tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 12, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
talking about china. we talked about hacking and or russia.is chinese resetked about to america's role in the world. the high quality of people he has named already says he will recognize the opportunity that on new president has people's lives in this country and events around the world. it was an honor for me to be there.
>> tonight, horizons president on public policy talks about the companies changes over the last several years and the acquisition of aol and propose accusation -- acquisition of yahoo!. >> we are building the fiber deeper into the networks. 90% of that is actually fiber. you look at what cities are trying to do. he need a massive fiber infrastructure to do that. communicators tonight on c-span at 8:00.
>> this year we are asking students to tell us the most important issue for students and congress. tell us a little bit -- >> we decided these are people who have fought for our country and they are living on the ok, so we decided we are going to talk about this issue in our community and make a documentary about it. i encourage juniors, high schoolers, and middle schoolers
to use this platform to say that your generation deserves to be .eard in the government i think my advice for students on the fence is to look into the community. they are the one you see the most or around with most of the day. the part of this doctrine because you want to be a voice for your community. >> thank you for your advice. if you want more permission, go to our website.
rid of it. now, with the election of president john, they will be able to do it. what's clear, is there are some things that can be done quickly. the subsidies that people get can be undone. the penalty is for people who do not have insurance. is that the reconciliation process that viewers may have heard about? >> exactly.
are 52 republicans in the senate, so it is enough to get it done. republicans say the repeal will begin in january. how long does that process take? i think their plan is to get started quickly. trumpre expecting donald action toexecutive knock down parts of the law. the real debate that is going on time is of a transition done?ickly should that be
white house past. president obama vetoed it. the congressional budget office look at what the impact would have been on the number of insured people under that bill. it would have been about 22 million people losing coverage or 22 million more uninsured people at the middle of the next decade. guest: republicans i talked to said they passed that knowing it would be vetoed. the freedom caucus members have been talking about looking at subsidies. that is why it is nebulous to put a number on it at this point. host: you mentioned the urban institute report that democrats in congress were sending links to. that report, this was an estimate based on a partial repeal the reconciliation, which we talked about without a possible replacement plan. that is the study they looked into. they found the number of
uninsured people would rise from 28.9 million to 58.7 million by 2019. of the 20 million would be newly uninsured, that would be from eliminating the premium tax credit and the individual mandate. those are some of the numbers. democrats have been talking about those a lot. the lines are open as we are having this discussion on the current state and future of the affordable care act. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. we will start on our line for independents. bob is in massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like someone to answer
me at least one good question. we have over 300 million americans in the country. 20 million people are now covered under this obamacare, 10 million of them already had insurance. we spent $3 trillion or $330,000 per head for 10 million people to get insurance. thank you. guest: most people in this country who have insurance still have insurance through employers. that part of the insurance system, while not perfect, and some people have found it getting more expensive, that is not the part of the insurance system that was really broken. the part that was broken was the people who are buying policies on their own. the individual market. that is what the aca marketplaces were designed to address.
depending on the numbers you use, between 10 million and 12 million people have gotten coverage that way. that is the number that tends to get thrown around. host: i will give you home or from louisiana. think that. caller: how are you this morning? appreciate you taking my call. i understand there was a republican gesture years ago. why did they fight it so hard and now they are going to come back to it? i am confused. i'm a daily listener. i don't understand. they have been up in washington too long. i think they get up there and make up their minds for us. it is their minds. i hope i'm making sense. host: thank you for your call. and for being a listener in louisiana. perhaps we could go to some of the early history of the affordable care act. guest: it is a good question.
the affordable care act was passed in 2010. it was not a bipartisan bill ultimately. republicans were not very supportive of the affordable care act. they have been opposed to the law since its passage. you are now seeing the situation because of the election that there is an opportunity and they see a mandate for them to knock down and repeal this law that they have seen as leading to higher premiums and fewer insurers participating and requirements for coverage, all of which they say is hurting america. now they see this opportunity. the problem is everywhere they look there are potential landmines. one staffer said we have to be careful what we wish for because now there is a landmine everywhere. it is a tricky process. they want to get some bipartisan support from democrats. host: perhaps you can fill us in. this comes up from time to time
with viewers, this idea that the affordable care act had its genesis in massachusetts under mitt romney as governor. guest: that is exactly right. there is a little irony in how hard republicans have been fighting this law. some of the ideas, the insurance exchanges, came out of republican and conservative thinking from the heritage foundation from years and years ago. in massachusetts, 2006 that pays -- that state passed a law under republican mitt romney as governor. that featured many but not all the features of the affordable care act. host: mike is in cleveland, ohio. a democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. one thing i noticed while i is it was on the news theitten sorrow that
insurance companies one out -- .on out the one key issue that affects a lot of families is the fact that previous conditions will be covered, so if you have a cancer victim in your family, the insurance will cover them for what they need. one of the issues that i don't agree with his the fact that unions are being taxed to support health care. if they do rewrite this law, i would like them to repeal the union taxation. thank you. host: do you want to pick up on any of that? guest: it's interesting that the union tax was obviously an issue for those who initially supported the health law to have some opposition toward it. the issue that you brought up that i think is especially important is the pre-existing condition component.
what will happen with this, we really don't know at this point. president-elect trump has said he is continuing and a number of republicans on the hill support this. it is unclear how you do this without some of the other requirements of the law like requiring others to have health requiring others to have health insurance. how do you pay for that? there is some dialogue on the hill now where they would set up a system where everyone would have coverage, but those who would let it lapse go into a high risk pool. this has been used before in states. unfortunately it has not been effective. people had to wait for a long time. it has not been adequately
funded. how they think they're going to do this is really the $10 million question. host: health insurers seek clarity. a quick repeal of the 2010 overhaul law will stymie their market. can you talk us through what health insurers are saying and fear as they look ahead to what may happen in january? guest: i think health insurers are very concerned at this point. they had not seen this coming and had not planned for it. but many people don't understand about health insurers is that they have to decide early like in the spring of next year whether they are going to participate in the health insurance exchanges for 2018. they'll have the luxury of waiting to see what the republicans are going to come up with. they have to make the decisions now. the fear is that the current system of the affordable care act may have problems. they felt like they were losing money and a number of them were leaving the exchanges. they want to see fixes to what
is currently there, but at the same time, if those fixes don't go through, they may not want to participate in 2018. the have a lot of requests that they want to see done and there's lobbying on the hill to get some of these changes to go through. republicans are in a position where if they agree to some of them, they did not want to seem as if they are giving a bailout to insurers. host: good morning. caller: great discussion about this affordable care act. i'm an independent businessperson and i remember back 25 years ago when i first started having insurance. it was $180 a month back then. -- i wasthe best not not employed by corporation who had their insurance pay for them. every year, it kept going up and it would be like $210, $260, $300 this was like 25 years ago. now people are complaining about paying $400 a month. back then, businesspeople were paying as much as they are paying now.
