tv KTVU FOX 2 News at Noon FOX December 16, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
being used that can affect our infrastructure, affect the stability of our financial systems and affect the integrity of our institutions like our election process. i just received a couple wex back, it wasn't widely reported on, a report from a cybersecurity commission that outlines a whole range of strategies to do a better job on this. but it's difficult, because it's not all polished. you know, the target of cyber attacks is not one entity but it's widely dispersed and a lot of it is private, like the dnc. you know, it's not a branch of government. we can't them people what to do. what we can do is inform them and get best practices. what we can also do is to on a
bilateral basis warn other countries against these kind of attacks. and we've done that in the past. so just as i told russia to stop it, and indicated there will be consequences within they do it, the chinese have in the past engaged in cyber attacks, there are companies that steal trade secrets and pro pietary knowledge. and i had had the same conversation with president xi and we've seen some evidence they have reduced but not completely eliminated these activities, partly because they can use cutouts. one of the problems with the internet and cyber issues is there is not always a return address. by the time you catch up to it, atributeing what happened to a particular government can be difficult.
not always provable in court, even though our intelligence communities can make an assessment. what we've also tried to do is to start creating some international norms about that event, some sort of cyber arms race. because we, obviously, have offense capabilities as well as defensive capabilities. and my approach is not a situation in which everybody is worse off because folks are constantly attacking each other back and forth, but putting some guardrails around the behavior of nation states, including our adversaries so they understand, whatever they do to us, we can potentially do to them. we do have some special challenges, because often sometimes our economy is more digitalized. it is more vulnerable. partly because we're a wealthier nation and we're more wired than some of these other countries and we have a more open society.
and engage in less control and se vince censorship. i am going on because i know you have a lot of questions and i addressed all of you directly about it. with respect to response, my principle goal leading up to the election was making sure that the election, itself, went off without a hitch. that it was not tarnished. and that it did not feed any sense in the public that somehow hampering has taken place with the actual accomplishment of both. and we accomplished that. that does not mean that we are
not going to respond. it meant we had a sense of priorities leading up to the election that were of the utmost important importance. our goal continues to send a clear message to russia or others not to do this to us, because we can do stuff to you. but it is also important for us to do it in a thoughtful, methodical way. some of it we do publicly. some of it we will do in a way that they know but not everybody will. and i know that there have been folks out there who suggest somehow that if we went out there and made big announcements and thump our chests about stuff that somehow it would potentially spook the russians. keep in mind, we have enormous sanctions. the relationship between us and russia has deteriorated sadly.
significantly over the last several years and so how we approach an appropriate response that increases talks for them for behavior like this in the future, it does not create problems for us. it's something that's worth taking the time to think through and physical out. that's exactly what we've done. so, at a point in time where we have taken certain actions that we can di as a resultge publicly, we will do so. there are times where the message will go, will be directly received by the russians and not publicized. i should point out, by the way, part of why the russian have been effective on this is they don't announce what they're doing. it's not like putin is going around the world publicly saying, look what we did, wasn't that clever?
