuba’s identity is its pride in being a small island nation that could stand up for its rights, and shake the world. But I also know that Cuba will always stand out because of the talent, hard work, and pride of the Cuban people.  That’s your strength.  (Applause.)  Cuba doesn’t have to be defined by being against the United States, any more than the United States should be defined by being against Cuba.  I’m hopeful for the future because of the reconciliation that’s taking place among the Cuban people.

I know that for some Cubans on the island, there may be a sense that those who left somehow supported the old order in Cuba.  I’m sure there’s a narrative that lingers here which suggests that Cuban exiles ignored the problems of pre-Revolutionary Cuba, and rejected the struggle to build a new future.  But I can tell you today that so many Cuban exiles carry a memory of painful — and sometimes violent — separation.  They love Cuba.  A part of them still considers this their true home. That’s why their passion is so strong.  That’s why their heartache is so great.  And for the Cuban American community that I’ve come to know and respect, this is not just about politics. This is about family — the memory of a home that was lost; the desire to rebuild a broken bond; the hope for a better future the hope for return and reconciliation.

For all of the politics, people are people, and Cubans are Cubans.  And I’ve come here — I’ve traveled this distance — on a bridge that was built by Cubans on both sides of the Florida Straits.  I first got to know the talent and passion of the Cuban people in America.  And I know how they have suffered more than the pain of exile — they also know what it’s like to be an outsider, and to struggle, and to work harder to make sure their children can reach higher in America.

So the reconciliation of the Cuban people — the children and grandchildren of revolution, and the children and grandchildren of exile — that is fundamental to Cuba’s future.  (Applause.)

You see it in Gloria Gonzalez, who traveled here in 2013 for the first time after 61 years of separation, and was met by her sister, Llorca.  “You recognized me, but I didn’t recognize you,” Gloria said after she embraced her sibling.  Imagine that, after 61 years.

You see it in Melinda Lopez, who came to her family’s old home.  And as she was walking the streets, an elderly woman recognized her as her mother’s daughter, and began to cry.  She took her into her home and showed her a pile of photos that included Melinda’s baby picture, which her mother had sent 50 years ago.  Melinda later said, “So many of us are now getting so much back.”

You see it in Cristian Miguel Soler, a young man who became the first of his family to travel here after 50 years.  And meeting relatives for the first time, he said, “I realized that family is family no matter the distance between us.”

Sometimes the most important changes start in small places. The tides of history can leave people in conflict and exile and poverty.  It takes time for those circumstances to change.  But the recognition of a common humanity, the reconciliation of people bound by blood and a belief in one another — that’s where progress begins.  Understanding, and listening, and forgiveness. And if the Cuban people face the future together, it will be more likely that the young people of today will be able to live with dignity and achieve their dreams right here in Cuba.

The history of the United States and Cuba encompass revolution and conflict; struggle and sacrifice; retribution and, now, reconciliation.  It is time, now, for us to leave the past behind.  It is time for us to look forward to the future together — un future de esperanza.  And it won’t be easy, and there will be setbacks.  It will take time.  But my time here in Cuba renews my hope and my confidence in what the Cuban people will do.  We can make this journey as friends, and as neighbors, and as family — together.  Si se puede.  Muchas gracias.  (Applause.)

END
10:48 A.M. CST

Full Text Political Transcripts March 21, 2016: Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump’s Speech to the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Donald Trump’s Speech to AIPAC

Source: Time, 3-21-16

 

 

TRUMP: Good evening. Thank you very much.

I speak to you today as a lifelong supporter and true friend of Israel. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

I am a newcomer to politics, but not to backing the Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

In 2001, weeks after the attacks on New York City and on Washington and, frankly, the attacks on all of us, attacks that perpetrated and they were perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalists, Mayor Rudy Giuliani visited Israel to show solidarity with terror victims.

I sent my plane because I backed the mission for Israel 100 percent.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

In spring of 2004 at the height of the violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the grand marshal of the 40th Salute to Israel Parade, the largest-single gathering in support of the Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

It was a very dangerous time for Israel and frankly for anyone supporting Israel. Many people turned down this honor. I did not. I took the risk and I’m glad I did.

(APPLAUSE)

But I didn’t come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That’s what politicians do: all talk, no action. Believe me.

(APPLAUSE)

I came here to speak to you about where I stand on the future of American relations with our strategic ally, our unbreakable friendship and our cultural brother, the only democracy in the Middle East, the state of Israel.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

My number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you.

I have been in business a long time. I know deal-making. And let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic for America, for Israel and for the whole of the Middle East.

(APPLAUSE) The problem here is fundamental. We’ve rewarded the world’s leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion, and we received absolutely nothing in return.

(APPLAUSE)

I’ve studied this issue in great detail, I would say actually greater by far than anybody else.

(LAUGHTER)

Believe me. Oh, believe me. And it’s a bad deal.

The biggest concern with the deal is not necessarily that Iran is going to violate it because already, you know, as you know, it has, the bigger problem is that they can keep the terms and still get the bomb by simply running out the clock. And of course, they’ll keep the billions and billions of dollars that we so stupidly and foolishly gave them.

(APPLAUSE)

The deal doesn’t even require Iran to dismantle its military nuclear capability. Yes, it places limits on its military nuclear program for only a certain number of years, but when those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-sized, military nuclear capability ready to go and with zero provision for delay, no matter how bad Iran’s behavior is. Terrible, terrible situation that we are all placed in and especially Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

When I’m president, I will adopt a strategy that focuses on three things when it comes to Iran. First, we will stand up to Iran’s aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be. But if I’m not elected president, I know how to deal with trouble. And believe me, that’s why I’m going to be elected president, folks.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

And we are leading in every poll. Remember that, please.

(CHEERS)

Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen and will be a very, very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better weapons to support their puppet states. Hezbollah, Lebanon received — and I’ll tell you what, it has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons and GPS systems and rockets like very few people anywhere in the world and certainly very few countries have. Now they’re in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.

In Gaza, Iran is supporting Hamas and Islamic jihad.

And in the West Bank, they’re openly offering Palestinians $7,000 per terror attack and $30,000 for every Palestinian terrorist’s home that’s been destroyed. A deplorable, deplorable situation.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran is financing military forces throughout the Middle East and it’s absolutely incredible that we handed them over $150 billion to do even more toward the many horrible acts of terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Secondly, we will totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network which is big and powerful, but not powerful like us.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran has seeded terror groups all over the world. During the last five years, Iran has perpetuated terror attacks in 25 different countries on five continents. They’ve got terror cells everywhere, including in the Western Hemisphere, very close to home.

Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world. And we will work to dismantle that reach, believe me, believe me.

(APPLAUSE)

Third, at the very least, we must enforce the terms of the previous deal to hold Iran totally accountable. And we will enforce it like you’ve never seen a contract enforced before, folks, believe me.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran has already, since the deal is in place, test-fired ballistic missiles three times. Those ballistic missiles, with a range of 1,250 miles, were designed to intimidate not only Israel, which is only 600 miles away, but also intended to frighten Europe and someday maybe hit even the United States. And we’re not going to let that happen. We’re not letting it happen. And we’re not letting it happen to Israel, believe me.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you.

Do you want to hear something really shocking? As many of the great people in this room know, painted on those missiles in both Hebrew and Farsi were the words “Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth.” You can forget that.

(APPLAUSE)

What kind of demented minds write that in Hebrew?

And here’s another. You talk about twisted. Here’s another twisted part. Testing these missiles does not even violate the horrible deal that we’ve made. The deal is silent on test missiles. But those tests do violate the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The problem is no one has done anything about it. We will, we will. I promise, we will.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

Which brings me to my next point, the utter weakness and incompetence of the United Nations.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

The United Nations is not a friend of democracy, it’s not a friend to freedom, it’s not a friend even to the United States of America where, as you know, it has its home. And it surely is not a friend to Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

With President Obama in his final year — yea!