back then, i couldn't afford it anymore. i was unable to have insurance. i did not have insurance for 15 years until the affordable care act. now i have a managed medicaid, which works marvelously here in new york from my situation. i know there are valid concerns about the act not addressing some issues. they might want to talk with medical personnel and get their input because they have a lot of good insights on how it can be improved. host: one of those medical personnel who will have a lot input is congressman tom price. can we talk about where he is right now on this law and what he's telling donald trump right now? guest: we don't know exactly what he's telling the president-elect, but what we do know is that in choosing dr.
price as the next secretary of health and human services department, which obviously overseas a lot of things, including the execution of the affordable care act and perhaps the dismantling of the affordable care act. the president-elect has chosen one of the members of the house of representatives who has been one of the strongest proponents for the repeal. this is not someone who is subtle about his thoughts on the law. he has been very influential in what has been a consensus house republican plan called a better way that has ideas for how to deconstruct the law. it is putting into position at hhs someone who has been front and center in the repeal effort over many years. host: stephanie armour, on what to go through donald trump's health care plan. he has talked about what he wants to see included. repealing the affordable care act, modifying the existing law that inhibit sale of health insurance across state lines, allowing individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from tax returns, allow individuals to use health saving
accounts, block grant medicaid to states, remove the barriers to entry into the free market for drug providers -- some of the things that he is put on his website. let's talk about insurers selling insurance across state lines and why that is seen as such a big six by donald trump. guest: that's a good question. obviously this has been one of the main things he talked about when campaigning -- removing the lines around the states. host: what does that mean? guest: currently insurers can sell across state lines. there's nothing that prohibits them from doing so. there are under the affordable care act compacts that can be set up across states and their statements. what's different is that if you are an insurer and you are based in new york and you sell a plan
in california, you have to abide by the rules of california and what they require you and your insurance policies to have. they may say, for example, you have to cover these benefits or you have to deal with consumer issues under california. what president-elect trump would do instead is say that this insurance company can sell a policy in california or they can sell it in arizona and it needs to abide by the regulations where it is based or license, so for example, new york. they can sell that policy anywhere, but they can be located in a state with very little regulation. that would erode a lot of consumer protections and lead to more "skinny plans" with benefits. host: would that lead to a lot of states with the least amount of regulation? guest: it's like with credit cards. everyone went to delaware. and shares would be most likely to locate or lessons themselves
in states that have scant regulation. host: new york is one of those states? guest: no, new york has lots of regulations. i just use it as an example. host: what state has fewer regulations? guest: i do not know what state is the most lax. there are insurance commissioners in each state. i think there is a concern that there is a free-for-all that states would raise themselves to see how far they can relax a -- regulations to get business. host: a so-called race to the bottom. taking your questions and comments about the state and the future of the affordable care act. stephanie armour with "the wall street journal" and amy goldstein with "the washington post." alayna, good morning.
caller: i have to points to mention. the first point is how the st. jude's shriners hospital for children -- how do they manage? they manage on charity. i think that's a marvelous example and perhaps health insurance providers should go see how they are doing it. because they're doing something right. they have survived a lot of this debacle. my second point is this. there are a lot of mothers who can do the shopping at costco. i worked there. my husband, he is our health care provider. we have always gotten our health insurance through him. like a lot of other mothers in our community, there was a lot of said this at first -- sadness and frustration when obama gave us obamacare.
our paychecks, we lost $1000 in our paychecks per month, plus the employer was provided another $1000 for his end of our insurance benefits. so what do we get from it? well, we used to be able to go to the doctor's office and pay a co-pay for $35 a visit. now, there is no co-pay. now i have to meet a deductible, a $6,000 deductible for a family of four. that was not very pleasant. so after we pay roughly $2000 a month, i have to come up with $150 to $300 for the office visit. am i going to the doctor? no, and i think that was the sneaky trick in the obamacare
health care was we need to shave people off the health system. first of all, no one is going to go to the doctor because it hurts. those tests are hurting. unless you are running a fever and you have got a sore throat, you really don't go to the doctor. but if you have a fever and you are hurting, you go to the doctor. host: thank you for sharing your family situation. amy goldstein, what are you hearing there specifically about what cc as an effort to get people out of the system, to price people out of going to the doctor? guest: i'm not sure that through her description of whether she was on a marketplace for getting private coverage. either way, there have been over the last number of years a trend toward having people having to
national or to pay more for their out of pocket costs. some of that is under the law, but some of that is being in the private insurance marketplace. i'm not sure which descriptor situation, but she does make a point that many people on the exchanges or off the exchanges are experiencing -- that they have to pay much more upfront. that is a real phenomenon. for those people, as we were saying a little while ago, maybe 11 people getting coverage from the marketplaces are increasingly finding insurers are losing money in that part of the business and they are charging more. understandably people don't like it. host: how much do you think the affordable care act gets blamed fairly or unfairly for increases that have been happening for years in health care just in general? guest: that's a really good point in your question.