he denies it. so, the idea that somehow public shaming is going to be affected i think doesn't read the thought process in russia very well. okay. >> does clinton have your backing? >> i will let all the political pundits in this town have a long discussion about what happened in the election. it was a fascinating election. i'm sure there will be a lot of folks written ab it. i said what i think is important for the democratic party going forward, rather than try to parce every aspect of the election. i said before i couldn't be prouder of secretary clinton, her outstanding service. i think she's worked tirelessly on behalf of the american
people. i don't think she was treated fairly during the election. i think the coverage of her and the issues was troubling. but having said that, what i have been most focused on, appropriate for the fact that i'm not going to be a politician in about another 32 days? 31? 34? but what i said is that i can maybe give some council advice, i think the thing we have to spend the most time on, because it's the thing we have the most control over, is how do we make sure that we are showing up in places where i think democratic policies are needed, where they are helping, where they are making a difference, but where people feel as if they're not
being we heard. and where democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte-driven, you know, politically correct out of touch folks. we have to be in those communities and i've seen that when we are in those communities, it makes a difference. that's how i became president. i became a u.s. senator not just because i had a strong base in chicago but because i was driving around down state illinois and going to fish fries and sitting in vfw halls, talking to farmers and i didn't win every one of their votes, but they got a sense of what i was talking about, what i cared about, that i was for working people, that i was for the middle class, that the reason i was interested in strengthen
unions and ragz the minimum wage, rebuilding our infrastructure, making sure parents had decent child care and family leave was because my own family's history wasn't that different than theirs, even if i looked a little bit different. same thing in iowa. so the question is, how do we rebuild that party as a whole so that there's not a county in any state, where we don't have a president and we don't have an argue. i think we have a better argument. but that requires a lot of work. it's been something i have been able to do in my own campaign. it is not something i have been able transfer to candidates and mid-terms and sort of build a
sustaining organization around that, that's something i would have liked to have done more of. it's kind of hard to do when you are dealing with a whole bunch of issues here in the white house and that doesn't mean, hope, it can't be done, i think there will be a lot of progressives that share my values, they will be leading the charge in the years to come. michelleco zin ski, cnn. >> thank you, just briefly, you we heard hillary clinton talk about how she thinks the fbi directors made a difference in the outcome of the election. we just we heard in an op ed talk about something being deeply broken within the fbi. he talked about thinking that the investigation early on was lackadaisical in his words. so what do you think about those comments? do you think there is any truth to them? do you think there's a danger
the there that they're calling in the integrity of the institutions in a similar way that donald trump's team has done t. second part is donald trump's team repeatedly, given the indication that the investigation of the russian hack as well as retaliation might not be is up a priority once he's in office, so what do you think the risk is there? and are you going to talk to him directly about some of those comments? >> well on the latter point as i said before, the election, the governing season is not always smooth, you know, it's bumpy still feelings are raw out there. there are still people thinking about how things unfolded.
and i get all that. but when donald trump takes oath of office sworn in as the 45ing president of the occupation, he has a different set of responsibilities and i said this before, i think there is a sobering process when you walk into the oval office. and i haven't shared previously the private conversations i had with the president-elect. i will say they have been cordial and in some cases have involved me making some pretty specific suggestions about how to insure that regardless of our obvious disagreements about policy, maybe i can transmit some thoughts about maintaining the effective inside, cohesion
of the office of various democratic institutions and even, you know, has, listen, i can't say that he will wind up implementing, but the conversations, themself, have been cordial as opposed to defensive in anyway and i will always make myself available to him just as previous mr. presidents have make themselves available to me as issues come up. with respect to the fbi, i will tell you, i had a chance to know a lot of fbi agents i know director comey. they take their jobs seriously. they work really hard. they help keep us safe and save a lot of lives. and it is always a challenge for
law enforcement when there is an intersection between the work they are doing and the political system. it's one of the difficulties of democracy in general. we have a system where we want our law enforcement investigators and prosecutors to be free from politics to play it straight, but sometimes that involves investigations that touch on politics and, particularly in this hyperpartisan environment that we have been in, etching is nothing. everything you do one way or the other. one thing that i have done is to be pretty scrupulous about not wadeing into investigation
decisions for prosecution decision or decisions not to prosecute. i have tried to be really strict in my own behavior about pre b serving the independence free from my own judgments and assess ps in some cases, and i don't know why it would stop now. >> bloomberg. >> thank you, mr. president. on aleppo, your views of what happened there, your responsibilities to russian governments, iranian governments, pretty well, but do you as president of the united states leader of the free world feel any personal moral responsibility now at the end of