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

(LAUGHTER)

He may be the worst thing to ever happen to Israel, believe me, believe me. And you know it and you know it better than anybody.

So with the president in his final year, discussions have been swirling about an attempt to bring a Security Council resolution on terms of an eventual agreement between Israel and Palestine.

Let me be clear: An agreement imposed by the United Nations would be a total and complete disaster.

(APPLAUSE)

The United States must oppose this resolution and use the power of our veto, which I will use as president 100 percent.

(APPLAUSE)

When people ask why, it’s because that’s not how you make a deal. Deals are made when parties come together, they come to a table and they negotiate. Each side must give up something. It’s values. I mean, we have to do something where there’s value in exchange for something that it requires. That’s what a deal is. A deal is really something that when we impose it on Israel and Palestine, we bring together a group of people that come up with something.

That’s not going to happen with the United Nations. It will only further, very importantly, it will only further delegitimize Israel. It will be a catastrophe and a disaster for Israel. It’s not going to happen, folks.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

And further, it would reward Palestinian terrorism because every day they’re stabbing Israelis and even Americans. Just last week, American Taylor Allen Force, a West Point grad, phenomenal young person who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was murdered in the street by a knife-wielding Palestinian. You don’t reward behavior like that. You cannot do it.

(APPLAUSE)

There’s only one way you treat that kind of behavior. You have to confront it.

(APPLAUSE)

So it’s not up to the United Nations to really go with a solution. It’s really the parties that must negotiate a resolution themselves. They have no choice. They have to do it themselves or it will never hold up anyway. The United States can be useful as a facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel that it must be and really that it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that don’t even really know what’s happening to Israel, to anything in the area. It’s so preposterous, we’re not going to let that happen.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

When I’m president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the U.N. to impose its will on the Jewish state. It will be vetoed 100 percent.

(APPLAUSE)

You see, I know about deal-making. That’s what I do. I wrote “The Art of the Deal.”

(LAUGHTER)

One of the best-selling, all-time — and I mean, seriously, I’m saying one of because I’ll be criticized when I say “the” so I’m going to be very diplomatic — one of…

(LAUGHTER)

I’ll be criticized. I think it is number one, but why take a chance? (LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

One of the all-time best-selling books about deals and deal- making. To make a great deal, you need two willing participants. We know Israel is willing to deal. Israel has been trying.

(APPLAUSE)

That’s right. Israel has been trying to sit down at the negotiating table without preconditions for years. You had Camp David in 2000 where Prime Minister Barak made an incredible offer, maybe even too generous; Arafat rejected it.

In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert made an equally generous offer. The Palestinian Authority rejected it also.

Then John Kerry tried to come up with a framework and Abbas didn’t even respond, not even to the secretary of state of the United States of America. They didn’t even respond.

When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

And when I say something, I mean it, I mean it.

I will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately. I have known him for many years and we’ll be able to work closely together to help bring stability and peace to Israel and to the entire region.

Meanwhile, every single day you have rampant incitement and children being taught to hate Israel and to hate the Jews. It has to stop.

(APPLAUSE)

When you live in a society where the firefighters are the heroes, little kids want to be firefighters. When you live in a society where athletes and movie stars are the heroes, little kids want to be athletes and movie stars.

In Palestinian society, the heroes are those who murder Jews. We can’t let this continue. We can’t let this happen any longer.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

You cannot achieve peace if terrorists are treated as martyrs. Glorifying terrorists is a tremendous barrier to peace. It is a horrible, horrible way to think. It’s a barrier that can’t be broken. That will end and it’ll end soon, believe me.

(APPLAUSE)

In Palestinian textbooks and mosques, you’ve got a culture of hatred that has been fomenting there for years. And if we want to achieve peace, they’ve got to go out and they’ve got to start this educational process. They have to end education of hatred. They have to end it and now.

(APPLAUSE)

There is no moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists. Israel does not pay its children to stab random Palestinians.

You see, what President Obama gets wrong about deal-making is that he constantly applies pressure to our friends and rewards our enemies.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

And you see that happening all the time, that pattern practiced by the president and his administration, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is a total disaster, by the way.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

She and President Obama have treated Israel very, very badly.

(APPLAUSE)

But it’s repeated itself over and over again and has done nothing (to) embolden those who hate America. We saw that with releasing the $150 billion to Iran in the hope that they would magically join the world community. It didn’t happen.

(APPLAUSE)

President Obama thinks that applying pressure to Israel will force the issue. But it’s precisely the opposite that happens. Already half of the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS and Hamas, and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it’s a very difficult situation that’s never going to get solved unless you have great leadership right here in the United States.

We’ll get it solved. One way or the other, we will get it solved.

(APPLAUSE)

But when the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace really rise and rises exponentially. That’s what will happen when Donald Trump is president of the United States.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE) We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.

(APPLAUSE)

They must come to the table willing and able to stop the terror being committed on a daily basis against Israel. They must do that.

And they must come to the table willing to accept that Israel is a Jewish state and it will forever exist as a Jewish state.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

I love the people in this room. I love Israel. I love Israel. I’ve been with Israel so long in terms of I’ve received some of my greatest honors from Israel, my father before me, incredible. My daughter, Ivanka, is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

In fact, it could be happening right now, which would be very nice as far as I’m concerned.

(LAUGHTER)

So I want to thank you very much. This has been a truly great honor. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

Full Text Political Transcripts March 21, 2016: Republican Presidential Candidate John Kasich’s Speech to the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Gov. John Kasich’s Speech to AIPAC

Source: Time, 3-21-16

 

Thank you. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Well, I’m delighted to be back at AIPAC, an organization I’ve known and worked with since the early 1980s.

You know, back then your audience numbered in the hundreds. A testament to AIPAC is that those crowds are now in the thousands, as we can see today.

You know, I first visited Israel in 1983 with my late dear friend Gordon Zacks. As you all know, Gordon was a founding member of AIPAC, and it was on that trip that I actually visited Bethlehem and I called my mother on Christmas night from Jerusalem. As you can imagine, it was a very, very special moment. And Gordon always reminded me of it.

Gordon helped me as much as anyone has over the years to know and to appreciate the importance of our relationship with Israel and Israel’s unique security challenges. And I can’t think of a better guy who could have taken me to Israel.

It was on my trip in 1983 that Gordon introduced me to Avital Sharansky, when her husband Natan was still in a Soviet prison. She told me her husband’s story over lunch at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and said she was going to Washington to plead for his release. I asked her, would you mind if I organized a rally in support of your husband on the steps of the Capitol. And so we came together in a bipartisan way to call for Natan Sharansky’s release.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, Gordy had taken Sharansky into the Oval Office to meet with the President Reagan. And when the meeting ended, Mrs. Sharansky was told by the president I will not rest until your husband is free. Sharansky’s story has always inspired me from the day that Gordy first introduced me to Avital. But I don’t know how many of you here have ever read his book, “Fear No Evil.”

(APPLAUSE)

Natan wrote in that book, as I related to him, and he said, I’m glad that you saw it, that when they went to him in the prison, they wanted him to confess something. And they said to Natan, well, you understand that Galileo even confessed. And think about Sharansky sitting in that prison in that solitary confinement. And he thought to himself and told them you’re using Galileo against me? No one will ever use me any against any other prisoner of conscience. For that he deserves to always be remembered.

(APPLAUSE)

I had a phone conversation with Natan for years, but I never had the chance to meet him. And ironically, I met him at the cemetery when we laid Gordy Zacks to rest, where Natan gave a eulogy on behalf of our great friend. Look, I want it to be clear to all of you that I remain unwavering in my support for the Jewish state and the unique partnership between the United States and Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

When I was first introduced to Israel and some of its leaders, of course the core of our partnership with Israel was already very well- defined. And we give thanks to Harry Truman for the courageous steps he took when Israel was first established.