people conflate what the law itself is doing with their own experiences, which are unrelated to the law. there may be experiences parallel, but they are not caused by the law all the time. host: eric is a democrat, good morning. caller: why are republicans adamant about repealing this law? this law is about helping each individual in the united states. it's not that each state has its own individual rules for how they go about implicating the law. i think their truck to kill this man's legacy. you can tweak it and work on it and get better, but you just
cannot go out there and spend billions of dollars to repeal a law that isn't going nowhere. what trump is doing is promising the people that ain't going to happen. it's not going to happen. this is my questions -- why is it so important that republicans repeal this law? host: stephanie armour? guest: there was a survey done shortly after election and it showed that -- i can't remember the exact number, but it was between 40% and 50% of people who voted for trump wanted to see the log repealed or changed. i think the republicans i spoke to on the hill really feel like they have a mandate to knock down the law. they feel like the voters and their constituents are unhappy with the law and want to see the law changed and replaced with something else. what you are seeing now with the republican victories in the election is that they feel like there's an opportunity but also a need for them to follow through on the promises that they made. that is partly why there is a
push from some republicans to do this quickly. they feel the voters were not happy with the law and want to see the law changed. as they said, there are studies that show strong support for the law from other voters. there is a great divide going on over the flaw. -- over this law. that's why it has been polarizing since its passage. host: i have that survey. 43% would like to repeal the law entirely or scale back what the law does. 30% once to expand what the law does and 19% wants to move forward with implementing the law as is. after whatever happens in the next year, does this become trump care? are republicans now the ones who will be blamed or get the credit for whatever comes from this? guest: we don't know what it will be called. we don't know how it will be yet. this is very much in the
republicans hands at this point. it is very clear to them that whatever happens with this law will impact them and will be seen largely as being on their shoulders, whether it fails or succeeds. that is one of the concerns for the midterms. republicans are not vulnerable should voters not be happy because they are only defending eight seats in the senate. i think they are very cognizant of the need to not have this completely caused tumbles and problems in the market and that is why they are debating a transition period. host: let's go to robert in greenwich, connecticut. caller: good morning. how are you?
mi on? host:. yes. caller: oh good. i find it ironic that a doctor is put in charge of repealing this. i seem to recall the hippocratic oath is first do no harm. that's what doctors have to swear an oath to when they become doctors. it occurred to me that putting 20 million people out of the health care system might cause them a little stress and harm. i was just wondering if he had any way of reconciling that. host: amy goldstein? guest: in the house of representatives, there is a doctor and physician caucus. tom price is part of that group. among republicans, the fact that these folks have medical degrees, i think gives them a little bit of stature further policy beliefs. physicians can disagree about what is best for the health care system, but within the republican caucus, the fact that he is a doctor makes his colleagues think he has some weight and legitimacy. host: what makes it different
between a doctor? guest: recently has been governors who, to the position. sylvia burwell came from the head of the office of management and budget. it's often people with executive or managerial experience is accurate. this is a very big agency. we have been talking about the aca, but the agencies and the department also oversees the centers for disease control, the drug administration, so it's a big place. host: stephanie armour, who is --am of irma -- see from a verma? guest: she is working under dr. price. she is a strong supporter from republicans. she brought a lot of changes to medicaid that i think republicans feel is on the right trajectory of what they would like to see happen with
medicaid. for example, moving into a block grant program is one thing that they would really like to see as well as some of the other things that she supported the given states more control over medicaid. for example with her at hhs, my guess is that you are going to see a lot more waivers in states that change the way medicaid functions or operates. for example, there may be more work requirements or people are asked to pay a small premium in order to maintain coverage. host: the office that she would take over is the centers for medicare and medicaid. last month, the current acting administrator of cms appeared at the american academy for actuaries. viewers can see his entire speech on cspan.org. he talked a little bit about the
sustainability of the marketplace. it's a topic we have been talking about this morning. here's a bit from that appearance. >> i think the first thing we have to do is step back and see that we are ensuring people with no questions asked without regards to the health. we are asking companies to do that without any data and very little understanding of that cost. what has happened is that in the first couple of years, many folks -- no necessarily real fault of their own -- are priced too low. i think some expanded too fast. i think that you are seeing some folks adjust. and certainly many markets, the
prices moving higher than they have been before. in the third year currently in 2016, overall premiums in the marketplace are about 18% below the original estimates. we have been tracking below. i think we will see greater increases this coming year and i think we will be more balanced and spot on to where we should be. some of it is to make up, but it's also a very new business for companies. i think what's most encouraging is to see that there are a large number of companies who really understand that it's a new business and are not treating it like the old individual market or the medicare market or some other market. they're really adapting product designs, network designs, and the best companies are expanding it as they view this new retail world. there are things that we are doing which is another part of your question we look at the and data to make sure elements of things that we are driving costs unnecessarily, like third-party payments, are managed better, and i think we
have taken some steps and we can obviously continue to take those. and finally i would say that , probably the open question remains the same that occurred before the aca, which is that there are some markets in this country where there is not enough competition. particularly rural parts of this country. that has always been the case. i think this is getting more of the aca exposed to that reality. i think there is a real question. we have selected a model that is private sector driven. the real question is whether or not we need something that feels more like medicare. i think that is part of the debate and we will have to look at particularly those rural communities. host: if our viewers want to see that entire speech, go to cspan.org. stephanie armour, he's reading what he seeing in the marketplace and the data.
it's different from what the republicans are reading and seeing in the data. guest: it's like the blind men and the elephant. it's there, but everyone see something different. he was definitely talking about ways that the law has worked, ways that people got in to make health care more affordable. he is also talking about changes being made to help make a lot more sustainable. republicans see the opposite. they see premium increases in the double digits. they see insurers, such as united, who say they are losing money and leaving the exchanges. no matter how you look at it, the one thing that is very true is that the affordable care act as it currently was working was having trouble and challenges. the democrats answer to that to some extent was let's fix it and add public option. that's a government option that would be an insurance option that people can pick from. that's not going to happen. instead we are going to go down a different path with what the
republican see. they really want to point out that there are problems with the law already. you see a lot of defense of the law right now from democrats. host: we have 20 minutes left to take your questions about what this might look like and what the current state of the affordable care act is. george is a republican. go ahead. caller: yes, i think when mitt romney did his act that it was affordable. what happened was the banks -- once the government was going to pay for, increased the cost. and people lost out. i think the republicans -- the laws that they were passing, they made it harder on pittsburgh to maintain the cost.
if you look at the cost rates, they have doubled. the banks are hitting a double-digit thing. they are getting paid by the government and getting repaid by individuals. the poorer you get, the more cost to actually do it. the banks need to get out of health care. because if they continue in it, we are going to create a debt bubble like we did in the housing industry. host: amy goldstein, can you pick up on that -- the banks involvement in this process? guest: i'm not sure i understand his point about the banks. let me point out an observation. in massachusetts, even though it was a precursor to what became federal law, massachusetts actually had a little bit easier job. massachusetts historically had a very low rate of insurance. the number of additional people who had to get covered was not as great as it was in all parts the country. the second point is that these exchanges, which as you have been saying, have had the things
-- have had good things about them and bad things about them. they have really had a hard mission because they happen picking up people, who in many cases had not been without health insurance or with health insurance, who had neglected medical problems. those people have used a lot of health care more than the insurers were expecting. they were expensive to cover. there has been some built-in problems with the way things played out nationally that were not quite as true in massachusetts. host: let's head to their own .- vero beach florida good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe in universal health care and also pension for everybody. what we should have is progressive taxes according to the income.