your presidency for the courage, we all watch aleppo, which i'm sure. secondly, also in aleppo, you again made clear in your practical disagreement and politic trump has throughout his campaign, he said again last night, that he wants to create space in syria. do you feel like in this transition, he needs to help him towards implementing that? was that not something that you should be in? >> mike, i always feel responsible. i felt responsible when kids were being shot by snipers. i felt responsible when millions of people have been displaced. i feel responsible for murder and slaughter that's taken place in south sudan, that's not being
reported on, partly because there's not as much social media being generated from there. there are places around the world where horrible things are happening and because of my office, because i'm president of the united states, i feel responsible. i ask myself every single day, is there something i could do that would save lives and make a difference and spare some child who doesn't deserve to suffer? so that's a starting point. tears not a moment during the course of this presidency where i didn't feel some responsibility. that's true, by the way, for our own country. when i came into office and people were losing their jobs and pension, i felt responsible
and i would go home at night and ask myself, was there something better i can do or part iser than i can be that would make a difference in their lives that would relieve their suffering and their hardship? so, with respect to syria, when i have consistently done is taken the best course that i can to try to end the civil war while having also taken into account the long-term national security interests of the united states and throughout this pr process based on hours of meetings, if you tally it up for days or weeks of meetings, where
we went through every option in painful detail with maps and our military and aid agencies and we had our diplomatic them, when we went through it, the challenge was short of putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground uninvited without any international mandate without sufficient support from congress. at a time we still had troops in afghanistan and iraq, we had just gone through over a decade and spent trillions of dollars and when the opposition-on-on
the ground was fought cohesive enough to govern the country and you had a military superpower in russia prepared to do whatever it took to keep its client base involved and you had a regional military power in iran, it saw their own vital strategic interests at stake and were willing to send in as many of their people or proxys to support the regime and in that circumstance, unless we were all in, and willing to take over syria, we were going to have problems. and that everything else was tempting because we wanted to do something and it sounded like the right thing to do, but it was going to be impossible to do this on the chief. and in that circumstance, i have as to make a decision as president of the united states
as to what is best. i'm association what's going on? -- somebody is not feeling good? all right. why don't we have -- we got, we can get our doctors back there to help out. does somebody want to go to my doctor's office and just have them -- >> all right. where was it? so, we couldn't do it on the cheek. now, it may be -- can somebody help out, please and get back to the action here?
office is? just go through the palm doors. it's right -- right next to the mack room. all right. he's all right. okay. doctor's in the house. so and i don't mean that -- owe i mean that with all sincerity. i understand the impulse to want to do something. but, ultimately, what i've had to do is to think about, what can we sustain? what is realistic? and my first priority has to be what itself the right thing to do for america? a it has been our view that the
best thing to do is to provide some support to the moderate opposition, is that they could sustain themselves and that you wouldn't see anti-assad regimes sentiment just pouring into al nuzra and al qaeda or isil, that we engage our international partners in order to put pressure on all the parties involved and to try to resolve this through diplomatic and political means. i cannot claim that we have been successful. and so, that's something that as is true with a lot of issues and problems around the world, i have to go to bed with every night, but i continue to believe it was the right approach, given
what realistically we could get done. absent a decision, as i said, to go into a much more significant way. and that, i think, would not have been sustainable or good for the american people. because we had a whole host of other obligations that we also had to meet, wars we had already started and that we're not already finished. with respect to the issue of safe zones, ness a continued problem, a continued challenge with safe zones, if you are setting up those zones on syrian territory, then that requires some force that is willing to maintain that territory in the absence of consent from the
syrian government and now the russians. or the iranians. so it may be that with aleppo's tragic situation unfolding, that in the short term, if we can get more of the tens of thousands who are still trapped there out, that so long as the world's eyes are on them, and they are feeling pressure, the regime and russia conclude that they are willing to find some arrangement, raps in coordination with turkey, whereby those people can be safe. even that will probably be temporary, but at least it solves a short-term issue that's going to arise. unfortunately,er with not even there yet because right now, we
have russian and assad claiming that basically all of the innocent civilians who are trapped in aleppo are out when international organization, humanitarian organizations, who know have said unequiff coal there are tens of thousands who are trapped and prepared to leave, under pretty much any conditions. so right now, our biggest priority is to continue to put pressure wherever we can. >> so the sole responsibility is notwithstanding or help politic trump? >> i will help president trump, politic trump with any advice, counsel, information that we can provide, so that he, once he is sworn in, can make a decision, between now and then, these are decisions that i have to make
based on the consultations i have with our military and the people who have been working this every single day. peter alexander. >> mr. president, thank you very much. can you give the intelligence to assure the public this was once and for all a free and fair election, specifically on russia, do you feel any obviously fwags now as they have been insisting this isn't the case, to show the true, put the money where your mouth is and declassify some of these elements that exist? and more bradley as it relates to donald trump on this very topic, are you concerned about his relationship with vladimir putin, especially given cabinet picks and his selection for secretary of state rex tillerson who toasted putin with champagn champagne? >> i may be getting older, pause these multi-part questions, i