(APPLAUSE)

And I applaud our continuing legacy of support for the Jewish state and the struggles, inventiveness and vitality of the Jewish people. This legacy is one that will not only honor in my administration, but will take active steps to strengthen and expand.

(APPLAUSE)

I want you all to know something very special to me, because it was at a ceremony recognizing the Holocaust that as governor I proposed that we build a permanent memorial so that people, and particularly our young people, could understand the history and the lesson of man’s inhumanity to man and the incredible suffering visited upon the Jews across the globe.

I worked with some prominent Ohioans as the Ratners, the Schottensteins, the Wexners, and many other members of the Jewish community over three years to make it happen.

(APPLAUSE)

They told me it could not be done, and I said you watch me, we will build a memorial. The memorial finally was designed by Daniel Libeskind and it was the first of its kind in the nation.

And you all please come to Columbus and look at it, it is just beautiful.

(APPLAUSE)

But I want to tell you that a very good friend of mine Victor Goodman, a prominent member of the Jewish community in Ohio, asked me to take him over to look at that memorial before it was unveiled. We walked over behind the tarp. I had my arm around his shoulder. And we read the inscription and the memorial together.

And I will never forget, when he finished reading it he buried his head in my chest and wept. And we wept together. And he looked at me and said, John, thank you for what you have done here. This will exist as long as the state of Ohio exists.

As you may know, I served on the House Armed Services Committee for 18 years. And I worked to implement Ronald Reagan’s strategy to revitalize our military and to defeat the Soviet Union. Together, my colleagues in Congress and I gave our alliance with Israel meaning. We assured Israel’s continuing qualitative military edge by authoring the initial $10 million for the Arrow/Iron Dome anti-missile program that we know is so critical to the security of Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

We supported the Phantom 2000 program guaranteeing Israeli air superiority with the latest fighters and the transfer of reactive armor technology that has made Israel tanks so effective. I think it can be fairly said that my support and friendship for our strategic partner Israel has been firm and unwavering for more than 35 years of my professional life.

(APPLAUSE)

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, has in turn been a faithful and dependable friends. The American friends of Israel are not fair-weather friends. They recognize the strategic hinge with Israel and that America’s and Israel’s interests are tightly intertwined despite our inevitable disagreements from time to time.

We share a critically important common interest in the Middle East, the unrelenting opposition to Iran’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

In March of 2015, when the prime minister spoke out against the Iran nuclear deal before a joint session of Congress, I flew to Washington and stood on the floor of the House of Representatives that was in session, the first time I had visited since we had been in session in 15 years. And I did it to show my respect, my personal respect, to the people of Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

And I want you all to know that I have called for the suspension of the U.S.’s participation in the Iran nuclear deal in reaction to Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests.

(APPLAUSE)

These tests were both a violation of the spirit of the nuclear deal and provocations that could no longer be ignored. One of the missiles tested had printed on it in Hebrew, can you believe this, “Israel must be exterminated.”

And I will instantly gather the world and lead us to reapply sanctions if Iran violates one crossed T or one dot of that nuclear deal.

We must put the sanctions back on them as the world community together.

(APPLAUSE) Let me also tell you, no amount of money that’s being made by any business will stand in the way of the need to make sure that the security of Israel is secured and that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. No amount of money can push us in the wrong direction.

(APPLAUSE)

And I want you to be assured that in a Kasich administration there will be no more delusional agreements with self-declared enemies. No more.

(APPLAUSE)

And as the candidate in this race with the deepest and most far- reaching foreign policy and national security experience, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t need on-the-job training. I will not have to learn about the dangers facing this country and our allies. I have lived these matters for decades.

One day and on day one in the Oval Office I will have in place a solid team of experienced and dedicated people who will implement a long-term, strategic program to assure the security and safety of this country and that of its allies, such as Israel.

I will lead and make decisions and my national security appointees will work tirelessly with Israel to counter Iran’s regional aggression and sponsorship of terror. We will help to interdict weapons supplies to Hezbollah. We will defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. And we will assist Israel to interdict Iranian arms supplies and financial flows to Hamas.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me stress, I will also work to build and expand on Israel’s newfound regional relations as a result of the flawed Iran nuclear deal, amazing, Israel and the Arab Gulf States are now closer than ever. The bad news here is that the U.S. is not part of this new web of relations. I will work to participate in, expand and strengthen those ties.

(APPLAUSE)

Israelis live in one of the world’s roughest neighborhoods. And Iran is not the only threat that the U.S. and Israel both face there. ISIS, headquartered in Syria and Iraq, is a mortal peril and of course, ladies and gentlemen, its spread must be stopped.

Since it is dedicated to destruction in Israel, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia and the United States, it is a threat to all civilization. Unless we recognize and unite around this central truth, we will remain committed to ineffective and piecemeal approach to dealing with ISIS.

Because the world recognizes the existential threat posed by ISIS, I believe I can lead a regional and NATO coalition to defeat ISIS both from the air and on the ground, in Syria and in Iraq. We’re all in this together.

(APPLAUSE)

I will also provide support and relief to our common ally, Jordan, that has shared the brunt of refugee flows. And I will bring our troops home as soon as we, together with our allies, have created a realistic prospect that regional powers can conclude a settlement guaranteeing long-term security there.

I will then support allied coalitions as they destroy ISIS’s various regional affiliates. My administration will cooperate with our allies to deny Libya’s oil as a resource, deny Libya as a platform to amount attacks against Europe, and disband what has become a hub for act of terror throughout Africa.

I will support our common, vital ally, Egypt, in its efforts to destroy the insurgency in Sinai and terrorists infiltrating from Libya.

(APPLAUSE)

And I will provide the Afghan National Security Forces with the key aircraft and support need to defeat the Taliban, al-Qaida and ISIS, and then I will bring our troops in Afghanistan back home.

(APPLAUSE)

Insurgent states such as Iran and network transnational terrorist actors such as ISIS are not the only threats that Israel, the Jewish- American community in America together face. Believe me, a Kasich administration will work from the beginning to block and eliminate any form of intolerance, bigotry, racism, or anti-Semitism, whether domestic or international, particularly in international bodies.

(APPLAUSE)

I condemn all attempts to isolate, pressure and delegitimize the state of Israel, and I will support Congress’s efforts to allow this activity both here and in the E.U. And I am also very concerned about rising attacks on Israel and Jewish students on our college campuses.

(APPLAUSE)

I pledge to use the full force of the White House to fight this scourge, and I will make sure we have the tools needed to protect students from hate speech, harassment and intimidation, while supporting free speech on our college campuses.

(APPLAUSE)

I’ve been horrified by the recent spate of Palestinian attacks on Israeli citizens. These are not spontaneous actions of lone wolves, they are part of an unprecedented wave of terror that has involved over 200 attacks on Israelis since October 2015. And they are the outcome of a culture of death that the Palestinian Authority and its forbears have promoted for over 50 years. (APPLAUSE)

Indoctrination of hate has long been part of a planned and well- thought-out strategy. Palestinian children are raised in a culture that glorifies martyrdom and the willingness to die in the pursuit of killing or maiming Israelis. Children’s textbooks have been filled with vial anti-Semitism. Families of suicide killers receive an annuity after they kill and maim. Imprisoned terrorists receive stipends and are guaranteed jobs in the Palestinian civil service at a salary determined by the length of their sentence. Public squares, streets and even soccer tournaments are named after terrorists.

If they truly want peace with Israel, then Palestinians cannot continue to promote a culture of hatred and death. We must make it clear that we will not tolerate such behavior.

(APPLAUSE)

And I do not believe there is any prospect for a permanent peace until the Palestinian Authority and their friends in Hamas and Hezbollah are prepared to take real steps to live in peace with Israel and recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and this violence is unacceptable.