taxes go up or down according to inflation. it's like the euro. we should have universal health care and universal tension. other than that, i think it's the best way to do it. if the taxes go up or down, that's part of the implementation. host: these topics come up when we have discussions on health care in the united states -- comparisons to our system and other countries. could we model our system on one that works better? is there one or two that the donald trump administration is looking at or any ways to better improve the american health care system? guest: but the republicans i talked to on the hill, there pointed to health care and other countries as what we do not what to do. it is the opposite. they see canada, for example, or some of the government provided
health care as just a way they do not want to go. their point is that they want less involvement in health care. they are opposed to the public option earlier voted by democrats. going forward that is unlikely to be something on the agenda and will continue to be something more along the lines of what republican see as being more beneficial, which is much more a free market approach. host: let's go to alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering what was going to happen to these lower income people caught between working service jobs that are only available now since insurance was attached to mainly manufacturing jobs and everything else. those people are barely making it from week to week. it's not going to do them any good to have a health care
savings fund. if they get a voucher, they're probably not going to be able to afford it. i was a nurse for a long time and i got injured. my husband was on disability. he was covered by medicare. i was injured severely and i had no insurance. i cannot afford $1500 to pay out. :.have listened to people there are people who can never go to a doctor because of expenses and they will be lost in all this. host: i thought you are done. amy goldstein, pick up on that. guest: it's something that's really fundamental. one of the things that the aca has done is that for the first time given working-class people and people a little bit into the middle class subsidies.
it's government money to help by private health insurance. about 85% of the people who have insurance policies through these marketplaces are getting this federal money. now subsidies are not something the incoming administration likes at all. there's another issue which is that since the late 1990's there has been a children's health insurance program. that is specifically for the children of working class people. that law is going to come up for renewal fairly soon. it is really unclear what's going to happen with it. host: what is a health savings account? guest: a health savings account is something that exists now. it has been a longtime republican favorite and health policy. it enables people to set aside money that they can withdraw tax-free. they can withdraw it without any penalties and use it for medical purposes. people of all incomes have it. there are some research literatures that show higher
income people are better able to save money that way who have been benefiting the most from these health savings accounts. president trump says he wants to expand them. he is not that specific on how he wants to do so, but something he talked about repeatedly during his campaign. host: what is a way to expand them? guest: better tax rates. this is hypothetical since we really do not know what he will do. better tax rates. there are limits on how much money you can set aside, so those limits could be expanded or gone. it's a little unclear, but it's something that he really likes. host: let's go to wayne and -- in little town, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: doing well. caller: look, this here should be eliminated. >> good afternoon, everybody.
i hope you had a good weekend. we can go straight to questions. the u.s. government still think it's possible to -- or is it impossible to see at this point? >> the government continues to be concerned in the situation in aleppo and the violence there is the risk facing innocent civilians has been great for some time and it continues to worsen. topite our best efforts reduce the violence and increase the flow of humanitarian assistance, the assad government, backed by the russians, continues to try to bomb civilians into submission.
situation thate did not appear to get better. russia has turned down the us offer for a cease-fire. what were the terms and given and it seems that russia partners are on the verge of , why would russia agree to our terms at this point? can't speak to the intricacies of the conversation that were taken place between secretary kerry and our top diplomats. there were other countries involved as well. speak of the intricacies of the proposed arrangement, but
i can speak on what the goals were worried the goals were to end bombing and the few innocent civilians that remain, try to get them out of harms way and try to allow the flow of humanitarian assistance that has been shut off from the outside world for a long time. those were the goals all along and in the months and years that we have been negotiating to try to find a diplomatic solution, we have been rebuffed by the syrians because we are backing up the russians and iranians and continue to wage this war with impunity. are you still seeking a cease-fire from russia? >> the door remains open and we continue to try to find a diplomatic solution because we
know there is not a military solution. so, yes, we're still interested in diplomacy and trying to find , butlomatic resolution optimism is not high. >> turning to the hyper insurance in the u.s. election, white house -- do you whether iterence of is an intelligence committee or other sort? thee have long supported principle of a congressional review of this matter. intensivebeen
cooperation between agencies and members of congress in both parties, both before and after the election. been providedhave in a variety of settings, both classified and nonclassified. goals of thee ongoing review that the president ordered last week by the intelligence committee was to compile information that can be cemented to congress. presumably, that information would be useful in supporting a congressional review of this wantedthat is certainly when you consider the stakes that it comes with. principle ofe congressional review, but i would not way an opinion now about which committee should air that responsibility. would it help facilitate that
moving forward absolutely. the administration, national security professionals, high-ranking and those further down the chain, have been in regular touch with members of congress on this matter. there have been a substantial number of briefings, extensive communication between national security officials and congress, because of the right that congress has in this matter. >> i'm sure you saw over the weekend the president-elect and his team disparaging the cia, bring up the iraq war stuff, openly disputing the assessment of the intelligence community about russian hacking, calling it ridiculous. is the president concerned that the president-elect is undermining confidence in the intelligence community with those kinds of remarks?
obama's experience over the last eight years has been that the men and women of the intelligence community in the united states are patriots. these are men and women with specialized skills, in many to notwho have chosen just dedicate their careers, but their lives to our national security. they do not do it for the pain or the glory. in most cases, their identities are never known. , theirt in many cases identities are never known. they are not doing it because the pay is great. in many cases, these are professionals with substantial capabilities, with areas of expertise that would allow them to get paid, get a much eager paycheck in the private sector panties are men and women who dedicate themselves to this cause because they love this country.