start losing track. i can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was a concern and will continue to be a concern going forward, that the votes that were cast were counted. they were counted appropriately. we have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with. so that assuramce i can provide. >> that doesn't mean that we find every single, you know, potential probe of every single voting machine all across the country, but we paid a lot of attention to it. we worked with state officials, et cetera, and we feel confident that didn't occur and that the
votes were cast and they were counted. and so that's that point what was the second one? >> declassification. >> declassification. look, we will provide evidence that we can safely provide, that does not compromise sources and methods. but i'll be honest with you, when you are talking about cyber security, a lot of it is classified and will not provide us with the answers. the way we catch folks is by knowing certain things about them that they may not want us to know and if we're going to monitor this stuff effectively going forward, we don't want them to know that we know. so this is one of those
situations where unless the american people genuinely think that the professionals in the cia, the fbi, our entire intelligence infrastructure, many of whom, by the way, served if previous administrations, and who are republicans are less trust worthy than the russians then people should pay attention to what our intelligence aims are today. this is part of what i meant win said that we got to think about what's happening to our political culture here. the russians can't change us or
significantly weaken us. they are a smaller country. they are a weaker country, their economy doesn't produce anything. if anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and ars. they don't info rate is. but they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. they can impact us if we abandon our values. mr. putin can weaken us just like he's trying to weaken europe, if we start buying into notions that it's okay to info sait the press or lock up dissidents or discriminate against people, because of their faith and what they look like.
and what i worry about more than anything is the degree to which because of the fierce inside of the partisan battle, you started to see certain folks in the republican party and republican voters suddenly finding a government and individuals who stand contrary to everything that we stand for as being okay because that's how much we dislike democrats. think about it, some of the people who historically have been very critical of me for engaging with the russians and having conversations with them. also endorse the politic.
even as he was saying that we should stop sanctioning russia and being tough on them and work towing with them against our common enemies. it was very complimentary of mr. putin, personally. now that wasn't news, the president-elect during the campaign said so and some folks who had made a career out of being anti-russian didn't say anything about them then after the election they said, where didn't you tell us, maybe the russians were hiring a candidate. well, come on. they were doing a survey where
now there is just one poll, but a pretty credible source. 37% of republican voters approve of putin over a third of republican voters approve of vladimir putin, the former head of the kgb. ronald reagan would roll over in his grave. and how did that happen? it happened, in part, because pertoo long, everything that happens in this town, etching that's said is seen through the lens can help or hurt us relative to the democrats or relative to president obama.
and unless that changes, we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign imports, because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and always stand for. with respect to the president-elect's appointments, it is his prerogative as i've always said for him to appoint who he thinks can best carry out his foreign policy or his domestic policy, it is up to the senate to advise and consent. there will be plenty of time for members of the senate to go through the record of all appointees and derryl whether or not they're appropriate for the job. martha raddatz. >> mr. president, i want to talk about vladimir putin, just to be clear, do you think he, himself,
can authorize that hack to help donald trump? and, obvious intelligence, one of the thing donald trump cites is saddam hussein and weapons of mass destruction, that they were never found. can you say unequivocally that this was not china, that this was not a 400-pound guy sitting on his bed as donald trump says and do these types of tweets and kind of statements from donald trump embolden russia? >> when the report comes out, before i leave office, that will have drawn together all of the threads and so i don't want to step on their work ahead of time. what i can tell you is that the intelligence that i have seen
gives me great confidence that they can carry this out? the hack of the dnc and the hack of john modesta. now the -- but again, i think this is exactly why i want the report out, so everybody can review it. and this has been briefed and the evidence in closed session has been provided on a bipartisan base, not just to me, it has been provided to the leaders of the house and the in the and the chairman and ranking members of the committees. and i think what you have seen is some of the folks that see the evidence don't dispute, the bake assessment is that the russians carried this out. well, martha, what i want to make sure of is that i gave the
intelligence committee to gather all the information. but i'd make a larger point, which is not much happens in russia without vladimir putin. i mean, this is pretty hire arc cal operations. last i checked, there's not a lot of debate and democratic deliberations, particularly when it comes to policies directed by the occupation. we have said and i will confirm that this happened at the highest levels of the russian government and i will let you make that determination as to whether there are high level russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the u.s. election process without vladimir putin knowing