(APPLAUSE)

In the meantime, we can best advance stability in the region by providing Israel our 100 percent support. We can make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself with weapons, information, technology, political solidarity and working quietly to facilitate Palestinian and Israeli efforts at reconciliation. This is what would be expected of a dependable ally.

Folks, let me conclude by talking about the greatest alliances are those with countries such as Israel where we share a community of values. The post-war international system that we and our allies built upon these common values of course is under challenge or attack. And that’s why we have to recommit ourselves to those values.

We must not shy away from proclaiming and celebrating them, and why we must revitalize our alliances to defend and expand the international system, build upon those values, a system that has prevented global conflict and lifted over 2 billion people out of poverty in the last 70 years.

In doing this, we cannot go it alone. We must hang together and be realistic about what we can achieve. We cannot be neutral in defending our allies either.

We must be counted on to stand by and invest in our friends instead of abusing them and currying favor with our enemies.

(APPLAUSE)

For effective governance in our democracy and for the sake of the future, we have to work together at home, as well across party and ideological lines whenever and wherever possible. This is exactly what I’ve done in the course of my career in public service.

I reached out to the other side countless times to see how we can sit together and achieve the progress that America wants and deserves.

And we all look back to the time of Ronald Reagan and his meetings with Tip O’Neill, where they came together to put America first, politics and partisanship second. And Reagan, as he reached across the aisle to Tip O’Neill, very partisan, legendary, they managed to hammer out deals that gave Reagan victories in revitalizing our economy and implementing the military buildup that ended the Cold War.

But it took a conscious effort and an attitude of wanting to cooperate. So, this is what I want to do, Republicans and Democrats who are here today. We need to work together with Congress on an agenda that serves the interests of the nation as a whole. We are Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats. We are Americans!

(APPLAUSE)

And let me tell you, in regard to that, I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land. I will not do it!

(APPLAUSE)

Yes, we will rededicate ourselves to reaching the bipartisan national security policy that President Reagan and the Democrats achieved. And you can be assured that my strategic program will include and incorporate Israel as the bedrock partner for our mutual security in the Middle East. Together we will combat violence incited in Israel itself and, of course, its eternal capital, Jerusalem.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today in front of so many of you who have contributed so much. I’m humbled by the chance to stand here at this incredible gathering of people who so much love America and so much love our great ally, Israel.

You see, we’re connected together. It’s about civilization. It’s about peace. It’s about love. It’s about togetherness. It’s about healing the world.

The great Jewish tradition is everyone lives a life a little bigger than themselves, and that tradition has worked its way deep into my soul where I tell people all across America dig down deep, the Lord has made you special. Live a life bigger than yourself, lift others, heal, provide hope, provide progress.

And with that, the rest of the century and the relationship between the United States and Israel will grow stronger and stronger for the benefit and mutual security of the world.

Thank you all very much, and God bless you.

(APPLAUSE)

Full Text Political Transcripts March 21, 2016: Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz’s Speech to the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Sen. Ted Cruz’s Speech to AIPAC

Full Text Political Transcripts March 21, 2016: President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro’s Remarks in a Joint Press Conference

Remarks by President Obama and President Raul Castro of Cuba in a Joint Press Conference

Source: WH, 3-21-16

Palace of the Revolution
Havana, Cuba

2:18 P.M. CST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Buenas tardes.  President Castro, to you, the Cuban government and the Cuban people, thank you for the welcome that you have extended to me, to my family, and to my delegation.  For more than half a century, the sight of a U.S. President here in Havana would have been unimaginable.  But this is a new day — es un nuevo día — between our two countries.

With your indulgence, Mr. President, I want to go just briefly off topic because during this weekend, I received news that one of our outstanding United States Armed Service members, Marine Staff Sergeant Louis F. Cardin of Temecula, California, was killed in northern Iraq as we assisted the Iraqi government in dealing with ISIL, the terrorist organization there.  And I just wanted to give my thoughts and prayers to the family there and those who have been injured.  It’s a reminder that even as we embark on this historic visit, there are U.S. Armed Service members who are sacrificing each and every day on behalf of our freedom and our safety.  So I’m grateful to them.

My wife, Michelle, and I brought our daughters — and by the way, they don’t always want to go with us; they’re teenagers now.  They have friends at home and they have things to do — but they wanted to come to Cuba because they understood, and we wanted to show them, the beauty of Cuba and its people.  We were moved by the Cubans who received us yesterday, smiling and waving, as we drove in from the airport.  We were grateful for the opportunity to experience Old Havana — had some excellent Cuban food.  Our visit to the Cathedral was a reminder of the values that we share, of the deep faith that sustains so many Cubans and Americans.  And it also gave me an opportunity to express my gratitude to Cardinal Ortega, who, along with His Holiness Pope Francis, did so much to support the improved relations between our governments.  This morning, I was honored to pay tribute to José Martí — not only his role in Cuban independence, but the profound words that he wrote and spoke in support of liberty and freedom everywhere.

I bring with me the greetings and the friendship of the American people.  In fact, I’m joined on this trip by nearly 40 members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans.  This is the largest such delegation of my presidency, and it indicates the excitement and interest in America about the process that we’ve undertaken.  These members of Congress recognize that our new relationship with the Cuban people is in the interest of both nations.  I’m also joined by some of America’s top business leaders and entrepreneurs because we’re ready to pursue more commercial ties, which create jobs and opportunity for Cubans and Americans alike.

And I’m especially pleased that I’m joined on this trip by so many Cuban Americans.  For them, and for the more than two million proud Cuban Americans across the United States, this is a moment filled with great emotion.  Ever since we made it easier to travel between our countries, more Cuban Americans are coming home.  For many, this is a time of new hope for the future.

So, President Castro, I want to thank you for the courtesy and the spirit of openness that you’ve shown during our talks.  At our meeting in Panama last year, you said that we’re willing to discuss every issue, and everything is on the table.  So with your understanding, my statement will be a little longer than usual.

President Castro always jokes with me about how long Castro brothers’ speeches can be.  But I’m going to actually go a little longer than you probably today, with your indulgence.  We have a half a century of work to catch up on.

Our growing engagement with Cuba is guided by one overarching goal — advancing the mutual interests of our two countries, including improving the lives of our people, both Cubans and Americans.  That’s why I’m here.  I’ve said consistently, after more than five very difficult decades, the relationship between our governments will not be transformed overnight.  We continue, as President Castro indicated, to have some very serious differences, including on democracy and human rights.  And President Castro and I have had very frank and candid conversations on these subjects.

The United States recognizes progress that Cuba has made as a nation, its enormous achievements in education and in health care.  And perhaps most importantly, I affirmed that Cuba’s destiny will not be decided by the United States or any other nation.  Cuba is sovereign and, rightly, has great pride.  And the future of Cuba will be decided by Cubans, not by anybody else.

At the same time, as we do wherever we go around the world, I made it clear that the United States will continue to speak up on behalf of democracy, including the right of the Cuban people to decide their own future.  We’ll speak out on behalf of universal human rights, including freedom of speech, and assembly, and religion.  Indeed, I look forward to meeting with and hearing from Cuban civil society leaders tomorrow.

But as you heard, President Castro has also addressed what he views as shortcomings in the United States around basic needs for people, and poverty and inequality and race relations.  And we welcome that constructive dialogue as well — because we believe that when we share our deepest beliefs and ideas with an attitude of mutual respect, that we can both learn and make the lives of our people better.

Part of normalizing relations means that we discuss our differences directly.  So I’m very pleased that we’ve agreed to hold our next U.S.-Cuba human rights dialogue here in Havana later this year.  And both of our countries will welcome visits by independent United Nations experts as we combat human trafficking, which we agree is a profound violation of human rights.

Even as we discuss these differences, we share a belief that we can continue to make progress in those areas that we have in common.  President Castro, you said in Panama that “we might disagree on something today on which we would agree tomorrow.”  And that’s certainly been the case over the past 15 months and the days leading up to this visit.  And today, I can report that we continue to move forward on many fronts when it comes to normalizing relations.