president obama has benefited enormously from their work, from their expertise, from their advice, and from their service to the country. president obama is certainly not the first president to have enjoyed the benefits of the experts in our intelligence community. i'm confident that president-elect -- the president-elect would benefit from that advice, if he remains open to it. [inaudible] p was wondering, the trunk does the white house have a position on whether the russians were interfering, attempting to interfere with the election, what their motives were? was it to help elect donald
trump, or just to create chaos? teamp of that, the trump said this was an effort to delegitimize the efforts of the election. what does the white house say to the american people when they are hearing these reports about russian interference, all of these investigations going on? to the average american, this , even thoughstions the intelligence is not necessarily questioning or saying that the actual votes were hacked or anything like , but the appearance of interference can raise questions in the minds of americans. what does the white house say to that? >> aisha, there is obviously a lot there. let me start by reminding you of the statement, the extraordinary statement that was issued by the u.s. intelligence community the
first week in october. in that statement that reflected the consensus view of 17 ,ifferent intelligence agencies they have concluded and reported to the american public for that russia was engaged in malicious cyber activity in an attempt to destabilize our political system. that is a significant charge. the fact that the intelligence community came forward and made public this assessment is extraordinary, even unprecedented. that is the first thing. the second thing is, there was a lot of reporting over the weekend about additional intelligence assessments that have been reached. if that is something that can be shared publicly, that will come from the intelligence community, not from here. the is evidence of
continued commitment of this , andistration to ensuring even protecting, the integrity of the basic institutions of government, including the intelligence community. , you did not need a security clearance to figure maliciousnefited from russian cyber activity. the president-elect did not call it into question. he called on russia to hack his opponent. he called on russia to hack secretary clinton. so he certainly had a pretty good sense of who's assigned this activity was coming down on. the last several weeks of the election were focused on a emails that had
been hacked and leaked to buy the russians. these were emails from the dnc and john podesta, not from the rnc and steve bannon. it was the president-elect, who over the course of the campaign, indicated that he thought president putin was a strong leader. it was the president-elect who potential and he would withdraw from some of our critically important nato commitments. president-elect who refused to disclose his financial connections to russia. it was the president-elect who hired a campaign chairman with
extensive, lucrative, personal financial ties to russia. whoas the president-elect had a national security advisor on the campaign that had been a the contributor to rt, russian propaganda outlet. team, hisent-elect's campaign, did not make any attempt to obscure this. informationat is that was not obtained through intelligence channels, not information disclosed for the first time at the white house. it is all information that all of you reported on. it is information that you all reported on well in advance of the election. information that
is, as far as i can tell, undisputed. so, i think what it does, probably lead to go to a variety of conclusions. -- conclusion it beats me to leads me to is the special responsibility that members of to take a close ,ook at this, particularly those members of congress that endorsed mr. trump in the election. they were aware of all this information, too, but because they were getting classified briefings, but because it was available to the public. in some cases, we have seen some fromy heated rhetoric
republicans wringing their hands and about the potential impact it has on our national security and integrity of our system of government. i think they should spare us the hand wringing fulfill their basic responsibility, considering the bar has been raised, based on their political choices. >> with everything you laid out, president-elect trump has disputed the idea that russian favoritism or that russia was interfering, meddling in the election. he says no one knows what is going on. you basically laid out the case that that is not the case. going on with what you said, doesn't that cast a cloud over this election? everything you laid out, this is clearly done to favor president-elect trump? >> a couple of things.
first, the conclusion about involvement in malicious cyber activity to undermine confidence in our political system represents the consensus view of the intelligence community. there is no disagreement about that. that is the reason they came forward with that extraordinary statement a month before the election. so there certainly should not be any dispute about that. material that i cited, again, this is not information you are hearing from me for the first time. this is information that all of you have reported on, thoroughly investigated, and discussed on television. again, there is no debate i'm seeking here. as i have done in the past, tried to lay out some objective facts.
aboutbate, the argument the policy differences and the differences of agenda pursued by the president-elect and president obama, we had the opportunity to have that debate. that was the subject of an extensive debate. the election did not turn out the way we had hoped. since then, i have gone to great lengths to try to avoid getting into a debate with the m because-elect's tea our priority is fulfilling the president's basic and institutional responsibilities to affect a smooth transition to the next presidency. ant i have stated is not argument, but really just a presentation of objective fact about what all of you and the american public knew in advance of the election. and yes, this was all material that was known by republican politicians in the congress that endorsed the president-elect.
theirey reconcile political strategy and their patriotism is something they will have to explain. >> the president-elect also over the weekend talked about his call with taiwan, basically raised questions about whether the u.s. need to be bound by the .ne china policy obviously, china is upset about this, raised serious concerns about it. i know that the obama administration is saying the one china policy is still in effect. is there a concern going forward? it seems like the next administration will not take that stand. what are the consequences, i guess, if president-elect trump follows through with not respecting the one china policy?
the united states government, under the leadership of president obama, has been and remains firmly committed to the one china policy. that is also the policy, by the way that presidents from both parties have pursued that. haveof our countries succeeded from that policy. the obama administration does not view taiwan and our relationship with taiwan as a bargaining chip. taiwan is not a source of leverage, it's a close partner of the united states. taiwan is the ninth largest trading partner of the united states. away is nothat something that this administration believes is in our best interest. in fact, i think you would be hard-pressed to make the case that it's in the best interest
of taiwan. what we have done by pursuing that policy, adhering to that , is to have a close partner in taiwan, and a constructive relationship with china, where we have made historic partnership on climate unlockedhere we have the iran deal. we would not have succeeded in keeping iran from developing a nuclear weapon without china's assistance. we have been able to work effectively with the chinese to wrap up pressure on north korea. we certainly don't agree with the chinese on everything. but where common ground exists, we have been able to make progress in a way that benefits the american people and benefits the chinese people, and when it comes to climate change, benefits the planet.