about it. >> so i would be wrong in saying the president thinks vladimir putin authorized it? >> martha, i have given you what i was going to give you. what was your second question? >> do the tweets and do the statements by donald trump embolden russia? >> as i said before, i think that the president-elect, you know, it's still in transition mode from campaign to governance. i think he hadn't gotten his whole team together yet. he still has campaign spokesperson sort of filling in and appearing on cable shows and, you know, there's a whole different attitude and vibe when are you not in power as you are in power. so, rather than me characterizeing the inappropriateness of what he is doing at the moment, i think
what we have to see is how will the president-elect operate and how will his team operate when they've been briefed on all these issues. they have their hands on all the levers of government and they got to start making decisions. one way i do believe that the president-elect can approach this that would be unifying is to say we welcome a bipartisan independent process that gives the american people the assurance not only that votes are counted prorply, that the elections are fair and free, but that we have learned lessons about how internet propaganda
from foreign countries can be released in the political bullet stream and that we got strategies to deal with for the future. the more this can be non-partisan, the better served the american people are going to be. which is why i made the point earlier, and i'm going to keep on repeating this point, our vulnerabilities to russia or any other foreign power is directly related to how divided partisan dysfunctional our political process is. that's the thing that makes us vulnerable. if fake news that is being released by some foreign government is almost identity
cam to reports that are being issued through partisan news venues, then it's not surprising that that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect so it doesn't seem that far fetched compared to some of the other stuff that folks are hearing from domestics propaganda to the extent that our political dialogue is such that where everything's under suspicion. everybody's corrupt and everybody is doing things for partisan and all of our institutions are, you notice, full of [ inaudible ] if that's the story line that's
being put out there by whatever party is out of power, then when a foreign government introduces that same argument with facts that are made up, people who have been listening to that stuff for years, who have been getting that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they're going to believe it. so if we want to really reduce for an influence on our elections, we better think about how to make sure that our political process, our political dialogue is stronger than it's
been. mark. >> thank you, mr. president. if i can move from russia to china for a moment. >> absolutely. >> you spoke with phone with the president of taiwan the other day and declared subsequently he wasn't sure the united states needed to be bound by china policy, he suggests he could use the bargaining to get better terms on a trade deal or work cooperation with north korea. there is already evidence that tensions between the two sides increased a bit. just today, the chinese have under water drones, that kind of thing. do you agree that our china policy can use a fresh set of eyes and what's the big deal with having a short phone call with the president of taiwan or do you worry that these types of unor to docked approaches are setting ut on a collision course that our adversaries? >> that's a great question. i'm somewhere in between.
i think all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes. i think one of the, i've said this before, i am very proud of the work i've done. i think i'm a better president now than when i've started, but, you know, if you are here for eight years in the bubble, you get started seeing things a certain way and you benefit from the democracy benefits, america benefits from some good perspectives. and i think it should be not just the prerogative but the obligation of a new president to examine everything that's been done and see what makes sense and what doesn't. that's what i did when i came in, i'm assuming any new president will undertake those samer is sizes and given the importance of the relationship between the united states and china, given how much is at
stake in terms of the world economy, national security, our presence in the asia pacific, china's increasing role in entire national affairs. there's probably no bilateral relationship that carries more significant and where there's also the potential if that relationship breaks down or goes into a full conflict mode that everybody is for us. so, i think it's fine for him to take a look at it. what i have advised the president-elect is that across the board on foreign policy, you want to make sure that you are doing it in a systematic, deliberate, intention am way. and since there's only one
president at a time, my advice to him has been that before he stewarts having a lot of interactions with foreign governments, other than the usual courtesy calls, that he should want to have this full team in place, that he should want his team to be fully briefed on what has gone on in the past and where the potential pitfalls may be, where the opportunities are, what we have learned from eight years of experience, so that as he's then maybe taking foreign policy in a new direction, he's got all the information to make good decision and, by the way, that all of government is moving at the same time and singing from the same hymn nal and let's take
the exam of taiwan, there has been by his own standing agreement essentially between china, the united states and to some degree the taiwanese, which is to not change the status quo, taiwan operates differently than mainland china does. china views taiwan as a part of china, but recognizes that it has to approach taiwan as an entity that has its own ways of doing things. the taiwanese have agreed that as long as they're able to continue to function with some
degree of autonomy, that they won't charge forward and declare independence and that status quo, although, not completely satisfactory, to any of the parties involved, have kept the peace and allowed the taiwanese to be a pretty successful and xi and of people who have a high degree of self determination. but understand for china, the issue of taiwan is as important as anything on their docket. that the idea of one china is at the heart of their conception as a nation.