We’re moving ahead with more opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba and interact with the Cuban people.  Over the past year, the number of Americans coming here has surged.  Last week, we gave approval for individual Americans to come here for educational travel.  U.S. airlines will begin direct commercial flights this year.  With last week’s port security announcement, we’ve removed the last major hurdle to resuming cruises and ferry service.  All of which will mean even more Americans visiting Cuba in the years ahead and appreciating the incredible history and culture of the Cuban people.

We’re moving ahead with more trade.  With only 90 miles between us, we’re natural trading partners.  Other steps we took last week — allowing the U.S. dollar to be used more widely with Cuba, giving Cubans more access to the dollar in international transactions, and allowing Cubans in the U.S. to earn salaries –- these things will do more to create opportunities for trade and joint ventures.  We welcome Cuba’s important announcement that it plans to end the 10 percent penalty on dollar conversions here, which will open the door to more travel and more commerce.  And these steps show that we’re opening up to one another.

With this visit, we’ve agreed to deepen our cooperation on agriculture to support our farmers and our ranchers.  This afternoon, I’ll highlight some of the new commercial deals being announced by major U.S. companies.  And just as I continue to call on Congress to lift the trade embargo, I discussed with President Castro the steps we urge Cuba to take to show that it’s ready to do more business, which includes allowing more joint ventures and allowing foreign companies to hire Cubans directly.

We’re moving ahead with our efforts to help connect more Cubans to the Internet and the global economy.  Under President Castro, Cuba has set a goal of bringing Cubans online.  And we want to help.  At this afternoon’s entrepreneurship event, I’ll discuss additional steps we’re taking to help more Cubans learn, innovate, and do business online — because in the 21st century, countries cannot be successful unless their citizens have access to the Internet.

We’re moving ahead with more educational exchanges.  Thanks to the generous support of the Cuban-American community, I can announce that my 100,000 Strong in the Americas initiative will offer new opportunities for university students to study abroad — more Americans at Cuban schools and more Cubans at U.S. schools.  And going forward, educational grants and scholarships will be available to Cuban students.  And in partnership with the Cuban government, we’ll offer more English language training for Cuban teachers, both in Cuba and online.

Even as Cubans prepare for the arrival of the Rolling Stones, we’re moving ahead with more events and exchanges that bring Cubans and Americans together as well.  We all look forward to tomorrow’s matchup between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Cuban National Team.

More broadly, we’re moving ahead with partnerships in health, science, and the environment.  Just as Cubans and American medical teams have worked together in Haiti against cholera, and in West Africa against Ebola — and I want to give a special commendation to Cuban doctors who volunteered and took on some very tough assignments to save lives in West Africa in partnership with us and other nations.  We very much appreciate the work that they did.  Our medical professionals will now collaborate in new areas, preventing the spread of viruses like Zika and leading new research into cancer vaccines.  Our governments will also work to protect the beautiful waters of this region that we share.

And as two countries threatened by climate change, I believe we can work together to protect communities and our low-lying coasts.  And we’re inviting Cuba to join us and our Caribbean and Central American partners at this spring’s regional energy summit in Washington.

And finally, we’re moving ahead with our closer cooperation on regional security.  We’re working to deepen our law enforcement coordination, especially against narco-traffickers that threaten both of our peoples.  I want to thank President Castro and the Cuban government for hosting peace talks between the Colombian government and the FARC.  And we remain optimistic that Colombians can achieve a lasting and just peace.  And although we did not have an extensive discussion of Venezuela, we did touch on the subject.  And I believe that the whole region has an interest in a country that is addressing its economic challenges, is responsive to the aspirations of its people, and is a source of stability in the region.  That is, I believe, an interest that we should all share.

So again, President Castro, I want to thank you for welcoming me.  I think it’s fair to say that the United States and Cuba are now engaged across more areas than any time during my lifetime.  With every passing day, more Americans are coming to Cuba, more U.S. businesses and schools and faith groups are working to forge new partnerships with the Cuban people.  More Cubans are benefitting from the opportunities that this travel and trade bring.

As you indicated, the road ahead will not be easy.  Fortunately, we don’t have to swim with sharks in order to achieve the goals that you and I have set forth.  As you say here in Cuba, “echar para adelante.”  Despite the difficulties, we will continue to move forward.  We’re focused on the future.

And I’m absolutely confident that if we stay on this course, we can deliver a better and brighter future for both the Cuban people and the American people.

Muchas gracias.  Thank you very much.

First question, Jim Acosta.

Q    (As interpreted.)  Thank you, President Castro, for your hospitality in Havana.  And thank you, Mr. President.

(In English.)  In your meeting with President Castro, what words did you use to urge him to pursue democratic reforms and expand human rights here in Cuba?  Will you invite President Castro to the White House?  We know he’s been to New York.  And why did you not meet with Fidel Castro?

And, President Castro, my father is Cuban.  He left for the United States when he was young.  Do you see a new and democratic direction for your country?  And why you have Cuban political prisoners?  And why don’t you release them?  And one more question, who do you prefer — Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, as I think we both indicated, we had a very fruitful conversation around issues of democracy and human rights.  Our starting point is that we have two different systems — two different systems of government, two different economies.  And we have decades of profound differences, both bilaterally and internationally.

What I have said to President Castro is that we are moving forward and not looking backwards; that we don’t view Cuba as a threat to the United States.  I hope that my visit here indicates the degree to which we’re setting a new chapter in Cuban-American relations.

But as is true with countries around the world where we have normalized relations, we will continue to stand up for basic principles that we believe in.  America believes in democracy.  We believe that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are not just American values, but are universal values.  They may not express themselves exactly in the same way in every country, they may not be enshrined in the founding documents or constitutions of every country the same way, or protected legally in exactly the same ways, but the impulse — the human impulse towards freedom, the freedom that José Martí talked about, we think is a universal longing.

President Castro I think has pointed out that, in his view, making sure that everybody is getting a decent education or health care, has basic security in old age — that those things are human rights, as well.  I personally would not disagree with him.

But it doesn’t detract from some of these other concerns.  And the goal of the human rights dialogue is not for the United States to dictate to Cuba how they should govern themselves, but to make sure that we are having a frank and candid conversation around this issue and hopefully that we can learn from each other.

It does not mean that it has to be the only issue we talk about.  Economics, health, scientific exchanges, international cooperation on issues of regional as well as global import are also important.  But this is something that we are going to stay on.  And I actually welcome President Castro commenting on some of the areas where he feels that we’re falling short because I think we should not be immune or afraid of criticism or discussion, as well.

Here’s the one thing I do know is that when I talk to Cuban Americans — and, Jim, you’re second generation, and so I think I speak not for you directly, but for many that I talk to around the United States — I think there is enormous hope that there can be reconciliation.  And the bridge that President Castro discussed can be built between the Cuban American community and Cubans here.  There are family ties and cultural ties that are so strong.  And I think everyone would benefit from those ties being reestablished.

One of the impediments to strengthening those ties is these disagreements around human rights and democracy.  And to the extent that we can have a good conversation about that and to actually make progress, that, I think, will allow us to see the full flowering of a relationship that is possible.  In the absence of that, I think it will continue to be a very powerful irritant.  And this is not unique to U.S.-Cuban relations.  It’s one that, as you know, I have conversations with when we go to bilateral meetings with some of our very close allies, as well as countries that we don’t have as close of a relationship to.  But I think it is something that matters.  And I’ve met with people who have been subject to arbitrary detention, and that’s something that I generally have to speak out on because I hear from them directly and I know what it means for them.

Excuse me.

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  (As interpreted.)  I was asking if his question was directed to me or to President Obama.  You talked about political prisoners.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I think the second one was addressed to you.  Trump and Hillary.