progress is much if tensions are heightened around our one china policy. i wanted to go back to the .resentation of objective fact [inaudible] we heard donald trump on twitter this morning saying it's impossible to tell who was responsible without catching them in the act. john bolton has been a top advisor to him, reportedly in line with a position at the nightdepartment, last loaded the idea that the hex could have been a false flag
operation and the obama administration may have been responsible. obviously, both of those statements raise a lot of questions. i wonder what your response is? >> i have tried to avoid responding to some of the charges from the president-elect's twitter feed. what i have tried to do is present objective facts. the objective facts that are relevant here is that the intelligence community a month before the election, came forward and presented a unanimous view, high confidence assessment, that china was engaged in malicious cyber activity to destabilize -- i'm sorry, russia. but thank you for clarifying. the intelligence community's assessment was unanimous and
maliciousut russia's cyber activity -- >> [inaudible] isn't that what you are trying to say? determine a hack, even if they do not catch them in the act, and that the obama administration did not conduct a false flag operation on the dnc. the will rule out that u.s., in any way, engaged in the kind of false flag operation that a wide range of irresponsible conspiracy theorists have put forward. so we can dispense with that. toave gone to great lengths avoid the charges, countercharges. the president-elect has said one thing on twitter. 17 intelligence agencies of the u.s. have come forward -- they came forward to months ago -- to put forward their unanimous
assessment about russia's malicious cyber activity. i will let you and the american who is in a better position to defend their argument. morning'sg with this twitter, president-elect trump said cost for the f-35 project were out of control and he hoped to save billions going forward. this is a project that has been plagued by delays, cost overruns in the past. i'm wondering if you agree that there are still issues going forward, or if the administration's position is to stabilize [inaudible] >> i cannot speak in detail about the f-35 program. we have worked hard to have
steps to limit cost overruns. bite discussed a little last week, this administration has put forward a wide range of cost saving reforms that republicans in congress have either rejected or refuse to consider. keep in mind, these are reforms that our military leaders say would save taxpayer money and .ould make the country safer so i guess you would have to ask can -- how why they they can both claim to be fiscal conservatives and tough on , when they aree blocking reforms that would save taxpayer dollars and make the country safer? that is hard to reconcile. one may conclude that they are more focus on politics and
obstructing the agenda of the democratic president than they are at saving taxpayer money or keeping the country safe. >> finally, the vice president for aetna today was testifying about the merger and said his company should have withdrawn from all of the obamacare marketplaces because the program was not economically viable. some questions about whether they did so for reasons surrounding the merger. this is something that he said under oath. whether you would dispute that, or whether a major insurer [inaudible] what that says about the overall program. >> i did not see the entirety of the testimony, and obviously, i will allow business executives to make whatever business decisions is in the best interest of their shareholders.
i just point out, the affordable , andact went into effect stock prices of most health care companies have gone up. in some cases, quite substantially. many health insurance companies have been able to effectively provide coverage to the that has been good for their company's bottom line, company's shareholders. it's also been good for the united states of america. 20 million more americans have access to quality, affordable health insurance. the growth in health care costs is at an all-time low. benefit of our approach speaks for itself when you
consider the way that millions of americans have benefited from health-care reform under president obama. we have been able to design a reform of the private health insurance market in a way that ends up being both good for customers and providers as well. >> josh, what does it mean that trump has upended two of the most sensitive relationships that the u.s. has had with russia and china? president obama has worked hard to manage those thationships in a way gives the united states the opportunity to capitalize on common ground, where it exists.
even as we speak bluntly about our differences. in each case, our differences are substantial, but in each , effective diplomacy resulted in both countries bolstering our effort to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear theon and further isolate north korean regime for their destabilizing actions on the korean peninsula. those are just a couple examples. there are also individual examples. the united states is able to effectively work with russia to destroy the declared chemical weapons stock while of the assad regime. that would not have occurred had the u.s. and russia not been able to work together. there are did that, tons of chemical weapons that
are not floating around the battlefield in syria that could potentially fall into the hands of isil terrorists. those weapons have been destroyed because the u.s. and russia work together. it doesn't mean we've hashed up all of our differences with russia. it means we identified a common interest and did not let our differences interfere with our ability to achieve it in a way that mix the roots of her. with climatelogy change. the ability of the u.s. and china to work together to reach a mutual agreement to cap our catalyze theons international community in reaching and historic paris agreement about a year later. that is the first time the united states -- the first time the world has come together to confront this substantial challenge. of tough,idence
principled diplomacy that does not ignore our differences, but differencesents our from blocking our ability to advance our interests in and do good things for the american people. next president will have to determine what kind of approach he wants to take in managing those relationships to ensure that we can protect our interests but also capitalize on opportunities when they arise. ultimately, what seems to be happening now, there is a long time understanding that there is one president at a time. but this president-elect seems to be almost uniquely interfering with the international affairs of
president obama you you are having to scramble in your discussions with the chinese. this president-elect seems to be scrambling somewhat your relationship with the russians. can you talk about the particular challenges you are facing in this transition, considering the comments and tweets of this president-elect seem to be affecting in real your right now relationships with two of the most important countries in the world? is, as we discussed quite extensively and in advance of the election, the rhetoric and tweets and tactics of the were having an impact on countries around the world. we have talked extensively about
how other world leaders have raised worries with president rhetoric andhat some of those comments. this is not particularly new. they certainly do take on added justt now that they do not come from the republican nominee but the president-elect. ultimately, this is part of what a transition is about, which is trying to lay the groundwork for succeed.president to so we are going to continue to make very clear to countries around the world, both our in countries like china and russia who are decidedly not allies, exactly what the long-standing policy of ,he united states has been
because in many cases, those policies are in the best interest of the united states. what the president-elect decides to do with that opportunity will be up to him. josh, are you concerned about the president-elect singling out companies like lockheed, who have since seen market values plunge? you have spoken about the power of words from the president before. this president-elect seems to not just fail to understand that, but almost gleefully use his comments and tweets to behavior ofnly the companies, but their stock price, valuations, and the rest. do you see that as inappropriate use of presidential power, prerogative? president-elect trump has been advocating a
forerent kind of strategy economic growth and job creation in the country. we are going to have an opportunity to see if it works. president obama has pursued a strategy that focuses on the middle class, focusing on those that are working hard to get there, those investments in infrastructure, asking those at the top of the income scale to pay a little more, have resulted economy.ng our economy is currently in the midst of the longest streak of job growth on record. over the last 81 months, 15.6 million private sector jobs have been created. unemployment has been cut in half since the peak of the recession. i went through before the
positive trends we are seeing related to wages, reduction in inequality. the stock market has even inpled since the lows it hit march 2009. the poverty rate fell farther 2016 in and it had in any year since the 1960's. those are the results of the economic strategy president obama has pursued. the president-elect is already showing the different kind of strategy that he intends to pursue a we will see if it works. >> over the last year, you have had very critical comments about mr. trump, comments that you have not gone away from, you have stood by them. you have simple he we are now focused on the transition. a year ago, you mentioned mr. trump had fake hair.