and so if are you going to upend this understanding, you have to have thought through what are the consequences are, because the chinese will not treat that in the way they'll treat other issues. they won't treat it like other issues around the south china sea, where we've had a lot of tension. this goes to the door of how they see themselves. and their reaction on this issue could end up being very significant. it doesn't mean that you have to adhere to everything that's been done in the past. it does mean you bought the to think it through and have plans for potential reactions and than they have, they may engage in. >> all right. i think politico. >> hey, mr. president, two questions on -- first --
>> it leaves us in a really good spot. >> what do you say to the electors who are going to meet on monday and are thinking of changing their vote? do you think they should be given an intelligence broefk about the russian activity or should they bear in mind everything you said? should they both be bound by the votes as haifa gone? in long term, do you think that they would have ties to the popular vote? >> okay. it sound like two, but that was all one. i love how they go. two questions, each one has four parts. >> on the democratic party, your labor secretary, the share of the democratic national committee. is the vision you see of what you think the party needs to be focused on and what do you say
to some of the complaints that say the future of the democratic party should be a continuation of some of your political strategy? part of that is complaints that decisions that you have made as president, the leader of the party, have structurally weakened the dnc and democratic party and they think that that has led to or helped lead to some losses that elections around the country, if you were granted those decisions? >> okay. good. i'll take the second one first and say that tom perez has been i believe one of the best secretary of labor in our history. he is tireless. he is wicked smart. he has been able to work across
the spectrum of, you know, labor, business, activists. he's produced. i mean, if you look at his body of work on behalf of the working people, what he's pushed for in terms of making sure that workers get a fair deal, decent warnlgs better benefits, that their safety is protected on the job, he has been extraordinary. now, others who have declared are also my friend and fine people as well. and the great thing is i don't have a vote. so, we'll let the process unfold. i don't think it's going to happen any time soon. i described to you earlier what i think needs to happen, which is that the democratic party,
whether that's entirely through the dnc or through a rebuilding of state parties or some other arrangement, has to work at the grass roots level, has to be present in all 50 states. has to have a presence in counties, has to think about message and how are we speaking directly to voters? i will say this, i'm not going to engage in too much punditry but that i could not be prouder of the coalition that i put together in my, at each of my campaigns because it was inclusive andrew in people who normally weren't interested in politics and didn't participate. but i'd like to think, i think i can show, that in those elect, i
and you're right, and i said this in my earlier remarks. that what i was able to do during my campaign i wasn't able do during midterms. not that we didn't put time and effort into it. i spent time and effort into it. but the coalition i put together didn't always turn out to be transferrable. and you know, the challenge is that -- you know, some of that has to do with the fact that when you're in the party in power, and people are going through hard times like 2010, they're going to punish to some degree the president's party, regardless of what organizational work is done. some has do with deep standing traditional challenges for democrats like during off year electorates, the election is older and we do better with the
younger electorate. we know those things are true. i didn't crack the code on that. if other people have ideas about how to do that even better, i'm all for it. so on your -- with respect to the electorates, i'm not going to weigh into that issue, because again, it is the american people's job to decide my successor. not my job to decide my successor. and i've provided people with a lot of information about what happened during the course of the election, but more importantly, the candidates themselves i think talked about their beliefs and their vision for america. the president-elect, i think has been very explicit about what he
cares about and what he believes in. and so it is not in my hands now. it is up to them. >> long-term electoral college? >> long-term electoral college, the electoral college is a vestage, a carry-over from an earlier vision of how the federal will work that put a lot of premium on states. it used to be the senate was not elected directly. it was through state legislatures. it is the same type of thinking that gives wyoming two senators, and with about 500,000 people and california with 33 million get the same two. so there are some structures in our