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  (As interpreted.)  For him or for me?

Q    (As interpreted.)  For you, Mr. President.

 

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  What did you say about the political prisoners?  Can you repeat that question about political prisoners?  Did you ask if we had political prisoners?

Q    I wanted to know if you have Cuban political prisoners and why you don’t release them.

 

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  Give me the list of political prisoners and I will release them immediately.  Just mention a list.  What political prisoners?  Give me a name or names.  After this meeting is over, you can give me a list of political prisoners.  And if we have those political prisoners, they will be released before tonight ends.

Q    And Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, President Castro?

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  (As interpreted.)  Well, I cannot vote in the United States.

Q    (As interpreted.)  My question is for President Raul Castro.  I’m from Cuban TV.  President Raul Castro, you have repeatedly stated, and today once again, that we must learn to coexist in a civilized manner with our differences.  Could you broaden this concept?  This is a historical moment that we are living.

And then I have a brief question for President Obama.  President Obama, could U.S. government give more space to eliminate U.S. blockade during your mandate so that another generation of Cubans would not have to suffer this economic and commercial blockade against Cuba?

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  (As interpreted.)  The first question was for me.  Please repeat your question, because I couldn’t hear well.

Q    (As interpreted.)  You have said repeatedly that we must learn to coexist in a civilized manner with our differences.

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  Well, President Obama himself has referred to that.  We have given the first steps –- many for being the first steps.  And we must continue giving these steps.  And I’m sure that we will be able to coexist peacefully in an environment of mutual cooperation as we are doing already in many fields for the benefit of both countries and with the benefit of other countries as we have already done — in Haiti, with the cholera and in Africa with the Ebola.  That is the future of mankind if we want to save the humans species.  The level of water grows and the island may become smaller.

You are asking too many questions to me.  I think questions should be directed to President Obama.

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  So we have administratively already made a number of modifications on the embargo.  I referred to a number of them in my opening statement.  And we’ve actually been fairly aggressive in exercising as much flexibility as we can, given that the law putting the embargo in place has not been repealed by Congress.  There may be some technical aspects of the embargo that we can still make adjustments on, depending on problems as they arise.

So, for example, the issue around the dollar and the need to make modifications in terms of how the embargo was implemented to encourage, rather than discourage reforms that the Cuban government itself is willing to engage in and to facilitate greater trade and commerce, that is something that grew out of the dialogue between our governments, and we have made appropriate adjustments to it.  It will take some time for commercial banks to understand the new rules, but we actually think that this is an area where we can improve current circumstances.

But I’ll be honest with you that the list of things that we can do administratively is growing shorter, and the bulk of changes that have to be made with respect to the embargo are now going to rely on Congress making changes.

I’ve been very clear about the interests in getting that done before I leave.  Frankly, Congress is not as productive as I would like during a presidential election year.  But the fact that we have such a large congressional delegation with Democrats and Republicans with us is an indication that there is growing interest inside of Congress for lifting the embargo.

As I just indicated in my earlier answer, how quickly that happens will, in part, depend on whether we can bridge some of our differences around human rights issues.  And that’s why the dialogue I think is so important.  It sends a signal that at least there’s engagement between the two countries on these matters.

Now, I promised the President I would take one more question.  Andrea Mitchell of NBC.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Do you feel, after your meeting today, that you have made enough progress to even accelerate the pace and that the Cuban government is able to move quickly enough so that the changes that you have made through these technical adjustments to the embargo will be permanent, cannot be reversed by the next President?  And what advice have you given to President Castro about the ability of having the blockade, the embargo lifted?  Because he has said again today this is a continuous issue which is blocking progress, from their standpoint.

And you said the conversations about human rights were frank and candid and that you want to move forward.  But even as you were arriving, there were dramatic arrests of peaceful protests — the Ladies in White.  What signal does that send?  Can you have civilized coexistence at the same time you have such profound disagreements about the very definitions of what human rights means, as President Castro expressed today?

And for President Castro, for many of us, it’s remarkable to hear you speak about all these subjects.  Can you tell us what you see in the future?  President Obama has nine months remaining.  You have said you would be stepping down in 2018.  What is the future of our two countries, given the different definitions and the different interpretations of profound issues like democracy and human rights?

Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, Andrea, the embargo is going to end.  When, I can’t be entirely sure, but I believe it will end.  And the path that we’re on will continue beyond my administration.  The reason is logic.  The reason is that what we did for 50 years did not serve our interests or the interests of the Cuban people. And as I said when we made the announcement about normalization of relations, if you keep on doing something over and over again for 50 years and it doesn’t work, it might make sense to try something new.

And that’s what we’ve done.  And the fact that there has been strong support not just inside of Congress, not just among the American people, but also among the Cuban people indicates that this is a process that should and will continue.

Having said that, lifting the embargo requires the votes of a majority in Congress, and maybe even more than a majority in the Senate.  And as I indicated to President Castro, two things I think will help accelerate the pace of bringing the embargo to an end.  The first is to the degree that we can take advantage of the existing changes that we’ve already made and we see progress, that will help to validate this change in policy.

So, for example, we have said that it is no longer a restriction on U.S. companies to invest in helping to build Internet and broadband infrastructure inside of Cuba.  It is not against U.S. law, as it’s been interpreted by the administration.  If we start seeing those kinds of commercial deals taking place and Cubans are benefitting from greater access to the Internet — and when I go to the entrepreneurship meeting later this afternoon, I understand that we’re going to meet some young Cubans who are already getting trained and are facile in using the Internet, they’re interested in startups — that builds a constituency for ending the embargo.  If we build on the work that we’re doing in agriculture, and you start seeing more U.S. farmers interacting with Cuban farmers, and there’s more exports and imports — that builds a constituency and the possibility of ending the embargo increases.  So hopefully taking advantage of what we’ve already done will help.

And the second area, which we’ve already discussed extensively, is the issue of human rights.  People are still concerned about that inside of Cuba.

Now, keep in mind I’ve got fierce disagreements with the Chinese around human rights.  I’ll be going to Vietnam later this year — I have deep disagreements with them as well.  When we first visited Burma, people questioned whether we should be traveling there because of longstanding human rights violations in our view.  And the approach that I’ve taken has been that if I engage frankly, clearly, stating what our beliefs are but also being clear that we can’t force change on any particular country — ultimately it has to come from within — then that is going to be a more useful strategy than the same kinds of rigid disengagement that for 50 years did nothing.

I guess ultimately what this comes down to, Andrea, is I have faith in people.  I think that if you meet Cubans here and Cubans meet Americans, and they’re meeting and talking and interacting and doing business together, and going to school together and learning from each other, then they’ll recognize people are people.  And in that context, I believe that change will occur.

Okay, now I’m done, but Señor Presidente, I think Andrea had a question for you just about your vision.  It’s up to you.  He did say he was only going to take one question and I was going to take two.  But I leave it up to you if you want to address that question.

Q    Por favor.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Andrea, she’s one of our most esteemed journalists in America, and I’m sure she’d appreciate just a short, brief answer.

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  Andrea —

Q    Mr. President.

PRESIDENT CASTRO:  (As interpreted.)  There is a program here to be fulfilled.  I know that if I stay here, you will ask 500 questions.  I said that I was going to answer one.  Well, I answered one and a half.  President Obama has already helped me out with the answer here, Andrea.

I was reading something about human rights, but I’m going to make the question to you now.  There are 61 international instruments recognized.  How many countries in the world comply with all the human rights and civil rights that have been included in these 61 instruments?  What country complies with them all?  Do you know how many?  I do.  None.

None, whatsoever.  Some countries comply some rights; others comply others.  And we are among these countries.  Out of these 61 instruments, Cuba has complied with 47 of these human rights instruments.  There are countries that may comply with more, there’s those that comply with less.