i wonder if you still stand by that, is there a hair transition going on, team of barbers ready to deal with this going forward? look, i think anybody who has done this job for two and half years has probably set a thing or two that he or she wishes they had it said. i think you have identified one of the things that i wish i had not have said. let's keep that to twitter. >> you mentioned the earlier announcement by the intelligence community, talking about this new internal look of what the evidence shows about russia activity. the president is the ultimate declassifying authority. how much evidence are you willing to show to the american people to back up the startling claims? >> this process is one that the
president ordered just last week. in our women intelligence community are review hard to do this and prepare as much information as possible about what , about how it , and what russia was hoping to a couple of -- accomplish. i would not prejudge what will be included in the final review. but the president is certainly interested in getting to the .ottom of it one of the goals, one of the purposes of doing the review is to communicate with the american public what we know. there will be some limitations in our ability to do that because we will also have to
protect the sources and methods used by the intelligence community to obtain this information. those are sources and methods that are ongoing to our national security. it seems unlikely at this point that the entire report will be declassified and released. certainly, the classified elements of the report will be shared, including with congress in those classified channels, and we will release and -- we wantd declassify and release as much information as we can. at this point, it's hard to predict exactly what that means. whate earlier statement is russia was trying to do -- was russia successfully ultimately? [inaudible] moscow was able to influence an american election. >> i think it's important to
goals, sorthat two priorities we have identified. protection ofhe the basic election administration infrastructure of the country. you will recall, we had detected had entities tied to russia succeeded in intruding on some websites used by election administrators across the country. we also talked about how difficult a task it would be in disrupting the casting and counting of ballots. primarily because the infrastructure is the
centralized and administered in a variety of ways, so that would make hacking that system, that decentralized system, quite challenging. but the integrity of our election system is critical to our democracy. so this administration did work democratic andh republican election administrators across the country to help them bolster their cyber defenses against those russian intrusions. this was an effort run by the department of homeland security and there were experts in a cyber department of homeland security who worked with officials all across the country to bolster those defenses. what the intelligence community has said since election day is that there was no increase in malicious cyber activity from the russians against that election infrastructure that interfered with the ability of
people to cast ballots and have them counted accurately. priority.s a there was an enormous amount of it took place behind the scenes, that went integrity ofng the the system we have in this country forecasting and counting ballots. , there was a concern strategy hack and leak againstsia had used democrats and allies of the clinton campaign.
in the five weeks since election day, we have heard a lot from experts and analysts reviewing the election, trying to how this surprising outcome came about. there are a variety of theories and analyses that have reached a variety of different conclusions. i'm confident that people will take a look at all of this. i know there are some people particularly on the democratic side who have been harshly critical of some of the decisions that fbi director jim comey made in releasing some information about the bureau investigation of secretary clinton. there have been others that have been critical of the strategy ,ursued by secretary clinton both in terms of messaging but her travel inof
battleground states. this is something that people will be chewing over for quite some time, as they try to read the electorate and discern what factors may have contributed to the outcome. >> you rattled off a number of facts, public meeting knowledge, why the reported information leaking russia. >> that are not in dispute. takes --off the hunt for not prompting an earlier. do you wish you had done so earlier? >> to be clear, the only reason the intelligence community could release a unanimous assessment of russia's malicious cyber activity is because they had been investigating it.
this is something that our intelligence community and national security infrastructure was closely monitoring. -- theye doing that have been doing that for a long time. they are aware, and we have discussed, the unique vulnerability the united states has in cyberspace given how our advanced economy is so reliant on those kinds of internet connections for elements of our daily life. our national security infrastructure is oriented to monitor threats to that system and to try to protect against vulnerabilities. this is something that we have been closely watching since long before the election started. >> why not announce the probe back when dod announced in october? the statement was released was process we because there was an ongoing probe. arehis new program
characterizing as something new, something more than what had already been -- just a review is really retroactive one, this is a probe that will not just include a review of malicious cyber activity in the 2016 election, but will also include a close cybert potential intrusions in 2012, 2008. >> [inaudible] required in october. >> the malicious cyber activity that was announced in october was already under investigation. this was something that we were already looking at, which is why we were in a position to talk about it. you know, because donald trump and a number of his team members are characterizing this as politically motivated, not just falls flat, but frankly, made up the administration,
saying the president-elect tweeted out saying, if this was known, why wasn't it said prior to the election? he said that in october, yes. but for the white house to not be perceived as to having putting shoulder behind this broke, the way the president has now done -- is what i'm trying to get. -- again, because it's important for people to understand, this was the subject of an ongoing investigation. even in the days and weeks leading up to the election. aberrant intelligence community, national security agencies, were closely watching russia's malicious cyber activity. there was an ongoing investigation. it was being closely watched in order to protect our democracy. important is not just the mobilizing and marshaling of that expertise to protect the country in
cyberspace, but also to protect the integrity of the inns tuitions -- institutions. you all cover the election closely and know how it would have been consumed if the president had to -- borrow your shoulder put his against the intelligence community and press them to conduct an investigation that would have called into question just weeks before an election whether or not politics was driving that decision. that is why, at every turn, prioritized the integrity of our national security infrastructure and national intelligence community. now that the election is over, it's important for the integrity of our democracy, for our intelligence community to take a
look at what happened in 2016, that and 2008, to ensure as our country conducts future elections, that we can more effectively confront some of the malicious forces that may be seeking to interfere in our system of democracy. >> would you counter some of motivationss about of the administration announcing that, can you make clear, rule out, if you would, if that is the case that you are not suggesting the results of the election had been compromised? >> again, i think this goes back question.'s i'm trying to make sure we don't talk past each other. something that is clear and we have a knowledge for weeks now is that the intelligence community did not detect any
increase in malicious cyber activity on election day that the casting and accurate counting of ballots. that is not my opinion, that is ofed on the close monitoring the intelligence community and other national security agencies that have a responsibility to protect us in cyberspace. clear is thatso the results of the hack and a week operation -- leak operation carried out on the orders of were extensively discussed in the weeks before election day. the results of those operations were extensively discussed.
leaking of daily atn podesta's emails websites that all of your news organizations monitored. those are editorial decisions that are left in your hands and the hands of the people who work at your news organizations, but you are not waiting for leaks from the rnc or steve bannon. is illustrative of draw theirople can own judgments. the intelligence community will do the same. you don't need a security clearance to get access to that information to draw your own judgment. there some on capitol hill, democrats among them, who are saying the democrats held
their punches with russia. on this issue, they were concerned there was not a stronger response. at the time, the white house said there would be proportional ones. has there been a response? same time we discuss there being a proportional ,esponse, we also made clear the details of the response were something that we were unlikely able to discuss in public. >> have they been undertaken at all? >> again, even to confirm the nature of our response at this -- well, i'm just not in a position to discuss exactly what .he response is or will be there are a variety of reasons but i can offer the same assurance that i did before the election, that the president and his team believe that a
proportional response is warranted. >> [inaudible] announcement of the probe is not the expense of the response? risk of going down a slippery slope on this, yes, it is fair to assume that this probe is not the expense of the rolense to russia in their in the election. >> [inaudible] you seem to be suggesting that russia did not have to hack ballot machines or the actual to havelying in order an outcome on the effects of the election. to do is betrying as specific and clear as i possibly can about what our approach to confronting this challenge was. the first was taking a close look at what steps would be necessary to protect our election infrastructure and to
protect the accurate casting and counting of ballots. there was a whole lot of work that took place behind the scenes in the weeks and even months leading up to election at the department of homeland security, with election administrators across the country, to protect their systems against russian cyber intrusions. what we have learned since election day, based on a careful monitoring of a variety of national security agencies, we can conclude there was no in the russian malicious cyber activity on election day that was aimed at disrupting the casting and counting of ballots. but separately you have asked this other question about the hack and leak operation carried
out by the russians. there is no denying the results were part ofations the debate in the days and weeks leading up to election day. that is also an objective fact. there was extensive coverage of the daily leaks of john podesta's females. that is just true. to the extent that any republicans were hacked, the only time that occurred, as far as i can tell, is when colin powell's females were hacked just so they could release emails critical of secretary clinton. that seemed to be the only revealing thing in the emails from general powell's email account that were released. that is not based on any intelligence assessment, that doesn't require a security clearance.
that was something that was widely reported on by all of you. where thedication of kind of information people can use as they factor into their judgment about what russia may have been trying to do. >> [inaudible] that possible alone could have affected the outcome of the election? >> as i responded to olivier, there are a variety of factors that many people legitimate think contribute to the outcome. whether you want to question the propriety of fbi director comey's announcements, or the wisdom of secretary clinton's strategy for campaigning, all of those things are open to debate, will be open to careful analysis by political scientists for months, if not years, as they why theetermine
election outcome was so surprising to so many people. including to both candidates. margaret'sg up on question on proportional response, there must have been a debate about whether the response should be covered. i wonder, if in retrospect, whether you think there could be a revisiting of that decision given the level of unease among u.s. citizens about what inpened, the level of unease democracies like sweden, finland, germany, where people believe the system of government is under threat. iswhat i will acknowledge there are a variety of policy questions that are raised in the united states and democracies based on whatld
transpired in the united states on election day. that ledys and weeks up to election day. i am just not going to be in a position to talk about the internal conversations about a potential proportional response, other than to say those , andssions have occurred the president concluded that a proportional response was appropriate. but at this point, i cannot get into the wisdom of how or thater, or when proportional response could be publicly discussed. >> [inaudible] >> not necessarily. the thing that i have said all along is that a proportional
response is appropriate. we may or may not be in a position to disclose what that response is. that is still true. when still could be a time we can discuss more publicly. if there is, that wouldn't necessarily reflect a change in , but at this point, it is difficult to speculate exactly how or whether that will play out. >> [inaudible] >> he did say that at one point. i think that goes to millions of questions raised about whether or not discussing the proportional response in public could undermine the effectiveness of that response.
but it is, ironically enough, difficult to assess, if you cannot discuss the response in public. so we are clear, the white house intends to leave clear how determinative the hack operation was to the outcome of the election, you are essentially saying it is one of many factors that happened during the final run-up to election day. the president cannot determine whether that was more whetherant than secretary clinton campaign here or there, is that where you leave us? i don'tast for today, have any election analysis, official white house election analysis to put forward. >> that is what people want to know. does the president think the russians swung the election? not a simple question -- >> it's a direct question.
now we are focused on right is trying to understand exactly what the russians did, collect as much information available about that, try to assess what their motives were. i think this may be a question that people will continue to ask as congress steps forward to fulfill the responsibility they have to take a look at this. i think in some ways this will be a pointed question -- in some ways, this is not just a question to ask the president. this is an even better question to ask supporters of mr. trump's campaign. many of whom are now in congress and are worried about the answer to that question. >> because you think they will conclude that the hack and leak operation did with them the election? >> i don't know what they would conclude. what we have right now on capitol hill is a situation
where many republicans who offered their enforcement of the trump campaign less than five weeks later are now publicly influencebout russian . again, how they reconcile their political strategy and their patriotism is a question that they will have to answer. you talk about on election day the analysis -- you say there was no increase in russian malicious activity then. numbered increase stands out. was there some malicious russian activity going on, but that did not increase on that day, so there was a baseline ongoing? >> we certainly know there is a baseline of malicious russian activity in cyberspace. that is a given. that is something we are all aware of. for more details about what the intelligence community perceived on election day is something
you'll have to ask them. >> you are essentially ruling out the russians did something on election day that altered the votes, that somehow mechanically or otherwise in key states like pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, where there was a surprising outcome, you are ruling out the russians did anything that caused that, or are you not ruling out? >> what i am saying -- it is a little repetitive but by design. >> that is the issue, we understand, hack and leak -- >> i am talking specifically about the question you are posing about cyber activity and the counting and casting of ballots. for more precision, i would refer you to the intelligence community. i think it's pretty clear what i'm saying here. on election day, there was no observed increase in malicious russian cyber activity that
altered or disrupted the accurate casting and counting of ballots. are a number of electors who are requesting an intelligence briefing before they vote. [inaudible] >> i saw those reports shortly before i walked out here. i understand some may have sent a letter either to the intelligence community or the white house. i have not seen the letter. >> conceptually, does the white house support that, should we close the book on it? >> i would want to look at the letter before responding to it. >> on these reports about the dailyent-elect declining presidential briefings, intelligence briefings. how concerned is the president about that? in terms of the security of the nation, which is obviously his main objective. how concerned is the president that the president-elect is apparently not doing these briefings on a daily basis? >> a couple of things come to
mind. , over thething is course of the republican primary, the president-elect had bush ford president not sufficiently protecting the country from 9/11, and even not carefully for listening to the presidential daily briefing that was later declassified that warned of 9/11. so the president-elect, certainly firsthand, understands how important the presentation of this intelligence information is. as i mentioned that the top of the briefing, president obama has deep respect and admiration for the men and women of our intelligence community that work literally through the night to compile an intelligence briefing
for the president of the united states, that includes the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. ,n order to make good decisions a president need to have access to good information. by good information, i mean information that is accurate, accurate and up-to-date and presented clearly. president obama has benefited from that. it the american people have benefited from that. the intelligence community needs to be able to operate without fear of richard fusion for presenting bad news. as a result of the global event, it's important to the intelligence community for these professionals that are dedicating