I think the human rights issue should not be politicized.  That is not correct.  That is a purpose that will stay the same way.  For example, for Cuba, the desire for all the rights.  Do you think there’s any more sacred right than the right to health, so that billions of children don’t die just for the lack of a vaccine or a drug or a medicament?  Do you agree with the right to free education for all those born anywhere in the world or in any country?  I think many countries don’t think this is a human right.  In Cuba, all children are born in a hospital and they are registered that same day, because when mothers are in advance pregnancy they go to hospitals days before, many days before delivery, so that all children are born in hospitals.  It doesn’t matter if they live in faraway places or in mountains or hills.  We have many other rights — a right to health, the right to education.

And this is my last example that I will mention.  Do you think that for equal work, men get better paid than women just for the fact of being women?  Well, in Cuba, women get the same pay for same work.  I can give you many, many examples.  I don’t think we can use the argument of human rights for political confrontation.  That is not fair.  It’s not correct.

I’m not saying that it’s not honest.  It’s part of confrontations, of course.  But let us work so that we can all comply with all human rights.  It’s like talking about pride — I’m going to end here because it’s a commitment that we should end in time.  It’s not correct to ask me about political prisoners in general.  Please give me the name of a political prisoner.

And I think this is enough.  We have concluded.  Thank you for your participation.

END               2:58 P.M. CST

—–

Full Text Political Transcripts March 21, 2016: Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton’s Speech to the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Hillary Clinton Remarks at AIPAC’s 2016 Policy Conference

Source: Time, 3-21-16

CLINTON: Thank you so much.

(APPLAUSE)

It is wonderful to be here and see so many friends. I’ve spoken at a lot of AIPAC conferences in the past, but this has to be one of the biggest yet, and there are so many young people here, thousands of college students…

(APPLAUSE) … from hundreds of campuses around the country. I think we should all give them a hand for being here and beginning their commitment to this important cause.

(APPLAUSE)

You will keep the U.S.-Israel relationship going strong. You know, as a senator from New York and secretary of State…

(APPLAUSE)

I’ve had the privilege of working closely with AIPAC members to strengthen and deepen America’s ties with Israel. Now, we may not have always agreed on every detail, but we’ve always shared an unwavering, unshakable commitment to our alliance and to Israel’s future as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And your support helped us expand security and intelligence cooperation, developed the Iron Dome missile defense system, build a global coalition to impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran and so much more.

Since my first visit to Israel 35 years ago, I have returned many times and made many friends. I have worked with and learned from some of Israel’s great leaders — although I don’t think Yitzhak Rabin ever forgave me for banishing him to the White House balcony when he wanted to smoke.

(LAUGHTER)

Now I am here as a candidate for president, and…

(APPLAUSE)

I know that all of you understand what’s at stake in this election. Our next president will walk into the Oval Office next January and immediately face a world of both perils we must meet with strength and skill, and opportunities we must seize and build on.

The next president will sit down at that desk and start making decisions that will affect both the lives and livelihoods of every American, and the security of our friends around the world. So we have to get this right.

As AIPAC members, you understand that while the turmoil of the Middle East presents enormous challenge and complexity, walking away is not an option.

(APPLAUSE)

Candidates for president who think the United States can outsource Middle East security to dictators, or that America no longer has vital national interests at stake in this region are dangerously wrong.

(APPLAUSE)

It would be a serious mistake for the United States to abandon our responsibilities, or cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to anyone else.

(APPLAUSE)

As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.

(APPLAUSE)

We have to combat all these trends with even more intense security and diplomatic cooperation. The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: This is especially true at a time when Israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks at home. Parents worry about letting their children walk down the street. Families live in fear. Just a few weeks ago, a young American veteran and West Point graduate named Taylor Force was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist near the Jaffa Port. These attacks must end immediately…

(APPLAUSE)

And Palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence, stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs and stop paying rewards to their families.

(APPLAUSE)

Because we understand the threat Israel faces we know we can never take for granted the strength of our alliance or the success of our efforts. Today, Americans and Israelis face momentous choices that will shape the future of our relationship and of both our nations. The first choice is this: are we prepared to take the U.S./Israel alliance to the next level?

This relationship has always been stronger and deeper than the headlines might lead you to believe. Our work together to develop the Iron Dome saved many Israeli lives when Hamas rockets began to fly.

(APPLAUSE)

I saw its effectiveness firsthand in 2012 when I worked with Prime Minister Netanyahu to negotiate a cease fire in Gaza. And if I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.

(APPLAUSE)

And we will never allow Israel’s adversaries to think a wedge can be driven between us.

(APPLAUSE)

As we have differences, as any friends do, we will work to resolve them quickly and respectfully. We will also be clear that the United States has an enduring interest in and commitment to a more peaceful, more stable, more secure Middle East. And we will step up our efforts to achieve that outcome.

(APPLAUSE)

Indeed, at a time of unprecedented chaos and conflict in the region, America needs an Israel strong enough to deter and defend against its enemies, strong enough to work with us to tackle shared challenges and strong enough to take bold steps in the pursuit of peace.

(APPLAUSE)

That’s why I believe we must take our alliance to the next level. I hope a new 10-year defense memorandum of understanding is concluded as soon as possible to meet Israel’s security needs far into the future.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: That will also send a clear message to Israel’s enemies that the United States and Israel stand together united.

It’s also why, as president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.

(APPLAUSE)

The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats. That includes bolstering Israeli missile defenses with new systems like the Arrow Three and David’s Sling. And we should work together to develop better tunnel detection, technology to prevent armed smuggling, kidnapping and terrorist attacks.

(APPLAUSE)

One of the first things I’ll do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to visit the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

And I will send a delegation from the Pentagon and the joint chiefs to Israel for early consultations. Let’s also expand our collaboration beyond security. Together, we can build an even more vibrant culture of innovation that tightens the links between Silicon Valley and Israeli tech companies and entrepreneurs.

(APPLAUSE)

There is much Americans can learn from Israel, from cybersecurity to energy security to water security and just on an everyday people- to-people level. And it’s especially important to continue fostering relationships between American and Israeli young people who may not always remember our shared past. They are the future of our relationship and we have to do more to promote that.

Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS.

(APPLAUSE)

Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.

(APPLAUSE)

I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now. As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS. Many of its proponents have demonized Israeli scientists and intellectuals, even students.

CLINTON: To all the college students who may have encountered this on campus, I hope you stay strong. Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to shut down debate, especially in places of learning like colleges and universities.

(APPLAUSE)

Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society, not in America, not in Europe, not anywhere.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, all of this work defending Israel’s legitimacy, expanding security and economic ties, taking our alliance to the next level depends on electing a president with a deep, personal commitment to Israel’s future as a secure, Democratic Jewish state, and to America’s responsibilities as a global leader.

Tonight, you’ll hear from candidates with very different visions of American leadership in the region and around the world. You’ll get a glimpse of a potential U.S. foreign policy that would insult our allies, not engage them, and embolden our adversaries, not defeat them.

For the security of Israel and the world, we need America to remain a respected global leader, committed to defending and advancing the international order.

(APPLAUSE)

An America able to block efforts to isolate or attack Israel. The alternative is unthinkable.

(APPLAUSE)

Yes, we need steady hands, not a president who says he’s neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything’s negotiable.

(APPLAUSE)

Well, my friends, Israel’s security is non-negotiable.

(APPLAUSE)

I have sat in Israeli hospital rooms holding the hands of men and women whose bodies and lives were torn apart by terrorist bombs. I’ve listened to doctors describe the shrapnel left in a leg, an arm or even a head.

That’s why I feel so strongly that America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival. We can’t be neutral when rockets rain down on residential neighborhoods, when civilians are stabbed in the street, when suicide bombers target the innocent. Some things aren’t negotiable.

(APPLAUSE)

And anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: The second choice we face is whether we will have the strength and commitment to confront the adversaries that threaten us, especially Iran. For many years, we’ve all been rightly focused on the existential danger of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. After all, this remains an extremist regime that threatens to annihilate Israel. That’s why I led the diplomacy to impose crippling sanctions and force Iran to the negotiating table, and why I ultimately supported the agreement that has put a lid on its nuclear program.

(APPLAUSE)

Today Iran’s enriched uranium is all but gone, thousands of centrifuges have stopped spinning, Iran’s potential breakout time has increased and new verification measures are in place to help us deter and detect any cheating. I really believe the United States, Israel and the world are safer as a result.

But still, as I laid out at a speech at the Brookings Institution last year, it’s not good enough to trust and verify. Our approach must be distrust and verify.

(APPLAUSE)

This deal must come with vigorous enforcement, strong monitoring, clear consequences for any violations and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region. We cannot forget that Tehran’s fingerprints are on nearly every conflict across the Middle East, from Syria to Lebanon to Yemen.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies are attempting to establish a position on the Golan from which to threaten Israel, and they continue to fund Palestinian terrorists. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is amassing an arsenal of increasingly sophisticated rockets and artillery that well may be able to hit every city in Israel.

Tonight, you will hear a lot of rhetoric from the other candidates about Iran, but there’s a big difference between talking about holding Tehran accountable and actually doing it. Our next president has to be able to hold together our global coalition and impose real consequences for even the smallest violations of this agreement.

(APPLAUSE) We must maintain the legal and diplomatic architecture to turn all the sanctions back on if need. If I’m elected the leaders of Iran will have no doubt that if we see any indication that they are violating their commitment not to seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons, the United States will act to stop it, and that we will do so with force if necessary.

(APPLAUSE)

Iranian provocations, like the recent ballistic missile tests, are also unacceptable and should be answered firmly and quickly including with more sanctions.

(APPLAUSE)

Those missiles were stamped with words declaring, and I quote, “Israel should be wiped from the pages of history.” We know they could reach Israel or hit the tens of thousands of American troops stationed in the Middle East. This is a serious danger and it demands a serious response.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: The United States must also continue to enforce existing sanctions and impose additional sanctions as needed on Iran and the Revolutionary Guard for their sponsorship of terrorism, illegal arms transfers, human rights violations and other illicit behaviors like cyber attacks. We should continue to demand the safe return of Robert Levinson and all American citizens unjustly held in Iranian prisons.

(APPLAUSE)

And we must work closely with Israel and other partners to cut off the flow of money and arms from Iran to Hezbollah. If the Arab League can designate all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, surely it is time for our friends in Europe and the rest of the international community to do so as well and to do that now.

(APPLAUSE)

At the same time, America should always stand with those voices inside Iran calling for more openness. Now look, we know the supreme leader still calls the shots and that the hard-liners are intent on keeping their grip on power. But the Iranian people themselves deserve a better future, and they are trying to make their voices heard. They should know that America is not their enemy, they should know we will support their efforts to bring positive change to Iran.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, of course, Iran is not the only threat we and Israel face. The United States and Israel also have to stand together against the threat from ISIS and other radical jihadists. An ISIS affiliate in the Sinai is reportedly stepping up attempts to make inroads in Gaza and partner with Hamas. On Saturday, a number of Israelis and other foreigners were injured or killed in a bombing in Istanbul that may well be linked to ISIS. Two of the dead are U.S.-Israeli dual nationals.

This is a threat that knows no borders. That’s why I’ve laid out a plan to take the fight to ISIS from the air, on the ground with local forces and online where they recruit and inspire. Our goal cannot be to contain ISIS, we must defeat ISIS.

(APPLAUSE) And here is a third choice. Will we keep working toward a negotiated peace or lose forever the goal of two states for two peoples? Despite many setbacks, I remain convinced that peace with security is possible and that it is the only way to guarantee Israel’s long-term survival as a strong Jewish and democratic state.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: It may be difficult to imagine progress in this current climate when many Israelis doubt that a willing and capable partner for peace even exists. But inaction cannot be an option. Israelis deserve a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity. And only a negotiated two-state agreement can survive those outcomes.

(APPLAUSE)

If we look at the broader regional context, converging interests between Israel and key Arab states could make it possible to promote progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Israelis and Palestinians could contribute toward greater cooperation between Israel and Arabs.

I know how hard all of this is. I remember what it took just to convene Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas for the three sessions of direct face-to-face talks in 2010 that I presided over. But Israelis and Palestinians cannot give up on the hope of peace. That will only make it harder later.

All of us need to look for opportunities to create the conditions for progress, including by taking positive actions that can rebuild trust — like the recent constructive meetings between the Israeli and Palestinian finance ministers aiming to help bolster the Palestinian economy, or the daily on-the-ground security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

But at the same time, all of us must condemn actions that set back the cause of peace. Terrorism should never be encouraged or celebrated, and children should not be taught to hate in schools. That poisons the future.

(APPLAUSE)

Everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to settlements. Now, America has an important role to play in supporting peace efforts. And as president, I would continue the pursuit of direct negotiations. And let me be clear — I would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council.

(APPLAUSE)

There is one more choice that we face together, and in some ways, it may be the most important of all. Will we, as Americans and as Israelis, stay true to the shared democratic values that have always been at the heart of our relationship? We are both nations built by immigrants and exiles seeking to live and worship in freedom, nations built on principles of equality, tolerance and pluralism.

(APPLAUSE)

At our best, both Israel and America are seen as a light unto the nations because of those values.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: This is the real foundation of our alliance, and I think it’s why so many Americans feel such a deep emotional connection with Israel. I know that I do. And it’s why we cannot be neutral about Israel and Israel’s future, because in Israel’s story, we see our own, and the story of all people who struggle for freedom and self-determination. There’s so many examples. You know, we look at the pride parade in Tel Aviv, one of the biggest and most prominent in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And we marvel that such a bastion of liberty exists in a region so plagued by intolerance. We see the vigorous, even raucous debate in Israeli politics and feel right at home.

(LAUGHTER)

And, of course, some of us remember a woman, Golda Meir, leading Israel’s government decades ago and wonder what’s taking us so long here in America?

(APPLAUSE)

But we cannot rest on what previous generations have accomplished. Every generation has to renew our values. And, yes, even fight for them. Today, Americans and Israelis face currents of intolerance and extremism that threaten the moral foundations of our societies.

Now in a democracy, we’re going to have differences. But what Americans are hearing on the campaign trail this year is something else entirely: encouraging violence, playing coy with white supremacists, calling for 12 million immigrants to be rounded up and deported, demanding we turn away refugees because of their religion, and proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the United States.

Now, we’ve had dark chapters in our history before. We remember the nearly 1,000 Jews aboard the St. Louis who were refused entry in 1939 and sent back to Europe. But America should be better than this. And I believe it’s our responsibility as citizens to say so.

(APPLAUSE)

If you see bigotry, oppose it. If you see violence, condemn it. If you see a bully, stand up to him.

(APPLAUSE)

On Wednesday evening, Jews around the world will celebrate the Festival of Purim, and children will learn the story of Esther, who refused to stay silent in the face of evil. It wasn’t easy. She had a good life. And by speaking out, she risked everything.

But as Mordecai reminded her, we all have an obligation to do our part when danger gathers. And those of us with power or influence have a special responsibility to do what’s right. As Elie Wiesel said when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

So, my friends, let us never be neutral or silent in the face of bigotry. Together let’s defend the shared values that already make America and Israel great.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Let us do the hard work necessary to keep building our friendship and reach out to the next generation of Americans and Israelis so the bonds between our nations grow even deeper and stronger. We are stronger together, and if we face the future side by side, I know for both Israel and America, our best days are still ahead.

Thank you so much.

(APPLAUSE)

 

 

 

Full Text Political Transcripts March 20, 2016: Vice President Joe Biden’s Speech to the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Vice President Joe Biden’s Speech to the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference